Talk:Turning Point USA

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turning Point USA article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Turning Point USA (oldid, history) → Turning Point UK (diff) on 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Copied Turning Point USA (oldid, history) → Turning Point Action (diff) on 12:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Copied Turning Point USA (oldid, history) → Turning Point Action (diff) on 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information. This article was accepted from this draft on 10 July 2016 by reviewer Daniel kenneth (talk · contribs). Conservatism Low‑importance Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Education Low‑importance Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). United Kingdom Low‑importance United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education assignment: American Interest Group Politics

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2025 and 5 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Carmathon412.

— Assignment last updated by Kona67 (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Mark Bray has been threatened

[1] "In the weeks after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, he has become a target of right-wing hate, accused of being a part of the movement he studied." Doug Weller talk 08:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources on this now.[2] Doug Weller talk 10:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dark Dreaming: Looks relevent, can you explain your edit? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in the revert. I have multiple reasons. First, Professor Bray being threatened doesn't have anything to do with the main Turning Point organization, as the Rutgers chapter is one of many. If we include info related to individual college chapters, we will have to include significantly more information related to all other chapters. Second, the TP chapter was not directly involved in the doxxing or threatening of the professor - they only filed a petition. I don't think one school chapter filing a petition on one professor is important enough to include on the main article. Third, the part of Professor Bray leaving the country is extra details that is unrelated to Turning Point USA itself. Dark Dreaming (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't match with my understanding of WP:Due weight... But I would agree with anyone who said that assessing the due weight of breaking topics is one of the trickiest things we do... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't related to TPUSA though, since they are not the ones threatening Professor Bray. I believe this information should go on a separate article. Dark Dreaming (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check again -- "Turning Point USA accused him of belonging to antifa"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that TPUSA accused him of being a part of Antifa. But they have done that to many other individuals, so I don't know why we need an entire new section on the article related to this one specific instance. Furthermore, TPUSA was not involved in the threatening of Professor Bray (though people who decided to threaten or dox Bray was probably motivated by TPUSA's accusations, but there is also no solid evidence on that).

My point is that since TPUSA was not the one actively threatening the professor, it doesn't need to go on this page. But if the majority agrees that this should be on the article, then that's fine with me. I don't want to introduce any bias so I'll leave it up to everyone else to decide. Dark Dreaming (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left out a bit somehow. It should have read "after Fox news published the petition". I think the Mark Bray bit is very relevant. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is DUE though I think the original addition had too much information that is only tangentially related to TPUSA. I don't think the Jack Posobiec part is relevant unless it's clear that Posobiec is the reason this happened. Additionally, unless it's clear that the exposure due to TPUSA vs other sources caused the death threats etc that shouldn't be put on TPUSA. Finally, the canceled flight, unless there is a clear TPUSA link it should be left out. Springee (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very serious event. If multiple, high-quality sources see reason to include details, like Posobiec, Bray, TPUSA, flight cancellation, seems to me we should include them. [3][4] O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I’ve linked above the multiple sources discussing Bray and Turning Point. A lot mention Posobiec. I meant to use [5] as well. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Remember, these are stories about what is happening to Bray, not specifically TPUSA. Thus this becomes a reciprocity of weight question. TPUSA's part in this, the chapter's petition and their claims about Bray are due. However, things like the maliciously canceled flight aren't something that TPUSA did. They are details relevant to Bray's experience of the whole event but not something TPUSA is actually responsible for. Too much of that sort of content looks like a coat rack. I'll use The Guardian as an example article. It's about Bray leaving for Spain after Trump declared Antifa a terrorist organization. So at least the opening of the article doesn't put this causally on TPUSA. It states that TPUSA said he acts as a financier for Antifa and that TPUSA started a petition for his removal after Kirk was killed. It says he was doxxed but not that TPUSA caused it. Posobiec seems to be the originator of the recent focus on Bray. The article says Rutgers TPUSA created their petition after Posobiec (implied because of Posobiec). However, since Posobiec also went public with the information it's not clear that TPUSA was a link in the chain of events or just a parallel action. As such we can't imply they were. We should limit this to actions TPUSA (and the student chapter) actually took. If we include too much it becomes a coatrack. Springee (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doug's new reference provides more light on this. It appears TPUSA noticed him after his 2017 book "After publishing Antifa, Bray donated half of the profits from the book to the International Anti-Fascist Defense Fund, a group which supports antifascist activists around the world. He was soon placed on the so-called Professor Watchlist by Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the conservative activist group cofounded by Charlie Kirk. The list, which showcases academics that TPUSA claims are pushing leftist propaganda, has been criticized as a threat to academic freedom.". This would tend to support the claim that he is providing funds to Antifa, not just writing about them. Wired also says that Bray has received threats in the past and also states, "Bray received very little attention from those on the right until Trump issued his antifa executive order on September 22. .... In the wake of Trump’s executive order, far-right influencers once again jumped on Bray after he spoke to media outlets about Trump’s order. “I think I ought to visit,” wrote far-right troll Milo Yiannopoulos on X, quoting a post about Bray’s work at Rutgers. Jack Posobiec, a far-right influencer and conspiracy theorist who was recently invited by the Republican National Committee to train some poll workers, called Bray a “domestic terrorist professor.” ... “The day after the Posobiec tweet, I received a very direct death threat saying that someone was going to kill me in front of my students,” says Bray. The student pateition was started 10 days later and two days after that covered by Fox News. The causal links, especially with respect to TPUSA proper, aren't there. Hence, we should cover TPUSA's part but details that aren't the actions of TPUSA shouldn't be included here. The are due on Bray's BLP. Springee (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think the current existing information is good to include since those are direct links between TPUSA and Professor Bray. The reverted edit is not related to TPUSA since TPUSA was not involved and belongs on Bray's article instead. Dark Dreaming (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that the section "Threats to author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook" should not be its own independent section, but rather a sub-section under "Reactions and incidents" since this is a relevant incident that is related to TPUSA. Thoughts on this friends? Dark Dreaming (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might work, I wasn’t sure where to put it. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee Bray has no BLP. And there is not only no evidence he provided funds to Antifa USA which is the issue, but I’m not clear how that would work. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the fund he supports is affiliated with the Torch Network, not Antifa.[6] See Anti-Racist Action Doug Weller talk 19:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find much one way or the other but if this is true I think the Antifa funding claim looks solid [7]. Note it's international Antifa not Antifa USA. Springee (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund is an actual organization and unrelated to antifa. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This claims it was launched by "the Antifa International collective" [8]. That certainly seems like ot would be Antifa related. Wired said the fund is "a group which supports antifascist activists around the world." Doug may be right that none of the money is has donated is going to "Antifa USA" but it seems like a stretch to presume none went to any Antifa group/support. Springee (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should assume anyone claiming or claimed to be antifa was funded by the professor, directly or indirectly, because there is no such evidence or RS and I don't think we should assume anything. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume money was given to the IAFDF. I think we can assume the IADFD was founded by Antifa International. However, what we can put in the article should be more limited, likely none of the funding stuff. I would suggest the best way to handle this is to simply not give the whole topic too much weight. Springee (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or to wait to see how sources are handling the situation. Dimadick (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has created Mark Bray (historian) which includes

"In 2025, he was accused by Rutgers' Turning Point USA chapter of being an Antifa leader, after which he received death threats from MAGA activists. He fled the country in October alongside his wife and children.^[1][2]

I think we should use [9] also or instead of.

References

1. Cochran, Lexi Lonas (2025-10-10). "Rutgers professor accused of antifa ties flees to Spain, citing death threats". The Hill. Retrieved 2025-10-12.
2. Shipkowski, Bruce (2025-10-09). "Antifa expert at Rutgers University says he is moving to Spain because of death threats". AP News. Retrieved 2025-10-12.

Doug Weller talk 16:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to agree with Springee's logic here. Do not give this too much weight, Keep ONLY the stuff that is absolutely relevant to TPUSA. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also the way the Bray material is phased in the BLP may be Synth as it implies causality that may not exist (see my previous comments). Springee (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I think your recent edits are giving this undue weight and including facts that are not the result of TPUSA action per RS. I have limited connectivity so I may take look at changes later. Springee (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, seems like this information should not belong on TPUSA page but rather Bray's page since its not directly tied to TPUSA. Dark Dreaming (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied a section made by @Tryptofish from Reprisals against commentators on the Charlie Kirk assassination. It starts "On October 2, 2025, the Rutgers University chapter of Turning Point USA launched a petition against Rutgers professor Mark Bray, calling for the university to fire him." I don't see how you can deny that it's tied directly to TPUSA. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not my point. I'm saying the death threats and cancellation of flights is not caused by TPUSA. That's why the current info that's currently on the page is fine - there was just extra detail that was unrelated and had undue weight. Dark Dreaming (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller, I reverted your edit because the information you added already exists in the article under the section "Activites - Professor Watchlist" and there is no need to repeat the exact same thing twice on the page. Dark Dreaming (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed that. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the content on Prof. Bray to Turning Point USA#Professor Watchlist. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you pay this professor a visit!!! All jokes aside—just kidding, funny haha. But they did feel the need to send a clarification, per the NY Times, while continuing to call Bray a terrorist: "I think that all death threats and doxxing are unjustified and not how political disputes should be resolved in civilized society," Ava Kwan, a Turning Point USA chapter member, said in an email on Wednesday. But she defended the broader point of the petition, saying, "I think Dr. Antifa, who believes in violence as a political tool, should be fired, of course. Taxpayer money should not fund the salaries of terrorists." This is an example of what TPUSA does, relentless harassment of college professors per the Kirk quote in the first paragraph of Turning Point USA#Professor Watchlist. They own everything their chapters do. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The updated version of the article again has some of the issues I outlined above. One of the biggest issues is the implied causal relationship between the Rutgers chapter's action and the threats etc against Bray. As I noted when looking at the Guardian, they did not claim and seems to be careful not to imply a causal relationship. That is a problem with the current text. This is also likely getting too much weight in the TPUSA article. Springee (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Turning Point USA is a Jewish-led zionist proxy initiative led by the late Charlie Kirk, who, under the blackmail of Jewish political commentator Ben Shapiro, is leading Turning Point USA as an army to conquer and destroy the Kingdom of Agartha, ultimately establishing the Jewish parallel AGoytha in its place. Kirk was tragically shot dead after choosing to defy the Jewish blackmail and resist the misinformation he was tasked to spread about the denial of the Palestinian genocide. Whatisajob (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing actionable here, just conspiracy theorizing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a poorly executed Groyper joke (Kingdom of Agartha > AGoytha). There's a reason conservatives don't have comedy. This is a good example. I've seen similar 4chan jokes before that fueled the QAnon movement, with QAnon adherants never realizing that the ideas they were espousing weren't real. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never would have figured that out. I see now that this account made similar "jokes" on another page, and was subsequently indeffed. Now I'll go find some more tin foil to put on my head. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... There's a group of hardcore, dedicated skeptics and freethinkers who have archived almost all of this material on Reddit subreddits and provided expert commentary and analysis, which is somewhat of a spectacular achievement. That's how I learned all of this. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rob McCoy was not a co-founder

Rob McCoy did not help create TPUSA Faith. Get that off there. It’s disrespectful to Charlie’s History. The referenced link doesn’t even make sense. It just says he helped him cheer for President Trump. Also right below where it talks about TPUSA faith, it says he created it alone and it contradicts it. 129.62.70.125 (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. McCoy did no such thing. Skeptical Ops (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. --Hispalois (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source notes: "Three years ago, Kirk shared the power of his Turning Points brand with McCoy, who helped launch TPUSA Faith, which offers training and networking for pastors wanting to be more politically outspoken." Would you be able to explain the removal requested by these SPA accounts User:Hispalois? Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Helping launch" something does not make someone a founder. If it did, there would hundreds of founders on WIkipedia's article. This inclusion is inappropriate based on the source you provide. Do you actually have a verfifiable reliable source that credits him as a founder? Sarah 23:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was going to answer to @Anupam; thanks @Sarah. Hispalois (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this same article states further on that TPUSA Faith was founded by Kirk alone and cites this article [10] Unless you have a reliable source that contradicts this and actually credits McCoy as a founder, I intent to remove your section. Thanks, Sarah 23:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's "anyone's" section, and we won't resolve this by edit warring. Instead of removing it, perhaps it should be revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would: "Rob McCoy is accredited as a close ally of Charlie Kirk who helped launch Turning Point USA Faith (TPUSA Faith).[54][55] He is a Pentecostal pastor in the Calvary Chapel Association and is with the Christian right.[56] During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCoy was known for speaking out against prohibitions on the holding of in-person church services.[56]"

Right now I think less is better. Thanks! LunarEcho87 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have a problem with that wording. I agree that less is better. Even McCoy's page on the TPUSA website doesn't refer to him as a founder of anything. Sarah 23:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change "is accredited as" to "was". I do think we need to include him in some way on the page, even if it isn't literally as a co-founder. If other editors agree (which isn't certain), I'd be OK with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with switching placement but there are only two sources- and he didnt burst onto the scene until after his death. What about he "was a close ally...and is accredited with helping launch." LunarEcho87 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sarah, the website of TPUSA Faith itself lists the co-founder of the organization as Rob McCoy. Anways, User:LunarEcho87, thanks for your efforts in improving this article. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't pull that page up on the wayback machine and I suspect that part may have been added tonight after Candace's show. lol Even if you call him a co-founder of TPUSA Faith, i don't believe it merits him being featured so prominently in an article about the broader TPUSA organization. Sarah 02:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When Kirk announced TPUSA Faith, he introduced McCoy as "co-chair" of TPUSA Faith, not co-founder. You can listen to the announcement on their website. In any case, like I said before, I don't think McCoy should have this separate section. He should be mentioned in the "others" section. I wouldn't have an issue if the co-founder part was mentioned in the section about TPUSA Faith...but I personally don't think it's correct. Sarah 02:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think McCoy and Bowyer should be moved into the Others section and the only people who should be named separately are the Kirks and Montgomery. Sarah 01:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sara, Thank you for standing for truth. That pastor can’t accept Charlie’s interest and love of Catholicism. He should be demanding truth for Charlie, not perpetuating lies, agreed 2603:6011:201:CF64:65C0:8C62:DC19:AB54 (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pastor should not be perpetuating lies and greed, I meant. 2603:6011:201:CF64:65C0:8C62:DC19:AB54 (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Furthermore, the sentence about McCoy and COVID lockdowns is irrelevant here; it should be removed. Hispalois (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. Charlie Kirk founded TPUSA Faith alone. Dunkendonut (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources that name Rob McCoy as the co-founder of Turning Point USA Faith; this article from the Ventura County Star (published on 5 October 2022) states: "McCoy co-founded the evangelical arm of Turning Point USA with its leader, Charlie Kirk, the activist with 1.7 million Twitter followers and a media empire championing conservative politics." An article from the Rolling Stone (published on 23 May 2023) article likewise states: "At TPUSA’s first Pastor’s Summit in San Diego last year, Kirk credited McCoy as, 'the man who helped inspire TPUSA Faith.'" This article from The Columbian (published on 24 November 2024) notes: "Three years ago, Kirk shared the power of his Turning Points brand with McCoy, who helped launch TPUSA Faith, which offers training and networking for pastors wanting to be more politically outspoken." The website of TPUSA Faith itself states: "Rob MCoy has a passion for leading the intersection of government & the Church. He is the Senior Pastor of Godspeak Calvary Chapel, former Mayor of Thousand Oaks & Co-Founder of TPUSA Faith." There are a number of other references available online that buttress this fact. Anyways, I am going to bow out of this discussion given the several SPA accounts that have been driven here via social media to WP:GAME the system. I trust that longtime editors such as User:Tryptofish and User:LunarEcho87 will help bring balance here. Anupam^Talk 12:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I additionally note that the edits of User:LunarEcho87, who added to this article that "According to TPUSA Faith, he was Co-Founder" along with a reference from TPUSA Faith were removed by an User:Dunkendonut, who has less than twenty edits on Wikipedia. Anupam^Talk 13:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, I would not have such an objection if this was mentioned in the TPUSA Faith section although "helping launch" something or "inspiring" doesn't make someone a founder. If he was a founder, why didn't Kirk say this? Why did he describe him as a co-chair?. You have to admit that it's very strange that the TPUSA Faith section doesn't mention McCoy at all and states only that it was founded by Kirk. The two sections within this article don't match. My main problem here is the prominence given to McCoy in the article. I believe the only people who should have their own sections for TPUSA are the Kirks and Montgomery. The other people should be folded into the "others" section if they should be mentioned at all. I'm really not sure why Bowyer is even in there at all. So what if he is COO? Why's that notable? Sarah 13:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, the pattern of comments here does suggest to me, as it appears to have suggested to Anupam, that there may be postings on social media leading to this discussion. Decisions on Wikipedia are driven by WP:Consensus, not by voting. I've looked at all the user contributions by editors in this discussion, and while the two IP accounts are SPA accounts, I don't think anyone else is. However, I do see that Sarah has WP:CANVASSed Dunkendonut to come to this discussion: [11]. Please do not do that sort of thing again, either of you. I'm going to seek more eyes on this discussion, and I think it would be best if we take our time before making any changes to this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've alerted administrators: [12]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is pretty weird that a 20 year old account canvassed a barely active account that only had 17 edits, with the canvased account not having edited about tpusa before. Smells like fish. Sarah, how did you know DunkenDonuts would want to participate here? 12.75.41.129 (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The user made an edit to the the McCoy section of the article and so I asked them to join us here instead of edit warring. Sarah 23:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AGF Sarah 23:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There were no postings on social media that I am aware of. As I told Anupam, Candace Owens raised concerns about this article and the prominent section about McCoy which only appeared immediately after Kirk's death on her podcast. I heard her discuss it and decided to check it out for myself. I can't speak for anyone else. Sarah 23:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  [13] This is why I asked that user to come here. They made an edit to that section a few hours after me with the edit summary "Rob McCoy was not a co-founder of TPUSA Faith." Hope that clears it up for you. If there are valid sources for the "co-founder" claim, I have no issue with it being in the TPUSA Faith section, but I do not believe that McCoy should be so prominent in the broader TPUSA article. Sarah 23:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clearing that up. The way you worded your message to the other user, it wasn't apparent to me that you were reacting to the edit warring, and it just sounded like you wanted their participation, but I'm fine with your explanation. It's unusual that a non-urgent issue leads to so many new participants in a discussion, unless there was something that drew people's attention. The Owens podcast explains that, even if it was not technically a social media solicitation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi all, thanks for the thoughtful discussion and allowing me to explain myself as Dunkendonut. I really appreciate the warm welcome from Sarah and the clarifications by Tryptofish and others. It’s obvious that this is a collaborative area, and I do not want to appear to be disruptive. I am relatively new to editing, having done about 17 edits so far, mostly small fact checks of subjects I am interested in. But I have been reading Wikipedia’s guidelines for a while and wanted to contribute more after this. Here’s what happened:

  A couple weeks ago, I listened to Candace Owens’ podcast in which she spoke about the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. In that episode, around the 1:23 mark, she stated that just 36 hours after Kirk’s death on September 10, 2025, a new section was added to the TPUSA page claiming Rob McCoy was a co-founder of both TPUSA and TPUSA Faith. She found it strange that the TPUSA Faith section was already saying Kirk had founded it alone, and this seemed to be in contradiction to that. That got my attention, so I looked in the sources of that new section and dug a bit deeper. They do confirm McCoy cofounded TPUSA Faith in 2021 with Kirk (the official TPUSA Faith website calls him “Co-Founder” in his bio, and articles from Wikipedia, NBC News, and others report that as a joint effort). But none indicate he cofounded the parent TPUSA organization, which was founded in 2012 by Kirk and Bill Montgomery. So I took out the sentence that said he cofounded both. I tried to be accurate and make sure not to add or change information without a source. In my note under the edit, I said Charlie Kirk was the sole founder of TPUSA Faith. That was not worded correctly. I could have made the point better by simply stating that the wording in the existing article at the time of my edit gave credit for founding fully to Kirk. Because I did not catch the reliable sourcing showing McCoy as clearly a cofounder there, that was my error. I should have reworded it in a more neutral manner, for example, “Clarify: McCoy cofounded only TPUSA Faith, not the parent organization,” and brought it here first for discussion. Lesson learned in being more careful with summaries, making sure all angles are double checked. Nobody requested it, nor did I have an agenda. The podcast made me wonder, and I wished to help keep the page accurate in the post event edits. I very much understand the concern about timing and prominence, in light of such a major event having occurred. If the sources support mentioning McCoy’s role in launching TPUSA Faith, and they most certainly do, I am fine with adding that back in the right place, like the Faith subsection, so it is consistent and reflects the full picture. Actually, this whole thing got me more excited about Wikipedia: I really love how pages evolve in real time around big events. I’d like to get more involved going forward, maybe helping with verifiability on political or activism topics. Any advice for a newbie to find reliable sources or get started with bigger contributions?

  Thanks again for your patience. Pleased to work together on a balanced version. Dunkendonut (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for this very thoughtful explanation. Because this page is about a contentious topic, and because new edits started showing up because of Ownes' podcast but most of us did not know why at the time, it set off alarm bells, but I think everything has now been cleared up and the drama is thankfully over. As for advice, there's no better way to learn than to watch and get experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey Tryptofish, thanks for the warm reply and for easing my nerves a bit. I totally see why the edit timing rang alarm bells; that podcast stirred up a lot of curiosity right when things were sensitive. Super relieved we sorted it out and the tension’s faded. Your advice about diving in and gaining experience hits home. I’ve poked around the Teahouse and some WikiProject Conservatism pages, but if you have favorite spots for beginner tasks like hunting citations or cleaning up stubs on activism topics, I’d love your pointers. Or any tricks for patrolling recent changes without getting lost in the weeds. What keeps you hooked on these tricky articles without burning out? Anyways, thanks again, you’ve got me pumped for my next contribution. If anything else comes up with TPUSA, count me in to help keep it smooth. Dunkendonut (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! I'll keep this brief, because this is getting off-topic for this article talk page. About staying on tricky articles without burning out: there's a phone book I could write about that, but the tl;dr is to remember that it's only a website and not worth stressing about. If you have questions any time, please feel free to ask me at User talk:Tryptofish. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]