Talk:Charlie Kirk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WP:RSOPINION and calling someone a liar in the first sentence of "political views"

I'm no fan of Charlie Kirk, but I think Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about tone and contentious labels. A "political views" section should, if it exists, be a generalised summary of his views, aiming for as much factuality and as many "Charlie said" statements as possible. Criticism and media response should be secondary. The source linked is an WP:RSOPINION belonging to two random journalists working for the NYT. It's not even about his views, it's a character judgement. Maybe there's a place for the source in question in some kind of media response or media criticism section or something, but a "political views" section should aim to factually state the things he believes without casting judgement. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's calling him a liar per se. The source linked is attributed, so I would support changing the text for better weight or NPOV, but not removing it entirely since it provides a useful description of his views or methods. I would be fine with moving it to another section too. Maybe the "Promotion of falsehoods and conspiracy theories" section. Andrevan@ 20:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think actually the next sentence from that source is a much more interesting description of Kirk's relationship with Trump. "Backed by prominent Republican donors, and with a powerful ally in the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Kirk both amplifies the president’s message and helps shape it."

Would you be happy if I quoted that instead and moved it under "pro-trump activism"? BrigadierG (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't see the need to remove the "walking the line between mainstream conservative opinion and outright disinformation" part. Andrevan@ 20:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that this is an ideal application of WP:RSOPINION, but I also think it's a reasonable WP:COMPROMISE. I've gone ahead and made the change while leaving in the part about disinformation. Other editors are invited to comment on this discussion to help build better consensus. Thanks @Andrevan for being willing to discuss things productively and promptly, always appreciated. BrigadierG (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Andrevan@ 20:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. Wikipedia has a rampant WP:RSOPINION problem. I personally don't care for NYT character judgment pieces. The RSOPINION policy exists because it is very decieving to an uninformed reader visiting the page to read cited information that isn't factual, and more opinionated. I like the suggestion of adding the - "Backed by prominent Republican donors, and with a powerful ally in the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Kirk both amplifies the president’s message and helps shape it." quote. and/or moving it to under the pro-Trump activism section. Eruditess (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was done per the above following the discussion Andrevan@ 18:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's extremely biased articles like Wikipedia puts out that gets people like Charlie Kirk shot. The leftists that control Wikipedia content are continually allowing bias and removing any efforts to correct bias.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

His misleading tweet on Friday

I understand that we can't include a mention of EVERY occasion where Kirk exaggerated, misled or outright lied, because then his page would be a mile long. However, we should mention one of his misleading tweets from August 12th, where he claimed, without citing a source, that "It is now confirmed: 'Indict Trump and make him a felon so he can’t run in 2024' This is their agenda. Has been all along." Here's the tweet: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aIaNRjSMzy4J:https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1558179681483890688%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc%255Etfw&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca.

It appears that Kirk himself originated the statement.

Arthur Corvalay (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump was indicted. Charlie Kirk was correct. What do you have to say now? 69.113.233.201 (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

They know, which you seem not to, that being a felon wouldn't keep him from running. So...he's still full of it?

Also chronologically the alleged misdeeds and investigations and, in at least one case, charges, preceded his decision to turn away from what he promised (you'll never hear from him again if he loses). So how could it be an agenda when he ran after they pursued a case? Also instead of letting it play out why did he obstruct over and over again delaying it until it ran into the election? If you're gonna clutter a page like this with talking out of your butt at least be consistent. 2603:9001:6B00:5FC3:BCB1:6407:1318:C90A (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Media Matters is a reliable source?

One of the sources used in this article is Media Matters, an obviously leftist website which only criticizes those on the right wing. MM should not be used to source statements on Wikipedia, as there can be much bias (in this case it seems to exaggerate the severity and actual impact of his comment). To me, this comment is not significant, it's simply a cherry-picked statement made on one of his many podcast episodes. And yes, same would apply for right wing websites such as thegatewaypundit in terms of whether they are a reliable source or not. Anyone can find an equally "egregious" comment to one that Kirk made for a left-wing figure such as Cenk Uygur, and put that in the article to damage his character, when in reality the comment bears little significance. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Per its rating in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed." Dimadick (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The arbitrary standards of 'Reliable sources' by Wikipedia editors is dubious at best. 167.248.152.245 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 76.66.171.233 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the fact that, on October 31, 2022, Kirk called for an "amazing patriot" to bail out David DePape, the attacker of Paul Pelosi. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

So, Kirk advocates in favor of assassination attempts. Not surprising, but how is this relevant to his biography? Dimadick (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's relevant in that he seems to support right wing extremist violence along with the rest of the Ultra MAGAs. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

How do you square that? Do you have any evidence that he calls to assassinate anyone? Why exactly did he ask for someone to bail out DePape? 96.255.82.225 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. This discussion resulted in clear consensus for the proposed move. (non-admin closure) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Charlie Kirk (activist) → Charlie Kirk –
Pretty sure it's safe to say that this article's Kirk is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The activist gets over 95% of pageviews. Station1 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Station1. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

Please change:

{{birth date and age|1993|10|14}}

to

{{birth year and age|1993}}

and change:

(born October 14, 1993)<ref name=age/><ref>{{cite tweet|user=libertyu|author=Liberty University|author-link=Liberty University|title=Congratulations to our honorary doctorate recipients Mr. Anthony A. Nobles and Mr. Charles J. Kirk!|number=1127024997485154304|date=May 10, 2019|accessdate=January 16, 2022}}</ref>

to

(born 1993)<ref name=age/>

Someone added an unsourced birth date. It is not verified by the cited sources. The honorary doctorate tweet includes no information about his age. 157.157.113.63 (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Partly done: I removed the unsourced DOB. I left plain text in the infobox saying he was born in 1993. We're apparently engaging in some light OR to determine the birth year. No objections to removing this and going with the usual Template:Birth based on age as of date, picking one of the two age-related NYT sources.

I left the tweet source, which I think is being used to verify his full name. I moved the birth year citation into the parentheses per MOS:REFPUNCT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Needs cleanup; redundant content

Article has WP:MOS issues, e.g. multiple use of the same wikilinks, single column refs section (should be double column given how many there are).

There is also redundant content. Lengthening this BLP through triple repetition of the same sentences has the effect of exaggerating the subject's importance. That's sometimes a promotional ploy. I'll try to trim some of the worst of it.--FeralOink (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for trimming redundant content. Eruditess (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

NPOV violation

BLUDGEON. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I tried to take the word "falsely" out of this sentence to restore WP:NPOV, but was reverted:

Kirk has consistently supported the extraction and use of fossil fuels and has falsely claimed that humans have no significant effect on global climate change.

Fnordware (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course it was reverted (by me). NPOV doesn't mean remaining agnostic about scientific facts, leaving readers to think that the claim might be true when we know it's false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

What does including the word "falsely" add here except to stray from NPOV? The sentence is describing his opinion and we don't need to provide a counter argument. I doubt there are any readers unfamiliar with this issue. Fnordware (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think "humans have no significant effect on climate change" is a "viewpoint" that must be included in a balance of viewpoints for the sake of NPOV, then you have no business doing any editing connected to climate change. This isn't what WP:NPOV requires. NPOV refers us to WP:FALSEBALANCE -- do take a look, and also WP:FRINGE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The article does not state that humans have no significant effect on global climate change, only that he "claims" that. Given how many people also hold this belief (30% of Americans including many elected officials) it is not WP:FRINGE. If you insist on a rebuttal, a more neutral version might be:

Kirk has consistently supported the extraction and use of fossil fuels. He is a climate change denialist, claiming that humans have no significant effect on global climate change.

Fnordware (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

How is this not WP:OR? --Hipal (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? The citations are in the article. Fnordware (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No one has argued that the citations and our policies call for the change, hence concerns of WP:OR. --Hipal (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Read the original post. The sentence in the current article violates WP:NPOV. How would removing "falsely" constitute original research? Fnordware (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be OR if the arguments were being made regardless of the citations, hence my comment immediately above. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

We are not debating weather or not Kirk believes in climate change (sources establish that), nor are we debating if climate change is real. What we're debating is if stating that his belief is false violates NPOV. Fnordware (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems to be a debate made without regard to citations. --Hipal (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Which part of WP:NPOV is it supposed to violate? Certainly not Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It violates NPOV simply because the word "falsely" is editorializing, which is inherently a non-neutral thing. It would be equally bad to say "…has accurately claimed…". This is an article about a person and it should describe their views, not comment on whether those views are accurate. But then even the article on Climate change denial does not say deniers are "falsely claiming" climate change doesn't exist (which would not be neutral), it says their view "contradicts the scientific consensus" (which is neutral). Fnordware (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

and it should describe their views, not comment on whether those views are accurate. That would violate both NOT and POV. You may want to read WP:MAINSTREAM before continuing here. --Hipal (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

There are 3 articles that are cited at the end of the "problematic" sentence utilizing the adjective "falsely". None of the cited articles use the word "falsely" anywhere to describe Kirk's views. It is used in the WP:HEADLINE (which constitutes WP:UNDUE WEIGHT) of the article from climatefeedback.org article. The only other mention of the word "false" was in the climatefeedback.org article at the "update" section in the footer mentioning that Kirk issued a correction saying that their claims were false. Inferring that he made a false statement based off an article saying he corrected a previous false statement is WP:SYNTH. If it wasn't explicitly stated in the WP:RS (which the only WP:GREL source is the New Yorker piece [no mention of "false" statements within the article]) that Kirk made a false statement, it absolutely should be removed. Saying that he falsely made a statement about global warming with no mention that he made a correction is inaccurate. I have to endorse @Fnordware's changes. I like his neutrally worded:

"Kirk has consistently supported the extraction and use of fossil fuels. He is a climate change denialist, claiming that humans have no significant effect on global climate change."

- Eruditess (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I read the article for the first time and was confused by "falsely claimed". Either he claimed that humans have no significant effect on global climate change or he didn't. He made the claim, for which we have WP:RS. The rephrased sentence suggested by Fnordware is an improvement. Given Eruditess's additional findings from the 3 sources, I'm going to modify the sentence.--FeralOink (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You didn't seem to actually go ahead and make the edit, so I just did. Fnordware (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Aaaand User:Nomoskedasticity put "falsely" back in. Sigh. Fnordware (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No, what I, "Kirk" meant by statement made----We do not have enough information. None of us were here last ice age. 67.1.157.146 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Israel conspiracy theory

Kirk has lately become the highest-profile backer of a conspiracy theory alleging that the Israeli government deliberately allowed the October 7 Hamas attack to happen. He has been criticized for saying this, both by mainstream journalists and by his fellow conservatives. Seems like this should be included in the section on his views. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2B9A (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s not just him, either; seems like other TPUSA-linked figures have been promoting conspiratorial views about Israel lately. See . Looks like the Groypers got to them in the end; both groups seem practically indistinguishable now. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2B9A (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Church and State

I suggest a section on Charlie Kirk and his views on Church and State. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/christian-nationalists-churches-campaign-trump-charlie-kirk-1234947887/ Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Article should really be deleted or truthfully rewritten

Why does every article on this website discussing right winging people or topics always get obliterated by very obvious liberal bias? NH51907646 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Begging the question and Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Gotta voote blue harder, heh? XD 2804:1B3:AA81:9FB1:3DA8:1CCB:493A:8633 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone called "Funnyfarmofdoom" reverted my deletion of a whole section of Charlie Kirk's misinformation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This was even as I had cited NEUTRAL sources which contradicted the claim of information. The source used did not even elaborate on the "misinformation". It's utter nonsense. Hongkongpenang (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Article is starting to look like a Charlie Kirk repository of quotes

Certain sections in this article, primarily the "Racial Issues" section seems to be a running repository of every controversial thing Kirk has muttered in a public forum, mainly on his podcast. Certain views he expresses that have proper reliable coverage merit inclusion on this page, but it is getting to the point where it is just a place people are dumping gossip without proper context which seems like editors trying to right great wrongs (We know this because the title of the section isn't "Racial Views" rather "Racial Issues"), which compromises the WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC integrity of Wikipedia."Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Certain criteria in these sections need context or need to be trimmed because they lack clarity and conciseness. Anything that has weak sourcing and lacks weight I propose removal. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

How an encyclopedia article covers someone is largely dependent on what they are notable for... Athletes will often have a ton of information about games when for other people documenting specific days they spent at work would be silly. Kirk is notable for having opinions, especially controversial ones... So the article about him is going to feature those opinions in the same way that an athlete's page might have games or records. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Russian misinformation jibe

Whilst I agree that Charlie Kirk has repeated some very dubious and pretentious claims about the war in Ukraine. Ukraine firing mortars / shelling the Donbas is an OBJECTIVE FACT. Backed up by thousands of news reports, human's rights watch, and the U.N.

What is the point of reverting it, when its clearly misinformation ironically in itself? Brainrot. Although I'm not someone who is politically on the right, what's the point of trying to falsely portray someone?

Sources: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/donbas-we-re-used-to-shelling/ https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2016/07/un-report-2014-16-killings-ukraine-highlights-rampant-impunity https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians Hongkongpenang (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You're citing earlier sources, while the text you are trying to delete is about a later period. The timing of the competing claims makes it perfectly clear that in regard to the post-invasion period Kirk was spreading false claims in this sense as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.crisisgroup.org/content/conflict-ukraines-donbas-visual-explainer

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/18/ukraine-shelling-residential-areas-puts-civilians-risk

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/six-killed-11-wounded-ukrainian-shelling-donetsk-russian-installed-official-2023-11-07/

Oh what's this? 2022- onwards reports and investigations about Ukraine shelling the Donbas, before and during the war. What a fool you are. Hongkongpenang (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Either you haven't actually read those sources, or you have read them and completely failed to understand them. They do not support your claim. Grayfell (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You can't just say "I failed to understand them" when you haven't read them yourself.

What the wikipedia article claim: "Russian misinformation of Ukrainian shelling in a RUSSIAN EXCLAVE in Ukraine."

What my sources, HRW, Reuters, Crisisgroup state: Ukrainian shelling of Russian exclave

"Shelling by Ukrainian forces killed six people in the city of Donetsk on Tuesday" Where is Donetsk? In the Donbas, a self claimed Russian exclave. How about YOU actually state why it doesn't support my claim of how it isn't Russian misinformation.

What a stupid red herring fallacy you just stated. Hongkongpenang (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Charlie had a second child, a boy, last week

On his streaming daily program he announced the birth of a baby boy last week, joining an older 20-month old child. That would make “children = 2” but I am unable to edit the page. 98.97.176.111 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2024

On this section:

Climate change

Kirk has consistently supported the extraction and use of fossil fuels. He is a climate change denialist, falsely claiming that humans have no significant effect on global climate change

I would edit it as such:

Climate change

Kirk has consistently supported the extraction and use of fossil fuels. He is a climate change denialist, claiming that humans have no significant effect on global climate change

Removing the falsely will remove perceived bias. Although The majority of people agree with climate change, I think as a encyclopedia wikipedia should still let the people make up their minds. Kortik425 (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done -- an encyclopedia does not encourage people to contemplate scientifically false ideas. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I would have to weigh in and say that the "falsely" descriptor adds zero value to the sentence and that it is quite clear from the first sentence that Kirk is a climate change denialist. Removing it actually achieves more WP:NPOV phrasing and probably should be carried out. Eruditess (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The "denialist" term doesn't even make sense because basically everyone on Earth is aware the climate changes. What we should be emphasizing though, is if humans significantly contribute to the reason why the climate fluctuates as much as it does. It's one of the many euphemisms along with "student debt forgiveness" and "gender affirming care". 69.157.66.195 (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk, Christian Nationalist?

Can we revisit this as a label for Charlie Kirk? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/charlie-kirk-turning-point-donald-trump-christian-nationalism-rcna156565 Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Subject header titles are not npov

When looking at Kirk's article I do notice that he has a section called "political positions and activities" and when looking at the sub-section topic headers they seem to be quite subjective " Racial issues" , "promotion of falsehoods and conspiracy theories", "2022 Ukraine invasion" & "Views on relationships and sexual anarchy. Where as if you go look at a similar figure, Ben Shapiro, you can see his section on his views (plainly labeled as just "views") is MUCH more neutral. His subsections are simple and neutral with zero slant. One word headers that are self explanatory, example , "Abortion", "Alt-Right", "Race", "Religion" and so on and so on. I would like to change the headers and subsequent sub-headers on Kirk's article to be more in line with like Ben's article. MaximusEditor (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

So: "2022 Ukraine invasion" is a "pov" section heading. Who knew?? I gather you're asking us to consider some alternate point of view, equally legitimate -- that it was a "special military operation", that Ukraine isn't a real country, that it's all just a matter of de-nazification... And then having considered these alternatives, we can go for some sort of "neutral" term that doesn't give any preference to one view over the other -- have I got it right? If you had any idea how idiotic this is, you wouldn't go anywhere near it -- but here we are... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity I'll give you that one, I don't mind the "2022 Ukraine invasion" sub-header, that one is neutral. I do think it could be more neutral, but here we are. However, I do think other than that one, the rest of the sub-headers under the "political positions and activities" are not nearly as neutral as they could be (Including the subject header itself). You believe that these sub-headers are perfect? That there could be no further discussion to try to improve the article to be more neutral? Genuinely curious. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Properties??

"He has three properties, a Spanish-style mansion near Phoenix, with a nearby apartment, and a beachside condo on Florida's gulf coast" under personal life. What does this have to do with anything? Especially the architectural styles. This seems irrelevant and I don't think I've ever seen this in a personal life section before. Joeei101 (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll make a WP:BOLD edit and remove it. I don't think it is relative either, but it is sourced from AP which is WP:GENREL, however it doesn't possess any over all WP:WEIGHT in the media, other than that sole article. (That sole article was syndicated by the LA TIMES). I do not think this information improves the article. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk claim there is no evidence of global warming and scientists don't know the cause."

The scientific community has not come to a consensus on global warming. There are many scientists that have come out in dispute of the extent or even if global warming is wholly or partially caused by humans. stating that its a false claim is disingenuous. Stating they make the claim is more accurate because scientist don't know the cause they are just assuming a cause and then all the research is to prove their assumption. Many in the scientific community have disagreed on this subject. Thus, calling it false claims is incorrect. he is just making claim that have yet to be proven either way. Stormeagle2569 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

OntologicalTree blocked as a sock

See w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax Doug Weller talk 09:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Misspelling

"Promoteting" is in the overview (last paragraph); correct term is "promoting" Elflemel (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Anti conservative bias

This article is very clearly anti conservative. Also in no way is Charlie Kirk antiemetic as was alluded to! 2600:100B:B12F:D6B1:C93A:4A54:31A6:9743 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Definitely not anti-emetic -- I always get that queasy feeling... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed 76.66.171.233 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Tone of the article

The tone of the writing and way it is presented looks highly partisan. It does not have a neutral voice and makes some serious charges without support or explanation. The writing also paints with a very broad brush. Finally, why should an encyclopedia include how many residences he has and how much he is paid? DavGreg (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? The only thing you're really clear about is how many residences he has and how much he is paid... and assets and income are encyclopedic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Its a hit piece. "Falsely this, falsely that, no evidence why the commenter is the arbiter of truth. Why not report Kirk's assertions, without the editorials, and let his words speak for themselves? 76.16.131.53 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2025

Remove the final vague sentence in the summary on what he criticizes. 45.49.236.6 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No reason given for the proposed removal. Day Creature (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk: Conservative or Right Wing?

Is Charlie Kirk best described as a conservative activist or right wing activist? Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Conservative activist is best for describing. Eruditess (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Averaging the descriptions of recent WP:BESTSOURCES is the most neutral approach. Llll5032 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I support describing him as a right-wing populist and conservative activist, combining both. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I have started a conversation on this on the German page of Kirk. I will also re-start this discussion below. There are more and more voices calling him further right than "conservative". Fizzywater90 (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I think he's best described as a worthless little turd.

This article is written with a “coloured” vision.

Too many subjective written arguments instead of objective arguments! Not that I am a fan though of this man, but I wanted to know who he was. I think this wikipedia-page is written by someone who wants others to see him as “wrong” and a “liar”. Not a objective point of view at all! 2001:1C00:2A16:CB00:8D88:69BA:CE1E:1E27 (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Try making a WP:BOLD edit, or if you are not confident or need assistance please detail here on the talk page specific changes you might like to see. Vague commentary of the overall bias is usually not a strong enough push to get positive change going. MaximusEditor (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right. Sad that Wikipedia is giving an opinion on him, not facts. 45.18.28.217 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi can you guys be more specific? Fizzywater90 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2025

tons of misinformation SMYLHR (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Warriorglance(talk to me) 16:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2025

This was written by a delusional liberal. Everything is slanted against Charlie Kirk. Disgusting....you are shameful 140.228.181.44 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

No edit requested. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe the promotion of falsehoods and conspiracy theories page should simply be put under political positions and activities.t under his

This seems much more neutral to me. There is also a very clear anti conservative bias that I believe should be fixed.97.125.225.169 (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Current status of this page is a propoganda in and of itself. 103.185.242.107 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Framing Kirk as "right-winged populist" or "right-wing nationalist"

Dear Wikipedians, I just read Charlie Kirk's article and would like to discuss calling him a “right-wing populist” or “right-wing nationalist” activist instead of the previous “conservative” term in the first sentence. He comes across as a moderate conservative political consultant in the first paragraph, which is not the case, also reading his political opinions stated in the English version of this article. I see that editors @Collegemeltdown2, @Eruditess as well as @Lllll5032 and @JohnAdams1800 have discussed it in 2023, I would like to pull this discussion to 2025, as it's clearer now.

I'm basing this on the following sources, below. For transparency: I have started the same discussion on his German article discussion page.

Opening this up for debate, otherwise I would adapt the article in some days. Best,

- "the right-winged conservative Radiomoderator Charlie Krik" - SZ, 2021 - "Then he [Kirk] launched into his trademark stew of far-right populism, do-or-die patriotism and Christian nationalism." - Guardian, 2024 - "right-wing combative populism" - Politicalresearch.org, 2022 - "Kirk “took a really calculated gamble on the MAGA populism angle,”" - Politico, 2024 - "a racist commentator (Kirk) ... white supremacy" - USA Today, 2024 - "right-winged extremist agitator" - WOZ, 2022 - "far right extremist Troll" - Netzpolitik.org, 2020 - "a right-winged provocateur" - NBC News, 2024 - "whisperer of the American right" - New York Times, 2025 - "flirting with alt-right ideas" (Bezug auf Turning Point, von Kirk geleitet) - Independent UK, 2019 Fizzywater90 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem now is that under President Trump, 'conservative" and "right wing nationalist" have become one and the same in the US. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Are all American conservatives nationalists by default? I thought that American nationalism was the Democratic Party's main ideology. Dimadick (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies so far. Just to clarify: I’m not suggesting that all American conservatives are nationalists. Rather, I’m proposing that in Charlie Kirk’s specific case, terms like “right-wing populist” or “right-wing nationalist” more accurately reflect how reputable sources describe his public persona and political messaging, particularly given his alignment with Trump-era rhetoric, Christian nationalism, and anti-democratic narratives, as cited above.

I agree we should be careful with labels and “conservative” alone feels misleading in the lead when multiple high-quality and global sources characterize him in more specific and more extreme ideological terms. Fizzywater90 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Another issue is the concern that Charlie Kirk and his accolytes could use this newer label as for a case of defamation. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess it depends on who you talk to but conservatism in the US is often (now) synonymous with Christian Nationalism and right wing nationalism. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, the way I see it, framing Kirk as a "populist" or "nationalist" isn't really improving the article from it's current phrasing (Which I believe is the best overall summary of Kirk). From the list of sources (some which are a little dated) you have linked and provided (which was amazing of you to quote/cite and date for us =) so I thank and commend you on) I would say the reliable sources seem to generalize weasel-labels about Kirk. The USA Today piece is an opinion piece. The Netzpolitik piece from 2020 that calls him a "far right extremist troll" said he was a troll for voicing that Twitter was oppressing him (turns out Twiter absolutely did censor/oppress him), we should probably strike that source. Same with any article that says Kirk is alt right. What we have left are articles calling Kirk a "whisperer", "provocateur" & "conservative Radiomoderator" which is covered in the body of the article, and doesn't merit any more attention. Eruditess (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Eruditess, for the thoughtful response and for engaging with the sources so closely. I understand the concern about labels being potentially vague or politicized. However, my point isn't to rely on isolated or sensational terms, but to reflect the consensus among multiple reputable, international sources that increasingly frame Kirk's political positioning as populist, nationalist, and increasingly far-right, especially post-2020. I agree that we should avoid fringe characterizations or opinion-only pieces, but several of the cited examples (Guardian, Politico, SZ, NYT) are amongst the highest-quality sources of news outlets on the internet. These do more than just call him a ‘conservative commentator’, they contextualize his rhetoric within Christian nationalism and anti-democratic tendencies. This distinction feels important for a global encyclopedia. Would it be an acceptable compromise to describe him as a “right-wing political commentator” or “right-wing populist activist” in the lead, while noting in the body that he's also referred to as a conservative figure? That way, we remain neutral but acknowledge the nuance. Fizzywater90 (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not just Kirk who has moved to the right. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Collegemeltdown2 , exactly! True, the political spectrum itself has shifted, which makes clarity in language even more important. If terms like “conservative” in public media now stretch across everything from Reagan-style policy to Christian nationalism, that’s exactly why we should qualify it more specifically in encyclopedic contexts. Otherwise we risk blurring crucial distinctions. I’d be happy to hear further suggestions for a phrasing that balances precision and neutrality, otherwise would go with one of the two above, when there is no strong objection. Fizzywater90 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

First and foremost, I see Kirk as an opportunist, which means he could move in either direction. Please also consider the possibility of anonymous threats, including the threat of lawsuits. Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Do we also call Joy Reid as extreme-leftist? No? Then leave the conservatives alone. i suggest. Wikipedia is beyond biased in its antagonizing of people on the right. 103.185.242.107 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

If there are sources that call her "extreme-leftist" and if you are confident that it makes sense from an encyclopaedic standpoint - please, start a discussion on her article discussion page. Fizzywater90 (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

ProPublica Report on TPUSA's Finances: Kirk's salary from TPUSA had increased from $27,000 to nearly $300,000, and there were concerns about misleading financial claims and self-enrichment within the organization. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-charlie-kirk-and-turning-point-usa-spent-its-millions Altering of Information by Charlie Kirk (Yellow Vest Protest): Kirk falsely claimed that French yellow vest protesters were chanting "We want Trump," a claim debunked by fact-checkers. https://www.afp.com/en/news/1977 False Claims About Human Trafficking: Kirk spread inaccurate statistics about human trafficking arrests, claiming that there had been a significant increase in arrests that was later debunked. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/trump-claims-of-human-trafficking-arrests-not-accurate/ Kirk's Involvement in January 6 Riot: Kirk played a significant role in the "Stop the Steal" movement and promoted the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, leading to scrutiny and a subpoena from the House Select Committee. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/us/charlie-kirk-capitol-riot-investigation.html Yahoo News on TPUSA's Partnership with Registered Sex Offender: TPUSA faced ethical concerns when it was revealed that it had partnered with a registered sex offender, Shawn Bergstrand, who led a company that sponsored a TPUSA event. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/charlie-kirk-tpusa-teamed-registered-130000054.html Charlie Kirk's Opposition to LGBTQ Rights and Gender Affirming Care: Kirk has expressed opposition to transgender rights, including calling for a nationwide ban on trans-affirming care and labeling it part of a broader "LGBTQ agenda." https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-we-must-ban-trans-affirming-care-entire-country

This article looks overcrowded + suggestion

There are 15 arrow down tabs with a decent amount of them only containing a paragraph of information. The article looks really overcrowded with all the tabs, and can be combined or shortened to make it more concise, especially since a lot of the tabs don't even have that much information. Also, I think the part where it says he criticizes the scientific consensus on climate change:

(criticized the COVID-19 response, critical race theory, and the scientific consensus on climate change.)

should have the link changed to this one: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change) since it's more accurate, relevant, and offers additional information on the scientific consensus regarding the topic.

2601:447:C181:EC40:BAE3:A278:BEC3:7F3 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Potential bias

The article is factually well‑sourced, but leans toward a critical portrayal through its choice of emphasis, tone, and organization. For truly neutral coverage, it would ideally reintegrate more balanced context—such as Kirk’s stated goals, broader influence in conservative youth politics, and impact beyond controversies. ParticulateSouthron (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2025

Charlie Kirk was shot in the chest/neck 9/10/25 2601:47:4900:6F10:C4:3153:E138:2C92 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2025 (3)

Charlie Kirk hasn't died. 107.2.43.138 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That has been rolled back Timtjtim (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2025 (3)

Please remove “ COVID-19 misinformation” , as the information shared by Charlie Kirk regarding Covid 19 has since been proven factual. 73.16.81.232 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Proven factual by whom Justcgi (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It has been disproven. 192.58.125.0 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2025

80.3.73.55 (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

By who? Ayml0 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

WAS instead of IS, pronounced dead.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Laura240406 (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2025

80.3.73.55 (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

By who? Ayml0 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

WAS instead of IS, pronounced dead.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Laura240406 (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2025

Haydane r31 (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

DEAAD

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Laura240406 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It dont matter whether u agree with his views or you don't no one deserves to die

If ur actually saying ts ur weird find god please 2601:245:C87F:83B0:541D:A2FF:FE4E:E843 (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

{{ESp|?}} Ayml0 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

not clear what you're trying to say, sorry, my last reply was kinda messed up in the formatting

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ayml0 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

tell that to the people he's dedicated his life to advocating for the murder of 24.117.127.200 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2025 (2)

Death September 10th 2025 155.135.55.233 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Please check the topics already on the talk page before you add yours. This has already been discussed many times, and has been denied every time because Charlie Kirk has not yet been publicly declared dead.2603:6081:67F0:88E0:9D86:EBFE:6F79:EAF3 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

RS continue to say critical condition, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c206zm81z4gt?post=asset%3Af374b5cb-3f59-4824-9bc3-cf5419bf4fde#post Timtjtim (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

RS continue to say critical condition, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c206zm81z4gt?post=asset%3Af374b5cb-3f59-4824-9bc3-cf5419bf4fde#post Timtjtim (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2025

Current citation for his death is broken, BBC confirms it at https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt AlexChillOut (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

nevermind it's fixed now AlexChillOut (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Possible Split?

I know its obviously early, but any chance the shooting from today should have its own article? Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 19:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone created it already. My bad. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 19:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2025

Added the report on the shooting in Utah that resulted in Charlie Kirk getting injured. 182.191.140.219 (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

He’s dead 185.127.127.71 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this officially reported yet? 130.184.252.77 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

say what? you don't need to be no doctor to see that he dead lol 94.208.61.52 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not how wikipedia works. 75.168.119.217 (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Closed, already there. All people are living until someone certifies a death. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2025 (2)

Change date of death to September 10, 2025 2605:8D80:6A0:C8A3:5C3E:608B:E9E7:BB5A (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how he survives this, but we need to wait until the official declaration. Varials (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Nobody has confirmed if he has died or not. Publish the source that says he has died 12.248.181.254 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2025 (2)

2601:246:8000:8210:28AF:28E0:6A1C:C3B0 (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Let’s protect it! Its Lido (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

buddy thinks he can prevent political violence in America with his little actions 2.38.67.4 (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Shooter

A shooter fired from a campus building about 200 yards from Kirk, a spokesperson told CNN. 185.32.66.245 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Get ready for the "was" everyone 2600:4040:49DD:A600:5B0D:2D55:E969:56C1 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Was 110.76.128.190 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Picture of his wife

Should there really be a picture of his wife in the article if she is not notable enough to have an article of her own? Kind of seems strange and unnecessary to me. Aŭstriano (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:BOLD and delete the picture for the reason mentioned above. To be honest, I have never seen pictures of non-notable significant others on any other BLP article. If anyone disagrees, please let me know. Aŭstriano (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Aŭstriano, I am going to add the picture back in just because it seems to have sat there for a long time and I do know that Charlie Kirk often has his wife accompany him on his podcast and I just read/cited a New York Times article saying she was speaking with Charlie at the TPUSA Young Womens leadership Summit. I understand the notability logic but I do think that there is a relevancy there that most interested readers would appreciate. Perhaps people who listened to the podcast and heard her can put a face to a voice. Let me know your thoughts. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@MaximusEditor I wasn't aware that she was involved in Kirk's podcast, that seems fair enough then. Thanks for letting me know. Aŭstriano (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Oops, I just got rid of it for the same reason as user:Aŭstriano, but feel free to revert. ShreyasMinocha (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Section titles

Is there a better way we can do these section titles to make them more coherent. It just doesnt look very good the way it is in an article. Im not as familiar with the subject matter. I came to see if the shooting was added. Metallurgist (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The shooting was added, but his sidebar data says he died. As far as I can tell, this hasn't been confirmed anywhere and is definitely uncited. 2600:1700:8720:5000:31F6:464D:7858:4F78 (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

My son was there, he was declared dead on scene. Exact time was 2:47pm Eastern Time. 2601:98D:C480:8F2A:0:0:0:F7 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work that way, it has to be reported credibly Nelsonblaha (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Come back to this statement in 4 or 5 hours and apologize. My son said his eye was hanging out of the side of his face. He was shot through the neck. The video is online. He fell out of his chair and bled for about 30 seconds before security even picked him up. 2601:98D:C480:8F2A:0:0:0:F7 (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

that is still not how Wikipedia works Bucketshopper (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/live/utah-valley-university-charlie-kirk-shooting-updates OfficialTornadoAlley (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that death metal music video imagery, but Wikipedia requires that information be sourced from publications. SerialDesignationV (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

He died, It's confirmed Axiom IV (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Has a suspect been arrested so soon?

If there are conflicting reports of a man in custody (or not), it's pointless to keep adding and deleting them. The main shooting article is the place for minute-by-minute updates — or better yet, just say Preliminary reports about a suspect in custody haven't been confirmed as of yet. Uncle Ed (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

BBC did go back and fourth but they are now saying campus police have detained someone. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c206zm81z4gt?post=asset%3A6c7fd2db-4b63-473e-8aca-b1adef064f34#post Timtjtim (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

im 99% certain he's dead

he got shot in almost dead centre in the neck and instantly went unconscious with his arms stiff with a gush of blood rushing out. theres no way even with immediate treatment is he alive Rembatioucam (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Let us know when a RS is saying he is dead! Timtjtim (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

We still need confirmation though Justcgi (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

actually yeah you're right but it just seems like he was gone from the beginning Rembatioucam (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Correct; the shooting video shows immediate decorticate positioning (look that up) which indicates catastrophic damage to the brainstem. It's likely that, even if exsanguination didn't occur, Kirk's brain was effectively pulped by the hydrostatic forces of the impact. 217.70.18.254 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Do we have any sources for that video? Who published it? Any links? Ayml0 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

i never realized that, i was more focused on the arms stiffing. thanks for adding more context! Rembatioucam (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, we need to wait for a reliable source to confirm Kirk's death, which I have yet to see. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

RS continue to say critical condition, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c206zm81z4gt?post=asset%3Af374b5cb-3f59-4824-9bc3-cf5419bf4fde#post Timtjtim (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt

confirmed dead Wkjekf (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Using "was" instead of "is"

Due to the ongoing incident where he has been shot, this article is already using "was", which implies death. Surely this in inappropriate, until death has been confirmed? We do not, at this stage, know if this young man has died, only that he has been shot. And if there is confirmation of his death, proper sources need to be provided.

Otherwise, is it not more appropriate to use "is", at least until (unless) confirmation of his death?

Note: This talk edit was made during a time when it is uncertain of the outcome of the shooting of Charlie Kirk. 81.170.103.198 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Bro look at the video lol.... there's no way anyone survives that. You don't need expert opinion or confirmation here lol. 94.208.61.52 (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable media sources reporting on something before we can state it in our articles. While based on the footage available, he is almost certainly deceased, we cannot report that until it's reported by media sources. McRandy1958 (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

As of the moment I am posting this, he has been confirmed dead by Utah speaker Mike Schultz. We should be safe to say was now. Edward hahm (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt

confirmed dead Wkjekf (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Dead?

The media reported that he was dead. 185.32.66.245 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable media source reporting he is dead. McRandy1958 (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The AP is saying that he is in critical condition, as of now. https://apnews.com/live/utah-valley-university-charlie-kirk-shooting-updates#00000199-3529-d748-a9bb-f53dd70c0000 Ayml0 (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

critical condition is not dead Wkjekf (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

of course, but it's probably important to include that, to note how serious this attempt is Ayml0 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There's not a single media source reporting that he's dead. 2600:1700:C1A4:1190:AD6A:D216:FB51:DDB3 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

https://bnonews.com/index.php/2025/09/charlie-kirk-in-critical-condition-after-being-shot-at-utah-university-event/ Nelsonblaha (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt Wkjekf (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)