Talk:Turning Point UK

Citing The Sun

A recent edit was deleted on the grounds The Sun newspaper was 'banned'. The actual policy states 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 positions.Roland Of Yew (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

launch

Was it launched in December or February, as we give both months?Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

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

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, my contributions for two years ago are so cringeworthy.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Use of opinionated/biased statements

(talk) Ok, I will present my point. I have made my statement clear on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cambial_Yellowing#Turning_Point_UK_-_Unnecessary_edits 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 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? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/02/07/backlash-against-turning-point-uk-rather-proves-point-hard-conservative/

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 debate", if it is published by an RS, and as long as it does not violate wp:point yes you can do that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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 reliable sources indicate that the individual holding that opinion is notable for their view on the subject. Cambial foliage❧ 14:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

And you have gone way beyond this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk) I dont mind you removing my opinionated statement tbh. As long as there are no opinions, Im good. (User talk:Cambial Yellowing) Nope that BBC article is part of BBC trending page which is a collection of op-eds https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cme72mv58q4t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.120.229 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

So you are in fact just making a point, did you read wp:pint?Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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." Cambial foliage❧ 14:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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 news. BBC trending is a section filled with op-eds. Have you even read the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.31.2 (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

yes, you do. And the section is titled "News", both in the URL and on the page. Whereas The Telegraph article is titled "opinion". Cambial foliage❧ 14:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Its a wp:newsblog "blogs-trending".Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.31.2 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you want me to pull 3 more sources that supports this organisation? I can do that if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.31.2 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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 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.

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 material we can discuss it, but it's not going to be added just to make a point about them being mocked.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

IN fact the material you want to add is not about them being mocked, nor does it dispute they were widely mocked, does it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

In my protection summary, I cautioned against WP:FALSEBALANCE, 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. If, Spartans, if. Maybe it isn't, I have no idea. I just learned about this page a few minutes ago (diff). El_C 16:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: My understanding is that sources framed as opinions by the publisher, opinions of individuals, ought only to be mentioned where reliable sources have at some point indicated that the individual is notable for their view on that subject. So the opinion of Madeline Grant would not be mentioned at all (nor, say, Jackie Chan), whereas the opinion of Neil Basu or Matthew F. Collins might be. Happy to be corrected. Cambial foliage❧ 16:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Conservative values better source needed

@Cambial Yellowing: 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 WP:ABOUTSELF?

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 the third sentence in the lead for LGB Alliance, 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.

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 potentially fall short of that goal, via citations to their critics? Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Your analogy to another group is useful, and I note that they use the phrase The LGB Alliance describes its objective as, 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 its own website's about page. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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; The Conservative Party face a demographic time bomb according to Sir John Curtice. The second is explicitly the organisation describing themselves This is why our work as a conservative-values student movement is so essential. 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.

On the whole though, I do prefer swapping the current lead sentence to something like 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 institutions. 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 ...and conservative values in UK schools, colleges, and universities. This is to counter what it alleges... Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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 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.

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: 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 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". Cambial — foliar❧ 17:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Mostly looks good to me. Only bits I think are undue are and radical Labour Party which sympathises with terrorists and wishes to disarm the nation. 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 WP:NPOV by giving too much WP:WEIGHT to a statement that isn't covered in reliable sources, at least insofar as the ones cited in the article, about the organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

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. "We" are therefore not saying 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 uncritically, only whether we are accurately reporting the group's expressed belief. As we are using two direct quotes, we are doing so. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: I'm sorry, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. The Neutral Point of View policy is one of the three core content policies, the others being Verifiability, and No Original Research. 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 nothing to do with distinguishing between the use of different sources. That requirement is derived from WP:VERIFY.

When it comes to VERIFY, we have a few things to balance. This is where WP:ABOUTSELF 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 self-published material is neither unduly self-service nor an exceptional claim. 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 it does not involve claims about third parties and 3 {[tq|it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source}}.

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 there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity and 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources. 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.

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 exceptional 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 radical, [sympathise] with terrorists, and [wish] to disarm the nation 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 sources.

As this is a very controversial statement, which makes very contentious claims about another group or person, it must be attributed via a secondary source. This brings us on to back to part of VERIFY. In order to establish whether that specific content is WP:DUE for inclusion, not only must it by policy be covered within reliable sources speaking about TPUK, we also need to assess whether or not those sources represent either the mainstream view or a fringe view. And the reason we need to establish if it is due or undue, is because while all content on Wikipedia be verifiable, not all verifiable information must be included. 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. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that missive, but I've misunderstood nothing. Your claim that NPOV has nothing to do with distinguishing between the use of different sources is incorrect. Note the first sentence of the section "Wp:WEIGHT": 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 sources. It's not remotely relevant here, because we're describing another group's views, explicity framed as their views: we are not making a statement in Wikivoice.

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

You are conflating statements in Wikipedia voice, i.e. "facts", for which the numerous policy links you reference above are relevant, with attributed statements 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 their view that there is "a dogmatic Left-wing political climate [and] 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.

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

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 that to properly represent their claims as to their purpose and beliefs. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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 third opinion so that we can address the deadlock?

The dispute request could be worded as Disagreement about how to interpret policy and guidelines over statements made by a political organisation. to keep it as neutral as possible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead - similarity to Generation Identity

The lead summarises the content of the article. There is nothing "repeated twice". There is simply the content of the body in the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Anti Islamic allegation should be tagged ‘debatable’?

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 interviewees in the series. 2402:B801:282C:1700:25F7:2527:367:6F36 (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

On Wednesday 26th April I made edits to the article, which were undone by @Cambial Yellowing, and @Slatersteven.

These edits were made because I think this article goes against Wp:NPoV, and that the issue should be fixed. For example David Lammy MP's criticism of the group is included in the introduction as well as criticism from an obscure website called "The Conversation". But praise the group has received from prominent politicians such as Priti Patel MP and Nigel Farage 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.

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. ApatheticName (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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 sources.

But at current the introduction is heavily slanted against the group, comparing it to Info Wars, even though there is no legitimate comparison between lying about school shooters and thinking children, as young as 3, should not be exposed to explicitly sexual drag queens. That was backed up by an opinion article in the Guardian, I.E. not reliable. The article links the group Generation Indentity, sourced by an opinion website, the conversation, as well.

Here is a question for you:

Does this article have a slant against the group? And if so should a disclaimer be placed on the article? And if not, why? ApatheticName (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, No, because we reflect what RS say. So if RS are generally negative about this group we have to be. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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

P.S. I see on your User Page you are a long time Doctor Who, very good. ApatheticName (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• fan ApatheticName (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wp:RSP is a good place to start. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheers! ApatheticName (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:THECONVERSATION. It is neither obscure nor an “opinion website”; it publishes in-depth analysis about contemporary topics, written by scholars who are experts in the relevant field. I recommend reading the essay WP:ABIAS which explains the academic bias of sourcing on this website. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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 through to get a warning on an article? ApatheticName (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a very well-established consensus on Wikipedia that we do not place warnings on articles as a permanent or semi-permanent feature. I believe @Slatersteven: 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. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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). Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Generation Identity/ George Farmer

There's an edit war going on between two users on here regarding the comparison to generation identity.

1. I would note that the source used appears to be a commentary piece on a commentary website, rather than an academic article as implied, although the commentary piece is written by academics. It doesn't meet WP:NPOV given there are also media articles calling it 'neo-Thatcherite' etc eg https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/turning-point-uk-far-right-brexit-vince-cable-nigel-farage-ukip-eu-a8762766.html.

My 'opinion' is that it's a right wing populist group, comparable to UKIP or the Brexit/Reform Party. I do feel the comparison to an avowed Neo-Nazi movement is inaccurate and extreme. The source cited relates to the tone of the publicity materials, rather than the policies of the group (which are not ones I would support), so seems more suited to the general body of the article.

2. The links to infowars appear to relate personally to George Farmer, who appears to have been CEO of this group between February 2019 -April 2019. I think claiming the link exists today is frankly a bit of a stretch, and it's questionable if it should even be included in the intro (should be moved down to the main body imho). PompeyTheGreat (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This does appear to be an opp-edd. Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The content is given in-text attribution to the experts who describe the group. What is your basis for removing attributed content from a reliable source? Cambial — foliar❧ 20:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it is an op-ed from experts, based upon the 'demographic' of the group and rheotoric (and that is the phrasing used in the article). What it does not constitute is academic research. There are other commentators who have described the group in different ways.

The claim made by the experts in that op-ed do relate to the marketing materials and demographics, rather than the policies. It would not meet WP:NPOV to include that in the lead section. The fact that one one op-ed said that their rheotoric looks comparable to another groups in 2019 is something that should be in the body of the article. We would not include op-eds calling labour far-left for rheotoric used in 2019 in the lead section of the Labour article. As per RS:OPINION, pieces from the source cited should be noted as opinions of the writers.

I have edited the lead section to read that Turning Point UK has been described variously as far right, right wing, conservative or neo-Thatcherite PompeyTheGreat (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)