Talk:Charlie Kirk/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Charlie Kirk Was Far-Right.

The following discussion 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.

---

Argument: Charlie Kirk didn't have simple right-wing views as a conservative, with the standards being pro-life, Christian nationalism, and pro-capital. He was far-right.

Anti-Black & Anti Civil Rights: He openly spoke out against Black Lives Matter and the African American community, framing BLM as a terrorist organization and openly stating that BLM stood for "burn, loot, and murder." How has Charlie Kirk responded to Black Lives Matter p... "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s." Charlie Kirk once said passing the Civil Rights Act was a 'huge mistake' | Snopes.com He also believed that Black Americans were better off under Jim Crow laws then they are today. Here Are 14 Real Charlie Kirk Quotes That Show His Beliefs | HuffPost Latest News He openly criticized MLK, saying he was "awful" and "not a good person", and made lies about George Floyd's cause of death, stating that he died of a drug overdose and called for the release of Derek Chauvin. Charlie Kirk Did Not Like Black People. He Called MLK “Awful” and George Floyd a “Scumbag”

Radical Islamophobe: Kirk openly spoke out against Islam, where on X (formally Twitter), he wrote “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America... it’s not Islamophobia to notice that Muslims want to import values into the West that seek to destabilize our civilization.” What has Charlie Kirk publicly said about Muslims and He also made a joke about the ongoing genocide against Gaza and supported Israel's actions, where he referred to the Palestinians as "Stupid Muslims." What was the context of Charlie Kirk's 'Stupid Muslim'...

White Genocide Conspiracy Theorist: Kirk harbored and promoted the idea that there is a deliberate plot to exterminate white people through mass-immigration, forced assimilation, and genocide. This belief is often upheld by far-right Americans and white nationalists. Charlie Kirk hosts white nationalist-approved “Students for Ye” organizer to complain about “white genocidal rhetoric” | Media Matters for America

Anti-LGBTQ: Like many far-rightists, he was openly opposed to the LGBTQ+ community, labeling queer people as a “throbbing middle finger to God” and referencing a Bible verse stating, “Thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death.” What were Charlie Kirk's exact words on LGBTQ+ issues? Yehoshua667 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

What in the article are you suggesting be changed? This reads like a tirade. Czarking0 (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

See wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

We already had a discussion something like this before. (see:Talk:Charlie Kirk/Archive 6 ‘Description as "right-wing" in lead paragraph’) An abundance of sources refer to him as ‘Conservative’ or ‘Right wing’, rather than ‘Far Right’ or anything linking to Right extremism. Thus, we are keeping it the same.

(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpd9x78qvv5o, https://variety.com/2025/politics/news/charlie-kirk-dead-shot-1236514498/, https://unewsonline.com/2025/09/selective-empathy-in-the-wake-of-charlie-kirks-death/,https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/how-watch-charlie-kirk-memorial-service/story?id=125735217, https://www.betterworldbooks.com/author/charlie-kirk/2425910?srsltid=AfmBOopHwSyMmDBZ1Xnwa9i465zYbToapeIk6p9MCdMu0KVRe4N63XXw, https://www.newyorker.com/newsletter/the-daily/what-charlie-kirk-meant-to-conservatives, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/11/how-charlie-kirk-and-turning-point-usa-helped-trump-and-maga-win, https://www.axios.com/2025/09/15/charlie-kirks-death-celebration-consquences, https://www.mcgop.com/in_memory_of_charlie_kirk, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2025/09/29/kirk-hero-civil-discourse-or-fount-division, etc) GuyMan529 (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This looks an awfully lot like you asked Factually to create an argument that Kirk was far right, and then you copy and pasted its LLM response. The “formally” typo where you meant to say “formerly” is I guess evidence against LLM, but the format of your response appears to match the format of Factually.

If you did use LLM for this, please either don’t do that in the future, or please disclose what software product you used and what your prompt to it was and any edits to the LLM text that you may have made. Mikewem (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

AI concerns aside, none of the links you supplied include the word “far” Mikewem (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Odd how they have a typo in the visual text, but the link is typo-free. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2026 (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.

We are charlie kirk

Could we embed the song in the aricle because it is a pretty important and notable song in its own right but would also be really useful for people reading the article. ~2025-42564-17 (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

the song

We Are Charlie Kirk

---

Problems playing this file? See media help.

~2025-42564-17 (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Added to Charlie Kirk#Aftermath. guninvalid (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks like I misunderstood your request. Nevermind. At this moment I'm definitely too tired to be editing Wikipedia so I'll let someone else deal with this. guninvalid (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I see that we have a page on the song: We Are Charlie Kirk. I'm not sure what I think about notability, but that page seems to me to be the appropriate place for the sound file. Adding it to every page about Kirk or his assassination strikes me as spammy. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Disagree It’s simply AI slop, and I’ll go as far as to say that this song doesn’t even need an article. GuyMan529 (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk was Christian, not a Christian Nationalist

Charlie Kirk was a Christian. First and foremost. Period. He stilled believed in freedom of religion but opposed Christian rights being ignored while politics favors other religions. He opposed allowing other religions in schools while government disallows Christianity based on separation of church and state. People need to watch his full videos. Feebs369 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this information. His videos are considered WP:PRIMARY sources about himself and are not considered reliable as such. guninvalid (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Seperation of sentences

The sentence, "He was briefly banned from Twitter after falsely claiming that hydroxychloroquine had proved to be "100% effective in treating the virus"; he alleged that Gretchen Whitmer, the Democratic governor of Michigan, threatened doctors who tried to use the medication." within the COVID-19 section, should be split up into two sentences. They aren't related to each other and should be separate.

It should be: "He was briefly banned from Twitter after falsely claiming that hydroxychloroquine had proved to be "100% effective in treating the virus." He alleged that Gretchen Whitmer, the Democratic governor of Michigan, threatened doctors who tried to use the medication." OreosTrulyFlow (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2026

Add following section to "Legacy and recognition"

Kirkification

In the months following Kirk's assassination, it became common to use deepfake software to edit his face into already popular online memes, commonly pictures of streamer IShowSpeed. His name has also been amalgamated with slang terms, words such as "lowkey" or "lowkenuinely" may now be replaced with "lowkirk" or "lowkirkenuinely". ~2026-59260-0 (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for different reasons. Kirkification best lives as a separate article, in my opinion. If you'd like to start that draft, I'd be happy to review it through the WP: Articles for Creation process. guninvalid (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Since Kirkification and the "We are Charlie Kirk" song now have their own section, I think it is now a relevant addition. Pr0m37h3u$ 16:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pr0m37h3u$: there’s at least 5 troubling issues with the edit you did.

If you ever come across another edit request that has 2 replies of “not done”, in general, that is usually a good signal that you should not do the request. Mikewem (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2026

Mispellings EzSwag$n1p3r (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done No changes provided. guninvalid (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The Truth Regarding Charlie Kirk

Although Charlie Kirk is worthy of a Weki page, it's been sugarcoated and whitewashed. He should be defined by who he was-"A radical right wing hate-speech monger" It detracts from the validity of Wikipedia. In the end, history and historians will not be kind to Charlie Kirk. There's not one speech he's made that was conducive for mankind, society or this Nation as a whole. People will review Kirk's page and ask what's up with Wikipedia. The Content comes across as being written by bias supporters and tolerated by cowardice critics muffling the truth. ~2026-13640-20 (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this information. guninvalid (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not Reddit. ~2026-21452-79 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

"Conservative" is more appropriate than "Right Wing"

The first sentence uses the term "Right Wing." The article on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez takes nine sentences to call her "Left Wing." This is an NPOV violation. Articles must be consistent in structure between left and right wing, liberal and conservative, etc. This is an NPOV violation and those editors responsible for these NPOV violations need to be blocked from editing. Meh130 (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I would add, with this egregious NPOV violation, editing is blocked. So no one can correct this egregious NPOV violation. This is even more egregious. Meh130 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If it's wrong here, it can be wrong there too. Kirk's right-wing stance is extremely well documented, and he was a right-wing activist first. guninvalid (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk is described as conservative far more than he is described as "right wing". Right Wing can be a dangerous term that is especially sensitive in the wake of a high profile political assassination like this one caused by hateful rhetoric towards the individual. Please change it, there is no reason to keep it as "right-wing" over "conservative". JoshiKuri (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a section in an "essay about the deletion policy", you can care about it but I do not and do care slightly about the point Meh130 made. The more important one, though, is citing sources -- which doesn't happen in the lead sentence so I look at where the term occurs in the text. I see a cited source for "... Kirk often propounded right-wing populist and nationalist views ...", the cite is a mistake but the archived source, BBC's article ""Charlie Kirk, the conservative influencer who became the voice of Maga youth" exists, and it indeed says "conservative" less often than "right-wing" (we can ignore WP:HEADLINES) but WP:LEADSENTENCE in my opinion requires something unequivocal. I see two cited sources for "... co-founded the Falkirk Center for Faith and Liberty, a right-wing think tank ..." but the first source says both "conservative" and "right-wing" and the second is "Conservative Activist Charlie Kirk Leaves Liberty University Think Tank", which does not say Mr Kirk was right-wing. WP:V says "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." I believe inline citations are possible, but if nobody bothers to find them, the responsibility isn't Meh130's or JoshiKuri's. I suspect that similar arguments could be made against "conservative" though. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Did something happen to the cite that wasn’t intended? The archive link points to an article published before his death from Barrett media that doesn’t mention anything about the prose in the sentence it’s attached to.

<ref name=BBCNews9.21.25>{{cite news |last=Evans |first=Gareth |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxqnkwerj7o |title=Charlie Kirk, the conservative influencer who became the voice of Maga youth |work=[[BBC News]] |date=September 21, 2025 |access-date=October 10, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251230123524/https://barrettmedia.com/2025/02/05/charlie-kirk-inks-deal-with-tbn-for-nightly-tv-show/ |archive-date=December 30, 2025}}</ref>

This raises 2 questions: can we repair the cite, and what was the Barrett thing supposed to be for? Mikewem (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

As for the central point of this thread, I don’t understand the claim that right-wing is definitely a naughty word but conservative is definitely not (please correct me if I’m misstating the central claim of this request). I suppose I would look at an RS that supports this claim in general (if one exists), but even then I’m not sure it would move the needle, because I doubt that hypothetical RS would mention Kirk specifically in its analysis and there are already a sufficient amount of RSs that use the term right-wing to describe him. Mikewem (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, in my view, AOC was not quite an obvious counterpart to pick for this example. AOC is not a podcaster, she is a representative. Kirk was a podcaster, he never held or sought elected office. If I was going to brainstorm an example of who a popular left wing podcaster might be, I might think of Hasan Piker. The first sentence of his article says he’s a left-wing commentator. Mikewem (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Re "a sufficient amount of RSs that use the term right-wing to describe him" -- I found only one in the article text, and claimed that, since the source also says "conservative" nearly as often, it's not unequivocal and not sufficient for the lead sentence, which I believe is the topic since Meh130's first sentence starts with the words "The first sentence ...". So I also disagree that something about a naughty word is "the central point of this thread". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Re "This raises 2 questions" -- yes, as I said, the cite was a mistake but the archived (BBC) source is right there in the footnote too, so yes it can be repaired, though I don't intend to. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• The relevant essay for articles is WP:OTHERCONTENT, which I think applies here. I personally feel it's a bit pointless to complain when people accidentially cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when they mean OTHERCONTENT - the essay say basically the same thing and have the same grounding in policy - but it is what it is. The point is that since different articles have different sources, and different subjects are covered differently by their sources, pointing to another article is not a convincing policy-based argument unless you can accompany it with substantive evidence that the two subjects are treated similarly in the sources and an intuitive parallel between them therefore makes sense, which isn't the case here. --Aquillion (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Does the source or does it not say he " propounded right-wing populist and nationalist views"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

We also have sources for far-right, so why not call him that? Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

That appears in the article though not in the first sentence: "Kirk's positions have been described as far-right by a variety of outlets and academics,[69][70][71] ... citing a bunch of sources though of course some also say conservative and some don't say far right or extreme right. The word "conservative" also appears in the article though not in the first sentence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is the point, as does Christian right. What we have are many descriptors, all of which are covered by "right wing", not all of which are covered by "Conservative". Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree the term belongs in the first sentence but I've failed to convince anyone. I'll say no more in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Whoah there, Peter Gulutzan I'm looking at the timestamps and you started discussing this thread on 3/16 and your last response on 3/16 you said, "I've failed to convince anyone. I'll say no more in this thread.", give yourself some credit, I think you have a valid point/argument I wouldn't resign because nobody responded within looks to be around 7 hours. You've made compelling points and I would say I agree with your arguments. Also consensus can change. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

(Although I'm posting this right after Peter G.'s comment, I don't mean it as directed at it.) These complaints that we should change it to "conservative" are becoming so repetitive on this talk page, that I'm starting to think that we should just revert them on sight unless something substantive like new sourcing is raised. It's quite clear that the issue has been discussed to death, and there's a settled consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Support Mikewem (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Though for balance, I would extend it in the other direction too. At this point, I would put the push to say far-right in the first sentence (or radical right-wing, as was suggested one thread up) in the same bucket of things that have been discussed to death and are settled. Mikewem (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2026

Change "right-wing activist" to "conservative activist". He is more frequently described as conservative and it aligns more with his views. JoshiKuri (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done There is consensus to maintain the current wording, as discussed in Talk:Charlie_Kirk/Archive_4#Stable_consensus_version_prior_to_death. If you would like to change this consensus, you may do so by opening a full discussion. guninvalid (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

No sources

Kirk advocated for a range of conservative positions, including opposition to abortion, gun control, DEI programs, and LGBTQ rights. Over time, he aligned with the Christian right and advocated for Christian nationalism. His more controversial positions included criticism of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Martin Luther King Jr., as well as promotion of COVID-19 misinformation, false allegations of electoral fraud in 2020, and the white genocide conspiracy theory.

None of the statements in this segment of the article have any sources. While I do not disagree with the qualifications, it might be best to add a non-bias source, just so we don't have statements without source in our wiki. S8nder (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

That is part of the "lead" which reflects the body of the article. See WP:LEADCITE EvergreenFir (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Alleging that Charlie Kirk was going to run for President

Charlie Kirk saw himself as a campaign backer and political activist, but not as a contender for President. https://youtube.com/shorts/YbzRlcZfZDc

~2026-18413-33 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2026

Kirk himself denied he was a Christian Nationalist. He said specifically he was a Christian and he was separately a Nationalist. He even defined what he meant by Nationalist. Change this. It is a lie as written. ~2026-19688-75 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Skitash (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

A writer for National Review, pointing to a youtube video, quotes him as saying "I’ve never described myself as a Christian nationalist. I’m a Christian, and I’m a nationalist.” Is that what you're referring to, and is that all? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2026

Please change the link to Charles Kirk (disambiguation) at the top of the page to Charles Kirk in order to avoid a double-redirect. TheVectoriser 14:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

My edit was undone by a bot. Turns out it's not a double redirect, it's just a regular redirect, which is not a problem. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Thanks anyways. TheVectoriser 20:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Slander

WP:DENY

This is slander, not an objective take on a Charlie Kirk. They are clearly trying to tell people what they think Charlie Kirks objectives and political stances were and scare people off from hearing it in his own words. ~2026-23806-70 (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases content on published reliable sources, and not the random opinions of contributors. Feel free to start a blog somewhere if you want to do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Reliable to the extreme left view. Certainly not neutral, objective sources. ~2026-24062-14 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Slander is a crime, as wikioeidam has not even been taken to court, it's not slander. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That is because no one takes Wikipedia seriously. If you use or quote it as a source it is usually automatically discredited. ~2026-24062-14 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

If no one takes Wikipedia seriously, why do you care what it says? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Personally I don't but unfortunately some uninformed people believe the propaganda. ~2026-24062-14 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Given your evident inability to understand the difference between 'no one' and 'some uninformed people', I see no reason to consider your comments worthy of further response. You have offered nothing substantive in the way of actual proposals regarding content for this article, and since that is the sole purpose of this talk page, I think we can consider this conversation closed, per WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

George Floyd

Floyd was convicted of robbing a woman at gun point. This wasn’t debunked. ~2026-20037-18 (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The source says Kirk repeated debunked falsehoods that Floyd died because of a fentanyl overdose, that he was “illegally counterfeiting currency,” and that he once “put a gun to a pregnant woman’s stomach.” – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Right, the wording in factcheck.org is "placed a pistol against the complainant’s abdomen". The court records don't say "pregnant". However, the Wikipedia article, by saying "debunked", is assuming she was not pregnant and is making it appear that the whole statement is proven false. By the way I've read as well a claim that Mr Kirk's actual words at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTF19XtS1TQ were "... illegally counterfeiting [currency], like trading counterfeit currencies ..." -- not the words in direct quotes in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

More about the allegedly counterfeit bill at New York Times. I hadn't realized that under US law "counterfeiting" doesn't just mean creating counterfeit currency, it also means using counterfeit currency. Therefore this too has not been debunked. So I propose removing this sentence from the article: Kirk promoted debunked claims about George Floyd, such as that he was "illegally counterfeiting currency" and had once "put a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

So does it say Floyd was guilty of counterfeiting? Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No. What matters is that there was a report that he did, which was not "debunked", which is what the sentence says. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No, what matters is we have a source saying it was debunked and another not contesting that claim. They need to say it has not been debunked. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, you can choose to believe that if Minnesota Reformer says it then Wikipedia must wikivoice it, I don't. Let's see now who agrees with you or with me. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the sources. MR links to politifact, which links to snopes.

It seems to me that if there’s something we’re getting wrong in this section, it’s that we don’t mention whose falsehoods Kirk was repeating. In this case, it looks like reliable sources say it started with Candace. In my view, that detail would be due to include. Mikewem (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The politifact source does not talk about counterfeiting. The Snopes source says "someone inside a South Minneapolis convenience store called police to report that a man had used a $20 counterfeit bill to buy cigarettes" -- not that it was debunked. The New York Times source says "... Christopher Martin, the teenage clerk who accepted the $20 bill from Mr. Floyd, testified on the third day of the trial that he quickly recognized it as fake because it had an unusual blue pigmentation ... Nearly a year after Mr. Floyd’s death, it remains unclear where the bill came from and whether Mr. Floyd committed the crime that brought police officers to the scene." Not that it was debunked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Your view of this seems to be firmly set.

I might recommend reading and considering WP:RGW. Even if that essay doesn’t apply at all to your editing, it might be useful to consider how your editing has led others to wonder if that essay might apply to your editing.

Just as a point of trivia: Minnesota law does not define the act of counterfeiting currency as being equivalent to the act of using counterfeit currency. Mikewem (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

You can make personal remarks about me rather than about the subject on my talk page, where I will ignore them. I'll count you as a second person who wants to keep the sentence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2026 (2)

Change Erika Frantzve to Erika Kirk in the infobox per WP:COMMONNAME QuantumNihilist (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done, although I split the difference: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2026

Add the following to Charlie Kirk#Legacy and Recognition

The city of Westminster, California partially renamed a street to Charlie Kirk Way.

JeremyNguyenGCI (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: As the information for the file on Commons is incomplete (lacking author and source information), so it's not clear whether it's copyright free. Day Creature (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like Flickypedia didn't update the structured data. It's updated now JeremyNguyenGCI (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

References

 Done Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

WE should do a "This article is part of a series about Charlie Kirk"

we should do a category about charlie kirk with 3 categories: Personal - Organizations - Assassination - Legacy ~2026-78567-5 (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Or we should do a lot less and keep everything to one article, or two at the most (the person and the assassination). Jeppiz (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, we do not need a Kirkapedia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Calling Charlie a Christian nationalist

what BS. Charlie spoke against Christian nationalism on multiple occasions. ~2026-22146-93 (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Source: He made it up ~2026-20260-03 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Who made what up? Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

What denomination is that, like Presbyterian? ~2026-28423-11 (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Changing the infobox image

I oppose changing the infobox image of Kirk to a more recent image. The name of the file I am opposing is, Charlie Kirk (54507148290) (cropped).jpg ReelCosmix (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

It's more recent ReelCosmix (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

By a significant amount? Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Kind of, it's more recent by a year ReelCosmix (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

So any significant changes in appearance? Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Eh? Hair is longer, lighting, and camera/face angle makes Kirk look slightly different. ReelCosmix (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

So longer hair, and other than that no change in appearance. Seeing no reason to change, just not seeing a reason not to either. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

If the subject is deceased, then it is preferable to not use a recent image, but rather, a recognisable and an image during their prime. KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 16:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

So, like, the most known/representable image? ReelCosmix (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes. KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 16:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done I know I’ve already advised this user to discuss on the talk page, but I believe it is obvious that we are definitely not swapping the image to the suggested image, as Kirk has used the currently used image as his main picture, as well as many other reasons. Look in here (replaced link) KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 16:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

In the future, you can just cite the rfc thread ‘RfC on main image’ also in Archive 6. Essentially, the main photo can only be changed with a new rfc.

direct link to thread: Talk:Charlie Kirk/Archive 6#RfC on main image Mikewem (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! KagedCroc1 ⭐️ 18:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk series

Hi, I saw that the "Template:Charlie Kirk series" was removed? May I get an explanation as to why it was removed? ReelCosmix (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Where does it link to? Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If you mean the template itself? It links back to a template series page

If you are talking about all the pages it's on?

• AmericaFest
• Assassination of Charlie Kirk
• Charlie Kirk
• Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act
• Memorial service of Charlie Kirk
• Reprisals against commentators on the Charlie Kirk assassination
• Turning Point Action
• Turning Point UK
• Turning Point USA
• We Are Charlie Kirk

ReelCosmix (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Why do we need this template? Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Because it links back to Kirk's page and his other pages. And also he has a good amount of pages about him now. ReelCosmix (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Which isn't that usual what are series templates are for? ReelCosmix (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but why do we need to link to them as a series, rather than in-text in the articles? We seem to have had no issues before you created this template. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

They are linked because they all cannot fit into one article, this page is already quite big. Plus, is that not like the whole point of a series template? ReelCosmix (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I've been seeing some edit warring over this, and the better way to express that is through WP:TFD, but as long as the template exists, it seems reasonable to include it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems like the majority of the links in the template just link back to Kirk's page. I think the template at the bottom of the page suffices, a series template isn't necessary NP (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

"Charliekirk" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Charliekirk has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 19 § Alanturing until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Trimming some redunant/undue content to help address the WP:SIZE/WP:TRUMPCRUFT issues

I see the Kirk article is falling into the ">9,000 words (hovering around 11,000 by my calculations)- Probably should be divided or trimmed" state per the WP:SIZE policy. Also in unison with the Size issue, Charlie's article is definitely falling into a WP:CRUFT/more specifically a WP:TRUMPCRUFT situation- "not every single thing Donald Trump (or, for that matter, anyone) says or does deserves an article, a subsection, a short paragraph, or otherwise. We have to trim out a bit of cruft (as well as WP:UNDUE content) to get the article in a better size situation.

There are entire sections like the "Political positions and activities" section that are riddled with UNDUE, unprecedented and poorly sourced content (AKA the "Race" subsection) where we have information on every single viewpoint Kirk expressed about every single race, that absolutely will not pass the 10-year test. A lot of content added in this article seems to be editorial sensationalism. **This is not an attempt to remove legitimate content (Some of the "race" sub-section as well as some parts of the over-arcing "Political positions and activities" section is longstanding and well sourced/warranted), I have no issue with well sourced, WP:DUE material.

I also am seeing some redundant material that is already split out on more specific, dedicated articles like this edit (the full final dialogue exchange between Kirk and Hunter Kozak) being added in (while in good faith) this edit is already covered in a better suited article (The assassination of Charlie Kirk article). This should be as it was before (trimmed down), a brief mention (couple of sentences). This account of the final exchange should just be outlined in a few sentences on this article, I think that anybody wanting more information would be looking for it on the dedicated article. That is why this is just one great example of a way we can trim out unnecessary content (not to mention the entire point of the WP:SIZESPLIT policy).

Any editors that can help me find and trim out the CRUFT/UNDUE & redundant material already covered in more specific articles throughout the entirety of Kirk's article would be much appreciated as I will be making some lengthy bold trim edits myself soon. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I agree. Most of this article is pointless and trivial. A racist, far-right podcaster was shot by another far-right lunatic. In 10 years, nobody will know his name. MasterScholar260 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but please don't make comments like this on the talk page NP (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend you not give unsolicited advice. MasterScholar260 (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies even on talk pages, not to mention WP:FORUM. This isn't 'unsolicited advice' - it's the rules you must follow. Especially when telling untruths about the political leanings of Charlie Kirk's killer, who is still alive. — Czello ^(music) 07:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I never once told an untruth. Do not cast aspersions by calling other editors liars. Especially ones who are as knowledgeable on the topic as myself. MasterScholar260 (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Your statements about Robinson's political views are untrue. Again, BLP applies to talk pages, too. — Czello ^(music) 14:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, no they are not. Now please try and focus instead of arguing like this is reddit. MasterScholar260 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

They are, and is a common talking point from those who would like it to be true (ironically, a popular one on Reddit). You are free to believe whatever you like, but you must be mindful of BLP policies. This isn't arguing like Reddit - indeed, WP:FORUM is what I've had to remind you of - reiterating our policies is appropriate when people aren't following them (and the fact this also applies to another talk page you're active on demonstrates that). — Czello ^(music) 15:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to stop. I'm not going to entertain far-right conspiracy theories and I'm advising that you drop the stick. MasterScholar260 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It is very silly to suggest it is a far-right conspiracy theory to state that we cannot call him far-right. Even our article on the topic doesn't call him far-right. But, ultimately, all that matters is that you follow talk page guidelines. — Czello ^(music) 15:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I am telling you, once again, to put down the stick and refocus on the article. This is not a forum. MasterScholar260 (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not the one making forum violations; we've been through this so I suggest you re-read that policy. But we can agree to leave it there provided you follow said policies. — Czello ^(music) 15:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to stop beating the horse at any time. MasterScholar260 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It takes two to bludgeon, it might be a good idea if you both stop. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. MasterScholar260 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. — Czello ^(music) 16:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Good. MasterScholar260 (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

And, trying to have the last word, is, not a good look, and that is the most AGF way I could put that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• If we do mention any part of the exchange, I feel we have to make it unambiguous that Kirk's position was unambiguously false; it's well-sourced and leaving it in risks a WP:PROFRINGE violation. We could omit any mention of his position there, perhaps (although I think a brief mention like this is fine), but we can't include it without stating that it's false when the sourcing is so clear-cut. --Aquillion (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Aquillion I was going to add a summary of the statistical findings to the end of the previous sentence, but you beat me to the punch. The previous final sentence is “Kirk also actively promoted misinformation about violence by transgender people.” Its source says Kirk railed against transgender rights in life, and just prior to being shot on a Utah college campus last week was answering a question about the alleged prevalence of transgender people among the nation’s mass shooters — an idea he had personally stoked, despite pushback from statistical researchers. where the words “statistical researchers” are a hyperlink to the Sept 9 article.

  I think changing the previous final sentence to something in the realm of “Kirk also actively promoted misinformation about violence by transgender people, despite pushback from statistical researchers” could be cleaner and more to the point. If you think it’s better at the end of the dialogue, then that’s fine too. Mikewem (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  I do support removing the exchange entirely, I think the previous paragraph does enough to illustrate the political position/activity.

  While any of the exchange is presented, I would generally object to the removal of Kozak’s “five is a lot”.

  Though I would support summarizing the exchange in one sentence in a way that aligns to and reflects the source you just added:

  “Moments before he was fatally shot, Kirk said “too many” when an audience member asked him if he knew “how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years.” Mikewem (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Diff of shortened version by me Mikewem (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  So far on the issue of the final exchange between Kirk and Kozak we have the following editors boiling down their ultimate bottom line stance by saying;

  Aquillion- "leaving it in risks a WP:PROFRINGE violation. We could omit any mention of his position there, perhaps";

  Mikewem- "I do support removing the exchange entirely"

  I agree with both your points, seems this is leaning towards removing the exchange entirely over inclusion, how do you both feel about that? It is covered in the details it deserves over on the "The assassination of Charlie Kirk" article (entire removal also satisfies my original post issues about redundant WP:SPLIT out material bloating this article past its WP:SIZE parameters) and I didn't consider the WP:PROFRINGE violation but that is a good point, leaving it it does violate that policy. This is a great start towards getting this article in a better spot. MaximusEditor (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  At this point, I would say the only way to know if there is any current opposition to removal out there is to remove it and see what happens. Bearing in mind that if there is current opposition, then I will strongly support keeping it, with an offer to go with my shortened version. But for now, I would suggest deleting the whole exchange and pasting the ‘statistical researchers evidence’ sentence at the end of the previous paragraph. Mikewem (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  I support removing the exchange entirely. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Section "Political positions and activities" needs revision

WP:NOTAFORUM The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The section Political positions and activities begins with a paragraph all about how Charlie Kirk was described by others.

This is NOT how a description of someone's "political positions and activities" should begin.

There is no reason to start this section off with people's opinions about this person, when Charlie Kirk was well known to describe his own political positions. That is by far more relevant than others' reactions to him.

Here is how it should begin: Quote or accurately paraphrase how Charlie Kirk described his own political views.

Then maybe state his political activities. Then maybe at the end — or better, in a separate section — describe the reactions of others to Charlie Kirk. ~2026-28336-51 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. Mikewem (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

"Charles Kirk" should redirect to this page

fr ~2026-31213-80 (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

No, we redirect to a disambig as it should. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2026

We should put the Charlie kirk template shown in the article of his assassination into here aswell ~2026-27306-58 (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Toast1454_TC 17:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

agreed Greencheckconure (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Broken links

there are some plenty broken links within this page ~2026-32819-04 (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

please provide and can go in and fix Greencheckconure (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2026

I would prefer the section of this text in which it states (I’m paraphrasing) “he was in opposition to… LGBTQ Rights” and I would prefer it to be changed to “the LGBTQ Movement” ~2026-35405-44 (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems to be what RS say, that he opposed LGBTQ Rights. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk was infact not right wing

Charlie Kirk was infact not right wing by any means and in many occasions argued against right wingers in the crowd. Charlie Kirk was centre right with strong conservative and patriotic views. ~2026-36932-64 (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Already discussed at great length in talk page archives. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Murder cats

Hi Tryptofish, the article lists Robinson as the only suspect. In my view, the inclusion of these murder cats in this article leads the reader to reasonably conclude that Robinson murdered Kirk and must therefore be guilty of murder. In every article I’ve encountered, consensus has consistently been that we do not use the word “murder” anywhere in an article when there is a lone suspect who has not been convicted.

I’m not opposed to double checking that standing consensus at any time for any case. Do you see this as rising to the level of needing an rfc? Mikewem (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the categories the same way as article text in this regard. The page about his assassination says "assassination" right in the title, and it's splitting hairs to say that an assassination is not a murder. No, I don't see the need for an RfC, because this strikes me as trivial. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been reverted, and I accept that as the consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I’m extremely sympathetic to the argument that assassination/murder is a distinction without a difference.

Though, for an example of a political assassin who was found not guilty of murder (and is therefore not a “murderer”): John Hinckley Jr. Mikewem (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan was (at that time) still alive, wasn't he? I mean, definition of murder, according to Mariam-Webster, is this: "to kill (a person) unlawfully and unjustifiably with premeditated malice". He was not "killed"; he was injured and recovered later. At the same time, we can say (technically) that Lee Harvey Oswald was a murderer. Morris (talk with this worm) 02:25, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

James Brady died of his injuries. Hinckley was found not guilty of attempted murder. I’m no expert, but I imagine the legal system has procedures for what happens when some is found guilty of intent to kill, and then the victim later dies of their injuries. I would think it’s fair to label that person a murderer. But Hinckley was found not guilty of attempt to kill. He is an assassin, though not a murderer. Mikewem (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Both are same things duuuuude(Comrade). "Assassination" is more like a political term used to represent intent of "murder" while word murder is exactly what M-W dictionary says. Assassination is when you "plan for killing" someone for ideological or political reason (or sometime you just work for the CIA) while murder is just "intentional killing". I know debating on Wikipedia and then trying to win is harder than climbing Everest, barefoot and naked(but this guy did it and he is not even here), but here you go, read this. Morris (talk with this worm) 14:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice: don’t ever “duuuuude” someone again. Mikewem (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Solicited advice: read WP:BLPCRIME Mikewem (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry I am just tired but did you read the important part? Morris (talk with this worm) 14:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

You can reference the flow chart at WP:MURDERS for the distinction between killing/murder and you can find the WP definition of assassination at WP:ASSASSINATION Mikewem (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The consensus of the editor community currently defines assassination as a type of killing, not as a type of murder. Mikewem (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

"Editor community" is not same as "thats how things works". Morris (talk with this worm) 14:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, WP:CONSENSUS is absolutely, fundamentally, and unambiguously how things work. Mikewem (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I meant that editor community cant just decide anything out of thin air, they need to provide basis for that. Morris (talk with this worm) 14:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Also: Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity and remained under institutional psychiatric care for over three decades. Morris (talk with this worm) 02:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Citation

In 2022, during an episode of The Charlie Kirk Show streamed on YouTube, Kirk criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. He called LGBTQ activists the "alphabet mafia", claiming that the movement is not "just about two dudes being able to get married".: I found a source for this. If anyone interested, they can edit it. here is the source: https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/youtube-charlie-kirk-warns-gay-people-want-corrupt-your-children

This is MediaMatters, whose reliability is disputed (its not outright unreliable). Morris (talk with this worm) 02:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I’ll add it. The quote doesn’t seem to be widely covered, so there’s a question of DUEness, but as a case-by-case basis, MMfA does appear to be accurately reporting Kirk’s words. Mikewem (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it’s a dumber problem than I realized. There’s a stringent view of the meaning of the phrase “must be accompanied” from MOS:QUOTE that says that each quote requires a cite at the end of the sentence the quote appears in, even in cases of 2 consecutive quotes from the same source in consecutive sentences. Normally we would not double cite per WP:CONSECUTIVECITE, but the stringent view of “must be accompanied” says we should double cite. The ref was already there in the paragraph. I added a double cite and removed the cn tag. Mikewem (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

On the topic of the latter, Kirk commented on how race is less important to culture than religion is, stating that America would still be America if it were ethnically 90% Indian, as long as they were Christian Indians.: term "Indian" is not ethnicity. As far as I have learned ethnicity will be better used for Sikhs and Punjabis. "Indian" is nationality. here. Morris (talk with this worm) 14:55, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be a non-sequitur. In the future, please make a new thread for new topics. Mikewem (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not mean it as comedy, to clarify your doubt. Morris (talk with this worm) 15:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

How did you mean it? (I did change this to “of Indian national origin”) Mikewem (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for making that edit. Please try to do the same next time instead of labeling it as "comedy" or keep asking me questions for which I already provided an answer. For example, when I stated that quote in follow up, I wanted it to be changed. The follow up was just a normal practise. Morris (talk with this worm) 01:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Talk thread titles (ideally) summarize and encompass the discussion they contain. Your second request has nothing to do with a citation or with the content of the citation. In the future, just open a new thread for a new request. In this case, I might’ve titled it something like “unsupported wording”, or if you want to be more specific and phrase it as a leading question, “is Indian an ethnicity?” Mikewem (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

How did you made that edit even if "it as nothing to do with content of the citation"? Only possible answer is that you understood what I meant. You understood I was implying that "ethnically 90% Indian" was a wrong title and that Indian is not ethnicity but rather nationality. Morris (talk with this worm) 02:29, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Too many undocumented opinions.

Here are a few items that are rhetoric and simply opinion and should either be removed, documented by referring to videos and/or written materials that were produced by him or endorsed by him, or should be labeled as opinion with a preface of, 'in the opinion of the author(s)'.

What he believed about the foundation of America does not in fact align with the definition of Christian Nationalism. He was not against the presence of other religions, he believed that religion in general should be a guiding force in our society. (in my opinion)

He was not in favor of denying anyone their rights and that includes the LGBTQ populace. He did feel that the source of many of the problems in the US are due to a lack of morals which he felt can most easily be seen in the LGBTQ community, but regardless that is my opinion and therefore should also not be included without a valid reference or stating, “this is the opinion of the author".

Stating that he advocated for a range of conservative positions is generalizing conservative beliefs. That is not a definable term and should not be used without a preface stating that it is the opinion of the author(s).

I could continue but I choose to leave it at this;

Wikipedia is seen as a potential source of valid information or at the least a source to find references to accurate/valid sources. When there are items, often political, that are largely opinion without sufficient substantial referencing you diminish the validity of your project and disseminate opinions as facts thereby becoming a source of misleading information. ~2026-38495-31 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

We go by third-party analysis (please read wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2026

It says he believes in the white genocide conspiracy theory but there is no source given ~2026-38398-67 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: It is not cited in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. It is cited in the main body, see Charlie_Kirk#White_Americans. jolielover♥talk 14:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you're right, I don't see direct support, in the lead or the White Americans section, for a claim that he said genocide. Are you suggesting a specific change? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

No just (his words} "The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different" (a white genocide conspiracy theory).Among others. This is a paraphrase. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory The white genocide, white extinction, or white replacement conspiracy theory (replacement is just an alternative name) jolielover♥talk 15:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Mr Kirk might have cared about, say, Merriam-Webster's genocide definition rather than Wikipedia's. But if the IP doesn't reply and nobody else agrees, I won't act. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

It’s been discussed previously. You can search the archives for “white genocide”. I think I remember abbreviating it as “WGCT” in some threads. Mikewem (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

You're right. Particularly Archive 6 White Genocide vs White Replacement looks like consensus to keep genocide. Oh well. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The UN definition [] the US holocaust Museum [] the british parliment []. Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Source does not show call for violence

The linked article next to the statement claiming that Laura Loomer "called for violence" shows nothing of the sort. She states that the left are "terrorists" but this is not a call for violence. ~2026-34122-55 (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The linked source does not include any indisputable calls for violence. ~2026-34122-55 (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Which you already said. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you're right, the wired.com article starts by asserting there were calls for violence but I don't see that the rest of the article backs that assertion clearly. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2026

CURRENT***: “Following the murder of George Floyd and subsequent protests, Kirk referred to him as a "scumbag", citing his criminal history, and referred to the city of Minneapolis (where he was killed) as "not the town it used to be". Kirk promoted debunked claims about George Floyd, such as that he was "illegally counterfeiting currency" and had once "put a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach".[105]”

CONTRADICTED (via existing page of George Floyd)*****: “In 2007, Floyd faced charges for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon; according to investigators, he entered an apartment by impersonating a water department worker and barged in with five other men, held a pistol to a woman's stomach, and searched for items to steal.[18][40][41] Floyd fled the scene but was arrested three months later during a traffic stop, and victims of the robbery identified him from a photo array.[41] In 2009, Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal[40][42][43] and was paroled in January 2013.[22]” ~2026-39550-03 (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

If the false claim is that the woman may not have been pregnant, wouldn’t it be beneficial to state that instead of insinuating that the entire claim is false? ~2026-39550-03 (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I objected too, in thread George Floyd. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

TPUSA finance is seperate and not related to Kirks salary

Recently made an edit (was later reverted by Mikewem) removing this sentence:

"In 2020, ProPublica investigated TPUSA's finances and found that the organization made "misleading financial claims", that the audits were not done by an independent auditor, and that the leaders had enriched themselves while advocating for Trump.

The information I removed is problematic for several reasons; it is exclusive to TPUSA's finances, it is not connected to Kirk's salary. The cited Propublica source does not state any connection/correlation between the two and inferring there is a connection would breach WP:SYNTHESIS. If there was correlation to be inferred it would probably be good faith interpretation of the sentence; "that the leaders had enriched themselves while advocating for Trump." This sentence is only mentioned once in the sub-headline, which is not considered WP:RS per WP:HEADLINE policy (Which is a point I did not make in my edit summary but is just one more reason it should not have been added back in). I asked the reverting editor to self revert but they are insisting to discuss it here. It should be reverted back to the version where the above sentence is removed. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I did this: . I can partly agree with you that the source focuses on another person enriching themselves, but not Kirk doing that. Kirk's salary increase is sourced and relevant here, and I think that limiting the sentence in question to background information about TPUSA is reasonable, so long as it does not imply that Kirk was one of those "leaders" who self-enriched in that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I do now see clearly the issue with “the leaders” in the original text. That would reasonably be interpreted as referring solely to Kirk and Montgomery, but that is not supported (and I suspect maybe not was intended by the phrase’s author, but you never know). Though, “and that some insiders enriched themselves” does seem to be supported by the article.

Turning Point’s treasurers are not the only insiders who have reaped financial rewards from the nonprofit. It also appears to have steered extra cash to a highly paid employee through limited liability companies, business records show.

The “while advocating for Trump” part of the sentence was uncarefully worded. It was TPUSA doing the advocating, not the leaders.

Kirk was CEO of the company, a half sentence about reports of impropriety in the company feels due to me. Mikewem (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

image

PS. You have an image:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Erika_Kirk_%26_Charlie_Kirk%2C_June_2025.jpg

It's SEVENTEEN MB.

SRSLY. That's obscene. Do something FFS!

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-37526-74 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

How? Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way, where is this used? Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Found it. It's File:Erika Kirk & Charlie Kirk, June 2025.jpg, used on Charlie Kirk, Erika Kirk, and User:ElhamHusey/sandbox4, and several other language Wiliepdias. It's definitely worth downscaling. guninvalid (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I would argue that it's not the image objected to, that is the blow the OP links to. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I've made a post at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Downscaling File:Erika Kirk & Charlie Kirk, June 2025.jpg. guninvalid (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Guninvalid When that image is displayed in an article it is run through the thumbnail system which downscales it to a 16kB thumbnail. When you click the image, if you have Media Viewer enabled you are shown a downscaled version that, at least with my screen size, is 296kB. If you don't have Media Viewer enabled, or you click "More details", you are taken to a page with a version of the image that is 106kB. The only way to get to the 17MB image is to click the "download" link in Media Viewer or "Original file" on the image description page. In other words, there's no reason to downscale it, as it already is downscaled unless you go out of your way to get the original image. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Does that thumbnail downscaling process slow down the loading of the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Tryptofish, typically it would be downscaled once and then cached, so I doubt it. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk advocated for what?

"Kirk advocated for a range of conservative positions, including opposition to abortion, gun control, DEI programs, and LGBTQ rights."

The paragraph implies to list the things that Kirk advocated for but proceeds to list barely two things, while the entire remainder of the paragraph lists numerous things that he DIDN'T advocate for.

Don't say "opposed to abortion", say he was pro-life. Don't say "opposed to gun control", say he supported the 2nd amendment. etc. Are we ACTUALLY stating what he advocated for or are we just stating everything he DIDN'T advocate for?

I don't know that I've ever read a more slander-based article in my life. The critics of Wikipedia are correct. Wikipedia is HEAVILY biased and it reeks of it. For an article that is supposed to tell about the person "Charlie Kirk", an outsider would probably believe that this person did almost nothing positive in his lifetime.

I'm not trying to start some argument over whether Charlie was a good/bad person, I'm just pointing out that a section that's supposed to list something doesn't actually list that something.

And I also want to point out that if I said that I was "opposed to hating animals" that that is not the same thing as me stating "I love animals". Those are NOT the same sentences and do not necessarily equate to the same meaning.WolRon (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

So, he opposed the death penalty? Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what statement you are trying to make with your reply, but if you're trying to say that "opposed the death penalty" is the opposite of being a proponent of the death penalty, then you'd be incorrect. For example, what if the opponent for the death penalty is an opponent only in cases where the perpetrator killed less than a dozen people? That wouldn't be someone that "opposed the death penalty". Oppositional statements are not necessarily true. Just state the non-antonym phrase. WolRon (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It's demonstrating that "pro-life" is a euphemism; he was not Pro-life, as he supported death in many circumstances; he was anti-abortion. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Then maybe there's a different word/phrase that works for anti-abortion?

Also, that has little/no bearing on the other items he advocated for.

Also, only 'negative' items are listed. For example, I don't see anything about how he advocated for nuclear families, which is another conservative position. WolRon (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

We do not use weasle words. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, tell me more about the weasel word that no one used... WolRon (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Out of here as I am not going to wp:bludgeon the process; I am not seeing an issue here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Since you neither are a U.S. citizen nor a U.S. resident, wouldn't your talents best be focused on the things you know about? ~2026-38980-22 (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

As this suggestion is based on publicly available data (either comments by him, or about him), geographic location does not affect my ability to read them or form a judgement. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Why are Kirk's own words *not* at the top of this section???

The section Political positions and activities begins as follows"

"Kirk was influential within the American conservative movement, particularly among young Christians. The New York Times said Kirk symbolized hope for the Christian right. From others, Kirk's political activism received criticism. His rhetoric was described as divisive, racist, xenophobic, and extreme by groups that studied hate speech, including the Southern Poverty Law Center. Kirk disagreed with critics who said he created a toxic online environment, arguing: "Disagreement is a healthy part of our systems." Kirk's positions have been described as far-right by a variety of outlets and academics, and others state that these positions are now in the mainstream of American conservatism."

Why would an encyclopedia start with other people's words about this person's position???

This is backwards. Certainly, other people's words are relevant. But they are relevant to the reaction to Mr. Kirk.

In a section devoted to his own positions, his own words and activities are what is relevant.

I hope this overwhelming error is fixed soon. ~2026-38980-22 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I wrote this of my own accord and did not consult in any way with A.I. of any kind.

I really would like to know why the section about Kirk's views began with other people's words regarding him and not with his own statements.

I have long felt that someone's own words are the best indicators of their own views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-38980-22 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Well as someone who is in fact Charles Kirk I would agree; it must be true as these are my own words. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

That can be true in some ways, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means we include information based off of what reliable secondary sources say. Whether or not Kirk himself is reliable, he would still be a primary source talking about himself. Basically, we report on other people reporting on his comments, not necessarily his comments. guninvalid (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Surely, the tertiary sources are relevant. I am certainly not suggesting that they be excluded.

But as a political activist, Kirk's own words in his public appearances and on his website — and his own actions — are the best indicators of what he stood for and what he wanted to achieve.

Whereas: With many "tertiary sources" discussing Kirk, it is all too easy for Wikipedia editors to inadvertently choose a sample of those tertiary sources that are not necessarily representative of Kirk's intentions.

Since Kirk is dead, there is no issue about whether he might be trying to enhance his own image for this Wikipedia article. In any case, there is no need to emphasize anything Kirk may have said or written about himself.

But: What was he trying to convince other people to believe? What was he trying to convince other people to do? Especially because he was a controversial figure, his own words should precede anyone else's opinion about him. ~2026-38980-22 (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

No they are not, as political figures tell lies; what matters more is much is direct action (and response to the actions of others), response to the questions (or lack of them), and response to the criticisms (or lack of them). Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I certainly have no illusions about the honesty of political figures. On that, you and I can heartily agree.

But even trump's own words are the best clues as to what he thinks will attract his supporters.

Charlie Kirk's own words (with which I am unfamiliar, by the way) are surely by far the best indicator of how he hoped to attract supporters. That is why I want to read them here.

Then after reading some of them, I would be happy to read other people's reaction to them.

Otherwise, I (and everyone else coming here) will not know what other people whose words are here are reacting to. ~2026-38980-22 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. But that is irrelevant; what would be relevant is why they work, not whether they do or not. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

'Official website' and YouTube channel

I note that the article lists www.charliekirk.com as Kirks website, and www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk as his YouTube channel. Given that Kirk is deceased, and accordingly cannot be controlling either, this would appear to be contrary to policy, per Wikipedia:External links:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Kirk was an individual, not an organisation. Kirk does not control either website. Thus (1) is failed, and since both criteria need be met, the links would appear to be impermissible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you that the YouTube material should be deleted from the infobox. Given that his website is named for him, I think that it still can be regarded as his "official website", so I would lean towards keeping that (unless it has been changed in some dubious way since his death), but I don't feel strongly about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Revert recently added YouTube module, keep website. Mikewem (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Source for it being his official site? Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't see how that could be sourced. The deceased can't own or control things. And note that content has been added since his death, on subjects about which he can have had no knowledge (e.g. ). Kirk presumably owned and/or controlled the website in the past, but it is self-evidently under the control of some other person or entity now. As such, it clearly doesn't qualify as an 'official website'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Then they cannot be his official website, as he is dead. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Is there a legitimate concern that the website is not controlled by his estate? Also dead people still have official websites all the time. Heck look at past dead presidents. Now if we want to be pedantic we could go with WP:ELMAYBE #4 or WP:ELYES #3. But them being dead has nothing really to do with this and you don't normally source it being their official site or not unless there is contention or doubt. Here is what I have found on that in the archives.~2026-39217-02 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

So, which of those websites did he establish? Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

https://www.charliekirk.com/ the one that we are talking about and is now run by his estate. ~2026-39217-02 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Kirk's estate isn't Kirk. Policy says that the website has to be controlled by the subject. It isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There are dozens if not hundreds of deceased celebrities articles with their official website in their infobox. Mikewem (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case then we need to update policy. With a clear explanation of how we determine a website to be 'official'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me to be common sense that the estates of dead persons typically do not act at cross purposes with what the dead person would have wished. If, hypothetically, we had sourcing that indicated that the website he had used during his lifetime had been taken over after his death by some group who were hostile to him, that would be different, but I don't think that's the case here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of assumptions there though. Including the obvious one that an 'estate' is generally a temporary thing, only lasting until property is divided up amongst beneficiaries. Not that we have seen any source actually telling up who is running the website now. Which is why I think the policy needs clarifying. I'll leave it for a day or so, in case any9one can point to more recent discussions on this, and then raise it at WP:VPP. In my opinion, it really needs clarification, since otherwise we may end up with a whole lot of potentially misleading links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that's fair. I was answering in terms of this particular content on this particular page, but I have no objections to clarifying the underlying policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

When was it set up? Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Question about WP:ELOFFICIAL (which, for clarity, is a guideline, not a policy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I just went and joined the ongoing discussion over at External links talk page. My main points were that I think we should add the website back in just not label it as "official" website. Secondly, I have to highly object to the removal of the Youtbue statistics such as # of views and years active. That information is relevant and is information that is vital to a key aspect of his notability (his social media presence) why was the Youtube statistics removed? What was the rationale there? MaximusEditor (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

About YouTube, the problem with linking to it is that it is something that can keep changing after his death, and doesn't fit well with being in the infobox. On the other hand, if there is something significant about the presence that he had on YouTube, that might be worth adding to the main text, with reliable secondary sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with the other editors here that the YouTube stats are definitely worth keeping on this page, even in the infobox. Kirk's social media presence, although he wasn't considered a "YouTuber" or "influencer" of sorts, was a major part of what made him a notable figure. YouTube in particular was his main social media platform, as it is where he posted the unedited footage of his campus debates that would then be clipped and put on other platforms.

Here's a CNN article that explicitly details Kirk's influence on conservative media, saying that "he naturally built an online brand on platforms like YouTube, eventually gaining millions of digital followers. His political and media machine also launched other podcasts and media ventures to reach young people in new ways." - https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/media/charlie-kirk-tpusa-maga-conservative-activism

And here's a source talking about how clips from these debates became one of TPUSA's "most powerful recruiting tools" - https://abcnews.com/Politics/charlie-kirks-tour-invited-political-debates-college-campuses/story?id=125459212

Also if it's a matter of updating continually-changing YouTube stats, there's plenty of editors who update YouTube numbers for media personalities. I myself try to do this every once in awhile, though I cannot edit Kirk's page because of the current protections. If it's a matter of fact that he's dead, there are other deceased YouTubers who have their channel information still in their infoboxes on Wikipedia and it seems to not be an issue on those pages (same goes for personal websites of deceased people).

At least in the short-term this just seems like something that shouldn't have been removed and should still be on the page. AstralNomad (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the 'official websites' question at WP:VPP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

As I have also commented in response to this discussion, I think that the existing guideline is perfectly clear and appropriate, and should be followed in this case by removing the link from the infobox. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that removing the link is the community's ordinary practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Are there any particular cases that you have in mind that would substantiate the notion that removing the link would be out of line with our usual practice? If not, I would have thought the guideline ought to be followed. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

There's no guideline recommending removal.

A brief look at similar articles will show that we don't usually do this. Compare, e.g., Hulk Hogan, another celebrity Trump supporter who also died in 2025; Melissa Hortman, an American politician who was assassinated three months before Kirk; David Gergen, a long-time political commentator who also died in 2025; James Dobson, conservative Christian activist who died in 2025; John Robbins (author), the vegan activist who died in 2025; Mike Rinder, an ex-Scientology enforcer; and so forth.

There are some examples of removal. For example, the infobox link in Raúl Grijalva was removed a few months after his death, because the link no longer showed relevant information. But an archived copy of the original is also listed in ==External links==. There is no point in sending people to a bad link. But there is also no point in taking away a good link just because the person has died. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a guideline that says that the official link in the infobox should only appear if the website is under that person's control – and I think that this clearly and intrinsically applies to any case in which the subject is dead and the website is still being actively and regularly updated. I don't think it's a problem for the link to remain in cases where the website remains more or less as it was when the subject died (as, say, in Mike Rinder's case, or as with Melissa Hortman's archived pages), but I do think it's a problem in cases where the website is no longer a personal website but rather is run by another group of people (as in the case of Charlie Kirk, Hulk Hogan, James Dobson, or John Robbins).

Maybe the best solution would be to include in the infobox a link to the archived version of Charlie Kirk's website as it was just before his death? That way, we would be directing the reader to a genuine copy of his personal website as it actually was, rather than to a political campaign website being maintained under his name. (And we could potentially do the same with some of the others.)

I notice in David Gergen's case that the link is dead, so I have just corrected that to an archived version. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Please feel free to quote the exact sentence in that guideline that actually says that. No, that's not fair of me. @Dionysodorus, I wrote most of the guideline that's being discussed here, specifically including creating the "ELOFFICIAL" section 17 years ago. The guideline says things like "include appropriate external links...in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable", but it doesn't say anything like "the official link in the infobox should only appear if the website is under that person's control, and BTW when they die, then external links are banned from the infoboxes". There is no such rule; there has never been any such rule.

I agree with you that an archived copy has a lot of value (and thank you for fixing the dead link in the Gergen article). We recommend but do not require this approach under certain circumstances in the WP:ELDEAD section (which is about dead links, not about dead humans, but the shortcut is not entirely inapt in this case). IMO editors at this article should:

1. Stop spreading the false rumor that the WP:ELOFFICIAL guideline requires removal of links from the infoboxes of deceased people (because it doesn't), and
2. Think broadly about what they believe would be most interesting to/useful for/appropriate for (current) readers of this particular article. That might be the current website, an archive of the website from shortly before or soon after his death, or it might be nothing.

I've got no vested interest in what happens in this article. All the options are fine with me. My interest is in making sure that the guideline isn't misrepresented through a series of "logical" conclusions that go beyond what the guideline actually says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The guideline says that pages should contain an official link where one is available, and that they should do so in the infobox. The guideline also clearly says that a link is only an official link if it meets two criteria, one of which is that it must link to a website controlled by the subject. These are sensible principles, and I think that you set them out very well when you wrote this section of the guideline. It seems to me an appropriate application of these sensible principles that when a dead person's website has been modified substantially after their death this ought not to be considered an official link, and so the guidance that articles should contain official links and that these should appear in infoboxes ought not to apply to such a link.

I can see that under the guidance even links that do not meet the criteria for an "official link" can be included in the article (even in the infobox), if editors consider this appropriate in any given case. But as to whether such a link ought to be presented with the kind of prominence that the infobox provides in this particular case, I would be inclined to say "no".

I was suggesting using archive links not on the basis of WP:ELDEAD (which I had not consulted in this connection), but because I think it might be a good way of maintaining a link that is genuinely a link to the subject's official website, in cases where that website has been substantially changed after that person's death. Whether this is actually the appropriate solution in this case is not entirely clear to me: I just put it forward as a possibility that could be considered alongside others according to the merits of the particular case (as you suggest). Dionysodorus (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you've got it: Editors should include an ELOFFICIAL link, but there's no ban in the guideline on non-ELOFFICIAL links in infoboxes. If it's no longer an ELOFFICIAL link, then it would move from a "should include" situation to a "use your best judgement" situation, and not to saying that keeping the link is "contrary to policy", "impermissible", etc. It's permitted by the guideline. Lots of webpages are permitted by the guideline. Editors just need to decide whether they want this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Would the logic behind this guideline also apply to YouTube links and YouTube information within the Infobox WhatamIdoing? I left a comment higher up in the thread about YouTube being removed that went unanswered, and would think this standard would be applicable there as well. AstralNomad (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that we can have a single standard outcome for YouTube information in infoboxes. The outcome for this article does not need to match the outcome for the infobox in, e.g., the article about Technoblade. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

(e/c) Wikipedia:External links is explicit about this, and requires that The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. Charlie Kirk is neither an organisation, nor in any position to control the website. It appears from www.charliekirk.com/about-charlie-kirk that the website is in fact controlled by Turning Point USA, who appear to be using the website to promote their cause, and to discuss topics that have no relation to Kirk. Which needless to say they are fully entitled to do - but that doesn't make the link eligible for inclusion in the infobox under the criteria given. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:EL is also clear about this: Articles are allowed to contain links to websites that do not meet the definition of an "official" link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Please quote the relevant passage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually, don't bother. Possible changes and/or clarification to policy and/or guidelines are being actively discussed at WP:VPP. If you want to participate in the discussion do so. There's no point in debating the same question here, since it won't affect such changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The answer to your question can be found at WP:ELYES, particularly point #3 and in all of WP:ELMAYBE. In fact, almost everything in the top half of the guideline is about which non-official links are encouraged (e.g., ELYES), permitted (e.g., ELMAYBE), discouraged (e.g., ELNO), or prohibited (e.g., ELNEVER).

Note, too, that in this article, there are three ordinary ==External links== plus six external links to sister projects. If articles weren't allowed to contain links to websites that do not meet the definition of an "official" link, then at least eight of those nine would have to be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Removal of Cruft material (Continued)/New GreenLand section...

Been slowly trying to remove WP:CRUFT (more specifically WP:TRUMPCRUFT/ some could dub KirkCruft) material on Kirk's article as it is still in the >9000 words (Probably should be divided or trimmed) category of WP:SIZERULE. A new section about Greenland has been added and I would absolutely classify this section as cruft material that could be trimmed out. I did remove a sentence in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS that used two seperate sentences to create a new notion that was not stated specifically on the cited source, the remaining information inside the new "Greenland" section is not passing the ten year test, the entire section should be removed. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Before I saw that you had started this discussion, I rewrote the sentence that you had removed, to fix the SYNTH. I'm not sure that Kirk's own statements about his political beliefs are really cruft, but I don't have a strong opinion about how WP:DUE Greenland is here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you Tryptofish that technically quotes from a typical subject of an article usually wouldn't be considered cruft. But this article is riddled with information that will not pass ten year test. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and contents inside must serve the readers with a purpose presented in an encyclopedic tone. - "Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful." Which is exactly how I feel a lot of information here has been added because Kirk said it and it is true it must be published on his article. Also known as "cruft".

Do you mind if I take out the Greenland material? It is not DUE. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s not just quite yet perfectly clear how unserious of an imperial effort the US (or hypothetical derived entities) intend to make on Greenland. Even if a non-US affiliated or derived entity makes a move, that might increase the ten year testness of US comments about Greenland such as Kirk’s Mikewem (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm really ambivalent about this, so I'm not quite at the point of saying that I don't mind if someone removes the whole section. I'm not seeing a tone problem with the content, and I'm not seeing a clear criterion by which we would determine that these views of Kirk's are more or less due than his other views. For all we know, his views on some other things will have less lasting significance than his views about annexing another country. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess this is about reverting insertions on 26 July 2026 by Space4Time3Continuum2x. I agree with MaximusEditor. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Tryptofish, what WP:SYNTH? My sentence: In March, he falsely said that the "election shows that the pro-American forces are ascendant in Greenland". Is that "combin[ing] different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by that source"? The source (bolding added by me):

When Greenlanders went to the polls, a plurality of the votes went to a center-right party that had never previously won a Greenlandic election and, in light of ongoing threats, favored the status quo. In the following weeks, it formed a coalition government whose organizing principle was its opposition to American aggression. Only Naleraq, whose leadership wanted to initiate the independence process immediately, was excluded from the coalition. "We shall choose our partners ourselves,” the coalition agreement read. "It is we who dictate the pace." In MAGA circles, the elections were falsely framed as a victory for Trump. "The pro-Denmark party got first, but the pro-United States party got its best-ever result," Charlie Kirk said on his broadcast, the following day. "This election shows that the pro-American forces are ascendant in Greenland, and it should be partnered with America, not the Old World," Kirk added. "This would be nothing but upside for the great people of Greenland.” Like Trump, he focussed on money: "You will be wealthier. You will be richer. You will have the U.S. dollar. You will have more purchasing power."

Your sentence:

Following Greenland's parliamentary elections in March, in which voters repudiated the idea of annexation, he said that the "election shows that the pro-American forces are ascendant in Greenland, and it should be partnered with America, not the Old World."

"Cruft/Trumpcruft" (cruft, really? First time I've been accused of being an "enthusiastic fan[] of the subject in question"): The lead paragraph of the lead says that Kirk was a "key ally of Donald Trump [who] became one of the most prominent voices of the MAGA movement within the Republican Party". The opinions, many of them falsehoods, he promoted on his podcast and on public appearances are a significant part of his legacy. His promotion of the annexation of Greenland combined with traveling to Greenland with a Republican activist, who happens to be the president's son, and engaging in a political event on foreign soil is as much part of his legacy as, e.g., his stance on and travels to Israel or his views on religion. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm just replying about SYNTH, since I've already said that I'm not sold on it being cruft.

MaximusEditor called it SYNTH, with this edit summary: . When I subsequently saw that edit, it took me a bit to follow all the connections, but the cited source () has two sections referring to Kirk, separated by a lot of other text in between. I'm not totally convinced that this was exactly SYNTH, but when I restored what you had added, but with some revisions (), I tried to provide more context, as well as not saying in Wikipedia's voice that he had spoken "falsely". My main focus was on identifying which election he was referring to, and on giving more context about what he meant about ascendance. Perhaps ME can explain in more detail what he saw as SYNTH. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Tryptofish, this is MaximusEditor's editsum (I bolded the text quoting the source): Removing WP:SYNTHESIS sentence. New Yorker source: "In MAGA circles, the elections were falsely framed as a victory for Trump. “The pro-Denmark party got first, but the pro-United States party got its best-ever result,” Charlie Kirk said..." then another separate quote from Kirk; "“This election shows that the pro-American forces are ascendant in Greenland, and it should be partnered with America, not the Old World,” Kirk added" That's just a tad disingenuous, considering that, in the cited source, there is a grand total of nine words separating Maximus's first and "another separate" quote (see full quote above). It was the author of the cited New Yorker article who created a notion (MAGA + falsely framing) by quoting first one sentence from Kirk's March 12, 2025, podcast and then another four sentences from three minutes into the podcast: (0:51) The pro-Denmark party got first, but the pro-United States party got its best-ever result ... (3:46) This election shows that the pro-American forces are ascendant in Greenland, and it should be partnered with America, not the Old World. This would be nothing but upside for the great people of Greenland. You will be wealthier. You will be richer. You will have the U.S. dollar. You will have more purchasing power. WP:CRUFT doesn't apply; WP:TRUMPCRUFT also doesn't apply and is an essay to boot. Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, well, that was their editsum, not mine, so ask them, not me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

They haven't responded to yesterday's ping and haven't edited since this edit on August 4. Anyway, I can live with your modified version, and I've said what I have to say about the SYNTH part in the editsum. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is what I am seeing from this discussion:

1)Tryptofish doesn't have a real strong opinion if the Greenland section is even WP:DUE in this article, (the issue of the content being "cruft" has no sway if it is due or not) ; - "I'm not sure that Kirk's own statements about his political beliefs are really cruft, but I don't have a strong opinion about how WP:DUE Greenland is here." + "I'm really ambivalent about this, so I'm not quite at the point of saying that I don't mind if someone removes the whole section." --Tryptofish

2)Mikewem's counter logic to keep the Greenland section is based off of hypotheticals which violates WP:CRYSTALBALL; "I think it’s not just quite yet perfectly clear how unserious of an imperial effort the US (or hypothetical derived entities) intend to make on Greenland. Even if a non-US affiliated or derived entity makes a move, that might increase the ten year testness of US comments about Greenland such as Kirk’s" --Mikewem

3)Peter Gulutzan agrees with me that the addition of the GL section should be reverted; "I guess this is about reverting insertions on 26 July 2026 by Space4Time3Continuum2x. I agree with MaximusEditor." --Peter Gulutzan

4)Space4Time3Continuum2x my question to you is; how can you call my assessment of the New Yorker source material taking two separate sentences that are (as you provided) spoken about 3 minutes apart on the pod cast and (once again as you said) separated by a "grand total of nine words" in the source material "disingenuous"? WP:SYNTH states -"do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by that source."

I would like to thank Tryptofish for their efforts to playball and modify/remove out the SYNTH material, but as I said in my initial statement in this discussion, when Tryptofish removed the SYNTH material we were left with material that seems by consensus to not be DUE (This is the point to highlight). When I call this Cruft, (more inline with WP:TRUMPCRUFT) this is what I try to convey: "Not every single thing Donald Trump (or, for that matter, anyone) says or does deserves an article, a subsection, a short paragraph, or otherwise. Even if the latest grand deed or grand outrage has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

My logic is if we summarize the fact that I am for removal, PeterGulutzan is for removal, Tryptofish is "ambivalent", Mikewem's logic for removal involves a WP:CRYSTALBALL, can we say consensus is leaning towards removal? You can see my above statements on how this article has WP:SIZERULE issues and probably should be trimmed down. We need to reduce bloat of content that is not DUE, this Greenland section is a great example of information that does not pass WP:10YT. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, but I feel like you are summarizing my and others' opinions in a way to support your own view. Where you quote me, correctly, as having said: I'm really ambivalent about this, so I'm not quite at the point of saying that I don't mind if someone removes the whole section, let me now elaborate on how I mean that to be understood. I'm ambivalent in the sense of not seeing this as a hill I would want to die on – it strikes me as something that is small potatoes within the overall context of the AmPol CTOP. My words about not being at the point of saying that removing it would be OK with me, is really a polite way of saying that I don't agree with removing it. Since I wrote that, my reading of the subsequent discussion has led me to feel a little bit more strongly about not agreeing with removing it. In the same edit as that, I also said: I'm not seeing a clear criterion by which we would determine that these views of Kirk's are more or less due than his other views. I'm increasingly feeling that this is the case. I don't think you can brush that off as being CRYSTALBALL. So if you remove the section, I'm not going to edit war with you, but I don't think that there is either a consensus to remove it, or even a consensus starting to lean that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It's the inserter who needs consensus, per WP:ONUS.

The section says Local journalists later discovered that the group included homeless people and others who had been promised free food and beer. without any evidence that Mr Kirk was involved in the alleged promise, so that doesn't belong. The section says Kirk said on his podcast that the young people of Greenland considered annexation to be a matter of dignity which is not supported by the cited (New Yorker) source, its words are that Kirk framed the question as a matter of dignity. The section says Following Greenland's parliamentary elections in March, in which voters repudiated the idea of annexation, he said that the "election shows that the pro-American forces are ascendant in Greenland ... which is way out of context since it throws in the repudiation stuff as if that was some sort of ballot question, and leaves out that he acknowledged that another party won, and anyway an American dictionary Merriam-Webster says the adjective "ascendant"] meaning #1 is merely "moving upward" or "directed upward", which though ludicrously trivial is true according to politico.eu "best result ever".

However, I'm used to false or misleading stuff about Mr Kirk in this article, so that's just FYI. My reason for agreeing with MaximusEditor is undueness. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Verbatim from the cited source: "In early January, 2025, the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk texted Boassen and asked for help arranging a visit to Nuuk, for himself and Don, Jr. A few days later, the Trump family’s Boeing 757 landed on Nuuk’s new runway. [quote from someone else] An advance team came to Nuuk with a stack of MAGA hats. Boassen assembled a small group of people to cheer Don, Jr.,’s arrival, and to join him for lunch at Nuuk’s most expensive hotel. It was only after the plane left, that evening, that local journalists discovered the supporters included homeless people who had been recruited with the promise of a free meal." And: "Kirk framed the question of annexation as a matter of dignity. “They want to be part of a country that respects them, that gives them human rights,” he said." And: "In MAGA circles, the elections were falsely framed as a victory for Trump. “The pro-Denmark party got first, but the pro-United States party got its best-ever result,” Charlie Kirk said on his broadcast, the following day. “This election shows that the pro-American forces are ascendant in Greenland, and it should be partnered with America, not the Old World”. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I’d be happy to remove “and others who had been promised free food and beer” as generally un-encyclopedic. Actually, I may just go ahead remove it. Hope this can help us move onto other, much larger sections that at first glance appear to have more room to trim or condense. Mikewem (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem:What's unencyclopedic about "promised free food and beer" — the homeless were promised food, and the young non-homeless who attended were promised beer. Also not a hill I'm hankering to die on but, aside from being encyclopedic or not, this is an example of Kirk spin — "independence now" equals "want annexation"? @MaximusEditor: two separate sentences that are (as you provided) spoken about 3 minutes apart on the pod cast: that's WP:OR. @Peter Gulutzan: re without any evidence that Mr Kirk was involved in the alleged promise. Our text ("Local journalists later discovered that the group included homeless people and others who had been promised free food and beer") didn't make that claim. The source for free beer: a high-school student named Malik Dollerup-Scheibel, who ran into Don, Jr., and Kirk at a pool bar called Daddy’s ... He was handed a MAGA hat and photographed with Kirk and Don, Jr. ... But we were just friendly, and people got free beer. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems that there’s no source explicitly for “promised free beer”. The idea that Kirk and Jr. lured homeless people with beer is generally unencyclopedic because it’s not explicitly sourced and because it plays into stereotypes. Mikewem (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a compelling reason that we would have to include "beer", so I don't have a problem with leaving it out. Although I get the reasoning behind why people who were not homeless being more interested in beer than in food, I think the current wording, Local journalists later discovered that the group included homeless people recruited with the promise of a free meal., has all of that covered, by focusing on how the group included homeless people recruited by way of the food. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

In January 2025, Kirk and Donald Trump, Jr. visited Greenland and hosted a lunch for locals in an effort to build support for a US annexation of Greenland. Local journalists later discovered that the group included homeless people recruited with the promise of a free meal.

Some editors (not me) here believe Kirk's comments about pro-American forces being ascendant are DUE. But to be clear, editors think including information stating that Kirk and Don Jr hosted a local lunch and that homeless people were brought in to eat said lunch for free is DUE? The whole entire point of this discussion is to remove material that serves zero informational value to the uninformed reader. I think the first sentence about Kirk and Don Jr going to Greenland to host a lunch about annexation provides context for the quote he makes on his podcast about Ascendancy. (Its a stretch that these comments are gonna pass 10YT) but saying that homeless people were recruited by the promise of a free meal at a lunch hosted by Kirk and Don, Jr. really doesn't pass 10YT. If somebody believes that keeping that information is vital, can you please provide reasoning? Otherwise I think we should remove, "Local journalists later discovered that the group included homeless people recruited with the promise of a free meal" MaximusEditor (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what editors believe. What matters is what the cited sources say. The cited source quotes Kirk as expressing his views about what was going on in Greenland, and no one has presented any reasons why those views of Kirk's are more or less due than any of his other views. And the source does not, actually, say that Kirk recruited those homeless people. But the source does say that it was Kirk who asked that the event be set up, and the people who carried out his request after Kirk spoke directly to them did that recruiting. And the source describes Kirk's statements about his views on Greenland as having been based on that event to which those homeless people were recruited, as having been based on what Kirk considered to be the turnout of people from Greenland at the event. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that Jørgen Boassen promised free food and beer (though nobody says it was him), and that Charlie Kirk had talked to Jørgen Boassen about the promise (though nobody says he did), so okay, since there's three of you. And although I don't see this source that says that Charlie Kirk based his views about Greenland on the event's turnout, okay, denying that won't affect the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)