Talk:Turning Point UK

591: 570: 255: 234: 1664:. So the question is, is it a fringe view that the Labour Party sympathises with terrorists and wishes to disarm the nation? I believe the answer to that is an unquestionable yes. It absolutely is a fringe view. As such, including that view, uncritically, whether it is in a quotation or not, and especially when erroneously attributed via ABOUTSELF, is a textbook violation of NPOV. Therefore we are required by policy to exclude that part of the sentence. 265: 377: 486: 465: 496: 136: 739: 677: 659: 443: 367: 339: 203: 353: 49: 91: 21: 1377:

I'm doing a more exhaustive search now, however in lieu of finding any other citations that better fit this, would adjusting the sentence to point out that these are the self described goals of the organisation be acceptable? As that still allows for the remainder of the article to point out how they

956:

who started this edit war. An article which talks about an organisation should never contain opinionated statements from media outlets. If that's the case, I should be allowed to post an opinionated statement from a right-leaning journalist who thinks this organisation encourages a healthy debate? Do

2060:

I think that, The Conversation meats the definition of a reliable source which you site. However neither of you have not said whether there should be a warning stating that the article contains a bias. Even if you think the article should not have a warning, would you be to tell me the process to go

1814:

Not sure re the allegation in the intro about close assignment to anti-Islamic rhetoric. I have just come here to look Turning Point up after watching a YouTube video from their Sussex uni series, conducted with two Islamic women, which was respectful and actually portrayed them as the most sensible

1222:

What? You mentioned there were three sources that mocks the organisation so, I replied that I could pull three more resources that can provide positive opinions on this organisation in order to give more balanced view. Now, you are just refusing? It is like you want this page to be biased... I never

1724:

As your quotes from the 280-character twitter post demonstrate, it does not directly support the notion that even the group themselves believe themselves to be "promoting conservative values". As we have a more formal statement from their website about their ostensible aims, it's appropriate to use

1465:

The quotations you offer confirm that the source does not directly support that they either claim, or in fact do, "promote conservative values". The source is sufficient to state that they have described themselves as a "conservative-values student movement", but they do not state that the notional

1369:

I would have thought in the context of the first sentence, which by my reading describes why the organisation exists, the organisation setting out its goals would be acceptable. Whether or not they actually promote such views/goals can be addressed elsewhere in the lead and body. This is similar to

1085:

Every news website will have "NEWS" written on top of the page. You got to look at the section that this article was posted in. "Why it matters?" There you go. That tells that it gives you a reason why the journalist thinks it is important. That, if you didnt know, is an op-ed. It is not reporting

1471:

Turning Point UK is a British student group set up to promote right-wing politics, formed as an offshoot of Turning Point USA. It describes its objectives as promoting "the values of free markets, limited government and personal responsibility" in UK schools, colleges and universities. It says it

1400:, which we could use in a similar fashion, and for which I see no objection to referencing Twitter. However, in terms of the phrase "promote...conservative values", the specific tweet cited does not directly support this claim. A better source for how the group chooses to describe itself might be 1228:

No I did not, but I can see I need to make it a bit clearer, we have 4 sources for the fact their launch was (and they continue to be) mocked. It is not the sources that a mocking, they are reporting on others mocking. We do not mock this organization. As I said if you want to have more promotive

1899:

I would be willing to add to the social media response, as long as it is a balanced and kept away from the introduction. The introduction should be focused on the intentions the group explicitly has, as stated on its website, and the actions the group takes, as sourced from legitimate fact-based

1717:

which describe someone else's opinion and for which none of your policy links are relevant. In describing someone's opinion on their own page, we do not remove parts of their opinion which are unsupported by real-world evidence. Were we to apply such a condition, we would also be unable to state

983:

The article at the BBC is a news article, in their news section. The Telegraph article linked to is expressly framed as an opinion piece, both in the URL and in the article header ("Comment"). News and opinion pieces are handled quite differently on WP. An opinion would only be included if other

1592:

comes into play. ABOUTSELF requires us to be careful in relation to self published information about a person or organisation. It has five points. Earlier when discussing whether or not to include a Twitter post to support the claim relating to conservative values, we touched upon point 1; that

964:

I am unsure what policy you think supports the idea "An article which talks about an organization should never contain opinionated statements from media outlets." As to " I should be allowed to post an opinionated statement from a right-leaning journalist who thinks this organization encourages

1145:

That's because BBC does not have a separate section for op-eds. Doesn't mean that they dont exist. You are looking on a superficial level. Stop being adamant and try to understand my point. It's fine if you hate this organisation but, that doesnt give you a right to post whatever you want.

957:

you want me to add that in? Telegraph, which is right-leaning, clearly believes the fact that they dont get opportunity to speak their opinions to the rest of the world and "this is an attack on right-leaning students" and "hard being a conservative on campus". Add this in as well?

1444:

Turning Point UK (TPUK) is a British offshoot of Turning Point USA. The organisation describes its objectives as promoting right-wing politics and conservative values in UK schools, colleges, and universities, to counter what it alleges are the left-wing politics of UK educational

760: 1613:. Addressing test four is relatively straightforward, this tweet was made by the Twitter account that TPUK directly links to on their website. Test 5 is also simple, do we have secondary sources upon which to base the remainder of this article? The answer to that is yes. 1744:

Seeing as we seem to have two diametrically opposed views on how to apply the relevant policies and guidelines at present, and we seem unlikely to be able to convince the other as to which is the right interpretation, would you be opposed to making a request for a

1361:

just so I can better understand the objection, you believe the words from Turning Point UK, that they set themselves up to promote right-wing politics and conservative values, are unduly self-serving and therefore we can't use statements from the organisation per

1718:

their view that there is "a dogmatic Left-wing political climate education system" because it's a ridiculous rightist fantasy without a shred of evidence. Moreover, under such a condition we would rarely be able to mention the attributed views of any individual.

1522:

NPOV and weight are for distinguishing between the use of different sources, not different parts of one sentence within a source. As you point out, we are using ABOUTSELF for this effectively self-published source, and it is attributed firmly as their views.

1278:, which I still do, but upon further thought: I don't think it'd be out of sort to note denouncement from media sources left of centre and praise from those ones right of centre. If it's representative of the media landscape, then that seems worth noting. 2102:

The bias tag is only three for when there is an ongoing discussion about bias, not to say that some users think its biased. Such as tag would have to be removed once a consensus had been reached it is not biased (which seems to be the case right now).

1066:

Both the report cited in the article and the page you link to state "news" in both the URL and in block capitals in the header. The page you linked to states "The BBC bureau on the internet. Reporting on what's being shared and asking why it matters."

1149:

Thank you for being fair! Yes, it is a blog. Plus, this blog has been placed in a section which has other articles like "Where is the anti-lockdown movement headed?" or "Will conspiracy theories influence the US vote?". They are list of op-eds.

836:

to use caution especially of the claims are 'sensational' which they are not. We have to be careful not to be seen as only citing left wing sources esp when editing articles about organisations/media platforms etc that hold opposing political

120:

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at

1632:

are not directly related to TPUK. It passes #4 because we have no reason to doubt its authenticity, as it is taken from their website. And finally it fails #5 because nowhere else in the article is that statement substantiated via reliable

1604:

With respect to "conservative values", the Twitter statement passes muster. It is not involving a claim about third parties, nor does it involve a claim about events unrelated to the source. To complete the analysis, that leaves tests 4

1447:

The citations and wikilinks would remain as per the current lead. Doing this would also addresses the run-on nature of the current lead sentence, which is overly long. This could be broken up further into three sentences for example

1692:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable

1472:

does this to counter what it alleges is "a dogmatic Left-wing political climate, education system and radical Labour Party which sympathises with terrorists" and, according to the group, "wishes to disarm the nation".

852:

Sorry, my mistake, I misunderstood. It was not my intention to silence a right-wing voice but that I thought The Sun (and The Daily Mail) were banned from being cited. Thank you for showing me otherwise.

2678: 641: 631: 1531:

the sections in quotation marks (that is, not in wikivoice), but merely rendering, explicitly, the stated views of the group. In reporting the group's views, we do not consider whether we are doing so

2673: 1816: 1616:

Now lets look at the parts of the sentence that you wish to add cited to TPUK's website. These fail the tests implied by points 1, 2, 3, and 5 of ABOUTSELF. It fails point #1 because it makes an

1706:

In this instance, we are not making statements about the Labour party. Neither are we making statements about "a dogmatic Left-wing political climate education system". We are only stating

1374:, which describes the objective of the organisation in the words of the organisation, whereas elsewhere in the lead and body it is explained how that organisation does not meet its goals. 607: 1866:

is given only lip service. Clearly showing the article is unduly focused on the criticism of the group rather the group's legitimate aspirations and the praise they have received.

1466:

work they refer to is promoting such values. It is not really appropriate to the lead, given it is a single tweet used to promote a meme, with no other supporting source available.

598: 575: 1870:

In my opinion, serious work needs to be done sorting out this article's point of view. And a disclaimer should be displayed on the article until that process is completed.

2618: 705: 2134: 1223:

once wanted to remove the points you guys have made. All I'm saying is either remove all the opinionated statements or allow editors to post other side of arguments too.

2297: 1957:

That is understandable. Since I am relatively new here, would you be to link to some articles on what constitutes a reliable source, on Knowledge, for future reference.

1469:

In breaking up into three sentences, I suggest retaining an opening sentence which explains what article subj is without reference to a different article. For example:

2648: 893: 31: 2083:

has already indicated that the article as currently written is not biased, as it fairly represents the most reliable sources available. I agree with that sentiment.

2628: 321: 311: 2688: 2683: 1916: 810: 2698: 2643: 800: 433: 423: 2254: 2317: 2633: 2623: 2477: 1885:

You seem to have removed a lot of content relating to how the group was received on social media, and seem to have changed information about another group.

1597:. With respect to the statement on "conservative values", I do not believe that is unduly self-serving. However now we need to touch on two other points; 2 2703: 1573:. It behoves us, no more and no less, to ensure that all content we write represents significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. NPOV has 701: 958: 2693: 2653: 2638: 2517: 1439:

That said, I would have no issues citing both, as while the about us page doesn't explicitly make the link to conservative values, the Twitter post does.

1500:. We can't say the former uncritically even if it is the words of the organisation, and the later is related to the former. This is because it violates 2154: 2663: 2075:

There is a very well-established consensus on Knowledge that we do not place warnings on articles as a permanent or semi-permanent feature. I believe

2037:”; it publishes in-depth analysis about contemporary topics, written by scholars who are experts in the relevant field. I recommend reading the essay 1620:

claim about the Labour Party. It fails #2 because the sentence is specifically about the Labour Party. It fails #3 because the claims that Labour are

552: 542: 287: 1423:

I disagree with you on the tweet. The tweet has two sentences. The first is responding to or commentary of words written/spoken by Sir John Curtice;

2457: 896:

in favour against including it as a second article, the close allowed for it to be re-created if later coverage occurred. Therefore, this is fine..

833: 776: 1907:, even though there is no legitimate comparison between lying about school shooters and thinking children, as young as 3, should not be exposed to 399: 2668: 2658: 1208:

What? No one is saying you can't put in supportive information. But you are not doing so to make the page better but to make a point, stop now.

684: 664: 2217: 113: 590: 569: 1713:

You are conflating statements in Knowledge voice, i.e. "facts", for which the numerous policy links you reference above are relevant, with

1034: 278: 239: 176: 1721:

Happily, no such condition exists, and we can state the expressed, attributed view of someone without fact or source-checking their views.

2277: 1790:

The lead summarises the content of the article. There is nothing "repeated twice". There is simply the content of the body in the lead.

767: 744: 518: 2235: 2357: 1820: 390: 344: 117: 77: 1192: 1157: 1093: 1107:

yes, you do. And the section is titled "News", both in the URL and on the page. Whereas The Telegraph article is titled "opinion".

2377: 1508:

to a statement that isn't covered in reliable sources, at least insofar as the ones cited in the article, about the organisation.

2397: 2259: 1847: 154: 1171:

However, we do not use only the BBC for the claim, just that once sentence. In fact there are 3 other sources for the mockery.

1535:, only whether we are accurately reporting the group's expressed belief. As we are using two direct quotes, we are doing so. 603: 509: 470: 146: 1929:

Does this article have a slant against the group? And if so should a disclaimer be placed on the article? And if not, why?

1243:

IN fact the material you want to add is not about them being mocked, nor does it dispute they were widely mocked, does it?

2557: 2337: 214: 959:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/02/07/backlash-against-turning-point-uk-rather-proves-point-hard-conservative/

2091: 2049: 1798: 1733: 1543: 1481: 1412: 1337: 1114: 1074: 1021: 991: 2537: 2417: 1920: 1855: 1656:

speaking about TPUK, we also need to assess whether or not those sources represent either the mainstream view or a

2600: 2030: 27: 2497: 1314:, ought only to be mentioned where reliable sources have at some point indicated that the individual is notable 1854:'s criticism of the group is included in the introduction as well as criticism from an obscure website called " 1038: 170: 1660:

view. And the reason we need to establish if it is due or undue, is because while all content on Knowledge be

202: 984:

reliable sources indicate that the individual holding that opinion is notable for their view on the subject.

2066: 2014: 1981: 1965: 1934: 1875: 1648:

source. This brings us on to back to part of VERIFY. In order to establish whether that specific content is

892:

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: While this was

842: 150: 109: 105: 1754:

Disagreement about how to interpret policy and guidelines over statements made by a political organisation.

1450:...and conservative values in UK schools, colleges, and universities. This is to counter what it alleges... 2135:"Turning Point UK: new conservative youth group doesn't fit traditional understandings of the 'far right'" 2108: 2085: 2043: 2000: 1948: 1890: 1835: 1792: 1761: 1727: 1669: 1556: 1537: 1513: 1475: 1456: 1406: 1383: 1356: 1332: 1275: 1248: 1234: 1213: 1176: 1134: 1109: 1069: 1057: 1017: 1007: 986: 974: 949: 878: 160: 122: 2437: 1943:

Yes, No, because we reflect what RS say. So if RS are generally negative about this group we have to be.

166: 2173:

Fekete, Liz (2022). "Who is behind the 'war on woke': an interview with Ralph Wilson and Isaac Kamola".

1908: 1617: 1229:

material we can discuss it, but it's not going to be added just to make a point about them being mocked.

1196: 1161: 1097: 270: 220: 1393:

To answer your initial question: yes, along with the fact that the tweet does not support the content.

2596: 2577: 1188: 1153: 1089: 1030: 1020:) I dont mind you removing my opinionated statement tbh. As long as there are no opinions, Im good. ( 2518:"Normalising Hate: New Report Highlights the Spread of Anti-Drag Sentiment in the UK – Byline Times" 1319: 1049: 20: 1700: 1645: 1589: 1363: 1185:

Do you want me to pull 3 more sources that supports this organisation? I can do that if you want.

858: 382: 775: