Talk:We Are Charlie Kirk

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2026

Please add the Italian subtitles I created to the .wav file in the page. Purpleyoshi2012 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The subtitles are already available when the file is played. Day Creature (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2026

Insert in line one " (also styled in all caps as SPALEXMA)" after "credited to Spalexma". Sambabest (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Day Creature: reliable source for all caps stylization?

I looked a bit and haven’t seen all caps in RS we use. Interestingly though, the Billboard newsletter (mis?)spells it as Spaxelma. Mikewem (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I saw it done here and here. Admittedly it's not very many places, but those are some I found. Sambabest (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to self-revert for now while waiting for reliable sources for the use of all caps. YouTube is not a reliable source and I'm not certain about the album of the year site (it looks like user-generated content). Day Creature (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

is this song actually AI generated?

The page says it is "a presumably AI-generated song". This is very dubious. ~2026-93778-9 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe it as AI generated EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The song is generally considered to be AI generated, but this is based entirely off of speculations. A consensus that us Wikipedians came to is that, unless solid evidence can tell us that it is, the article should not say for certain that the song is AI. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 17:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

There are very few reliable sources that mention the song. The only two that have names people would recognize are Forbes and Billboard. Forbes says it is “apparently” AI. Billboard says it is “likely”, “seemingly”, “apparently” AI. Mikewem (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Is an AI-generated image of Kirk’s face superimposed onto the Mona Lisa a notable illustration of the topic of this article?

I’ve invoked WP:AIIMAGES to remove memes a few times, including the most recent one. Is there consensus to include them?

I also removed a link to wiktionary in there. Is the article able to sufficiently define what a “Kirkified” image is or do we need the link? Mikewem (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem, I think the image is worth adding as a form of visual identification to help the reader understand what "kirkification" is. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 02:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m stuck on why the reader needs to understand what Kirkification is. But if they need to know then I guess they need to know.

If the reader does need to understand what Kirkification is, does the image do a significantly better job at identifying it than the text phrase “Kirk’s face superimposed on the Mona Lisa”? Bearing in mind that the policy hurdle we need to jump is “should not be used”. Mikewem (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The image directly supports the text and illustrates "kirkification" without violating copyright or personal rights. Even if the article can describe what kirkification is, the image still helps as it is a clear example; most people in the world have seen Mona Lisa, which makes the Kirk face change extremely obvious. The WP:AIIMAGES guideline (that you linked) states that AI images about AI image topics are allowed, which is the case here, since most kirkifications involve AI tools instead of manual editing.

All this applies to uses of the image on both We Are Charlie Kirk and Assassination of Charlie Kirk articles, both of which were reverted. The only scenario I see the images being useless are if a separate full article on Kirkification (currently a redirect) will exist, in which case the image should be used as a lead image for the new article. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the topic of this article is not AI images and I’m confused about why it’s necessary to illustrate Kirk’s face on the Mona Lisa in order to understand the topic of the article. But if it is, then it is.

The policy says AI-generated images should not be used to depict named individuals or any living people. Marginal cases (such as major AI enhancement or if an AI-generated image of a living person is itself notable) are subject to case-by-case consensus.

“Should not be used” is about as clear as wiki policy gets. That’s going to be a high bar to hurdle, but if we can, then we can use the picture. Is this one example of the Mona Lisa a notable standout among all the other Kirk face-swap memes? And do we have an RS that mentions the Mona Lisa example as being especially illustrative? Mikewem (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Mona Lisa depicts Lisa del Giocondo, who is not a living person (died in 1542), and neither is Kirk; policy doesn't apply. We don't need a mention of Mona Lisa specifically; the lead video example on Deepfake is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the article, yet it's still relevant.

Plus, try finding a kirkified image/video mentioned in the articles that is freely licensed. Chances are, you're not going to find any, since news sources rely predominantely on fair use; why care about the copyright status of the image if the law allows you to use it educationally anyway? Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 18:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:BDP Mikewem (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m not saying an image necessarily must be mentioned in the article in order to include, I’m saying that reliable sources must mention the image (or video) in order to be considered. In the case of the Deepfake article, the Kim Jong Un example was covered extensively by reliable sources.

And it’s neither here nor there, but the Deepfake article has a whole section that’s dedicated to notable examples, including the Kim thing. The Kim example is mentioned somewhere in that article. Mikewem (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Didn't notice the sourcing on the Kim video, my bad. Still not a neccesity, though I guess it helps with controversial cases. I'll wait for more discussion. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 19:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The image you have removed provides a significant illustration to the article. The kirkification concept could be explained more in depth given that this very same song has been used regularly in these memes. Anyway, the image is free, it serves an educational purpose and no, reliable sources don't need to mention the particular image. The concept is well covered in RS. Bedivere (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m completely unable to reconcile the sentiment you’re expressing here with the text of the policy I’ve cited. I don’t understand why you’re not engaging with the part of policy that says AI images of named people should not be used.

I’m not sure I agree that the concept is well-covered, and I’m not sure that a single RS says the song has been used regularly in face swap memes. Mikewem (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

You are demanding hurdles that are not actually present in the policy. You are using a highly restrictive interpretation of WP:AIIMAGES that ignores the nuance written into the text.

• WP:AIIMAGES explicitly states that the restriction on AI images should be applied "subject to common sense and with a number of exceptions." It goes on to say that exceptions include articles about AI and "articles about notable AI-generated images." Since the "kirkification" trend is inherently tied to AI manipulation, using an AI image to illustrate this very specific concept is a textbook common-sense exception.
• You are arguing that reliable sources must mention the specific image in order for us to use it. This is not backed by policy. Do all standard photographs used on Wikipedia require a specific reference mentioning the photograph itself? No. Reliable sources are required to establish the notability of the concept (the meme trend itself). As long as the concept is well-covered, editors are free to choose a representative, freely licensed file.
• The purpose of the image is to show, rather than just tell, the reader what a face-swap "kirkification" meme of this nature looks like. Demanding a source that explicitly names the Mona Lisa iteration is an exaggeration, an overstatement.

The policy allows for case-by-case consensus on marginal cases, and common sense dictates that a topic about an AI meme trend should be allowed a visual example of that trend. Bedivere (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

In my view, the topic of this article is a song called We Are Charlie Kirk. But I think you’re suggesting the topic of the article is a meme trend of notable AI-generated images. I don’t understand that at all and we may continue to talk past each other on that specific point.

To my eyes, AIIMAGES divides such images into two categories: those that depict named people (or tech/science topics) and those that don’t. From the close of the relevant rfc: The community objects particularly strongly to AI-generated images of named people. For images that depict people covered by BLP, the policy gives 2 examples of what might make a case “marginal”. I don’t think face swaps are considered to be “AI enhancement” so then the next part is what I’d like to focus on. It appears to me that you changed the text in your presentation of policy. You said Reliable sources are required to establish the notability of the concept (the meme trend itself). As long as the concept is well-covered, editors are free to choose a representative, freely licensed file. I’m going to summarize that as “the concept itself needs to be notable”. But the text of the policy says if an AI-generated image of a living person is itself notable. I would summarize that as “the image itself needs to be notable”. I’m not able to reconcile these two competing summaries and I can’t think of any possible way we would establish the notability of an image itself other than to show that the image itself is mentioned in RS. Mikewem (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that the primary subject of the article is the song "We Are Charlie Kirk." However, the song's notability is inextricably linked to the visual "kirkification" trend. To discuss the song without visually representing the meme that propelled it is doing a disservice to the reader.

Regarding your strict reading of WP:AIIMAGES and living persons: we have to look at the spirit of why that rule exists. The community's strong objection to AI-generated images of named people is rooted in preventing misinformation, realistic deepfakes, and BLP violations. This specific image does not trigger those concerns because it pictures two deceased people, and is an obvious, transformative artistic parody. Come on, it is a face-swap onto a 16th-century painting (the Mona Lisa). No reader is going to look at this and be misled into thinking it is a real, factual photograph of Kirk. Because it functions as clear, unmistakable satire rather than a photorealistic fabrication, it does not carry the BLP risks the AI policy was designed to prevent. While the policy mentions exceptions for "notable images," IAR also applies when a strict, literal interpretation prevents us from improving or accurately illustrating an encyclopedia article. A representative visual of this parody trend is necessary to understand the song's virality.

Anyway, it seems to me that the only reason you oppose adding this particular image is because it was AI-generated. A photoshopped one would do for you? Bedivere (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I do join the community in objecting particularly strongly to AI-generated images of named people.

In my view, the claim the song's notability is inextricably linked to the visual "kirkification" trend requires a cite from a RS.

I’m completely unmoved by the appeal to IAR.

My general understanding is that a photoshopped face swap would have a high bar to inclusion per WP:OI and WP:BLPIMAGE.

I don’t see any policy grounds for a satire/parody carve out. WP:AIIMGBLP says no AI cartoons or caricatures. A caricature is not precisely synonymous with an artistic parody, but the two concepts do seem awfully close in spirit. Mikewem (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

You're just throwing out randomly policies at this point, disfiguring them in order to serve your point of view. We will never agree. Leaving the discussion. Bedivere (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Charlie Kirk

• ... that "We Are Charlie Kirk" (Kirk pictured) became one of the first AI-generated songs to appear on a Billboard chart?

• Source:

• • ALT1: ... that "We Are Charlie Kirk" (Kirk pictured) was ranked as the worst song of 2025 by magazine Paste? Source:
  • ALT2: ... that "We Are Charlie Kirk" has been described as a modern version of rickrolling? Source:
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by RTSthestardust (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

RTSthestardust (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2026 (UTC).

• Comment The Billboard sources cited in this DYK nom and the article (1 and 2) do not directly support ALT0; these say that the song topped the Spotify Viral 50 U.S. chart, not that they appeared on any of the Billboard charts. Please find a better, more accurate source for this claim. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 08:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Suggest ALT2: ... that "We Are Charlie Kirk" has been described as "one of the loudest things ever put to record"? or ALT3: ... that "We Are Charlie Kirk" has been described as a modern version of rickrolling? (courtesy ping to @Vigilantcosmicpenguin:)?. Also, that image is not in the article (and would probably fail at least the spirit of WP:DYKDIVERT, if not the letter).--Launchballer 13:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I now highly value ALT3 (which is labeled as ALT2 above). It's alright if you cancel the image, it was basically a suggestion. RTSthestardust (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Contingent on what Vigilantcosmicpenguin says, how do you feel about making this a double with Rickrolling?--Launchballer 14:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure! RTSthestardust (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The hook is solid, but I'd rather keep the Rickrolling hook separate. We already have a good option that's been approved for Rickrolling, and I just think Rickrolling, as a concept, deserves its own great hook. :P — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:27, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, review needed for We Are Charlie Kirk.--Launchballer 14:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Article is new enough, long enough, external policy compliant, and presentable. All the hooks are interesting (for ALT0, I can't access the source, but I'd probably go with ALT0a: that "We Are Charlie Kirk" became one of the first AI-generated songs to appear on Spotify's Viral 50 US chart?, provided that it follows the exceptional claims policy for DYK), but I do prefer ALT1 (we can also do the "modern rickrolling" hook, but put rickrolling and this nomination on seperate days). Anyways, for ALT1, the hook is cited to a reliable source and is short enough (as this article is part of the post-1992 American politics and recently deceased people contentious topics, I will say that I personally don't think the hook would violate any policies). QPQ is not needed since the nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations. All images are freely licensed, but I wouldn't include the Charlie Kirk image as a part of this hook per Launchballer. Approving ALT1, but feel free to object to this decision. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 02:41, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I will accept ALT1 as the chosen one. - RTSthestardust (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2026

I would like to add a section referencing the infamous "We Are Charles Leclerc" Meme about the F1 driver Charles Leclerc from TikTok from late 2025. ~2026-25856-50 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Toast1454_TC 16:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2026

We are kirk 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDFP1EH2A2I&list=RDnDFP1EH2A2I&start_radio=1 Bob-lesh (talk) 10:20, 19 May 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. LizardJr8 (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I want it to say "A sequel, We Are Charlie Kirk 2, was released on January 26, 2026" Bob-lesh (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. YouTube is not a reliable source. Day Creature (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

this is literally uploaded to spalexma's yt channel (the creater behind the original we are kirk), please include it "A sequel, We Are Charlie Kirk 2, was released on January 26, 2026 ~2026-30053-71 (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Song credit update

The credits for We Are Charlie Kirk were updated recently on streaming services to reflect Sargis Poghosyan as the songwriter, which is what the SP in SP Music Project is for. The name of SP Music Project reflects on his earlier releases dating back to the Sargis Poghosyan artist page in 2019. Apple Music reflects this. Sources: https://music.apple.com/us/album/the-way-of-my-life/1827993377 https://music.apple.com/us/album/we-are-charlie-kirk/1840905523 V1bezeveryday (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Great, now we have to revisit the old “is it entirely AI written” thing. Delightful. Mikewem (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

see this, maybe it can help? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn’t. When that article was written, the song was credited solely to Spalexma. The song is no longer credited solely to Spalexma. Any article that says the only credit for the song on streaming services goes to Spalexma is out-of-date with the verifiable facts of the matter. Mikewem (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Credit has been reassigned? Possibly, yes. Does that change the fact that this "song" was AI-written and generated? Absolutely not. Bedivere (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

According to Spotify and Apple Music, the composer, lyricist, and songwriter is Sargis Poghosyan. Sargis is, presumably, a human. If a source says that Sargis Poghosyan generated the lyrics and music entirely with AI, then we can host the song under the “entirely AI-generated” clause. If it was not entirely AI-generated, then we cannot use that clause to host it. Mikewem (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Sources say it was AI-generated. Adding a presumed human author now says nothing. Find a source clearly stating this was actually written, composed and produced by a human. There are several dozens stating it wasn't (or it presumably wasn't). Chances are this is completely AI-generated. Bedivere (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record, I contest the AI-origin of the song and removed it because it fails WP:NFCC#3b Mikewem (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

But the song is free and it is hosted on Commons. The "non free" criteria does not apply (unless, of course, the original file is deleted from Commons and an edited version is locally uploaded). Bedivere (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The song is not free, Commons is not a reliable source, and it’s a violation of our copyright policy to upload a work in its entirety when a portion would suffice. Mikewem (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

It should not be on Commons (or here for that matter), regardless of whether or not it is AI. It's alright to include samples of songs on WP articles, but including the entire song is a clear copyright violation – samples should generally be no longer than 30 seconds. I side with @Mikewem on this discussion. JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 17:25, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not think whether or not the full song should be included on the article for copyright reasons is relevant to Wikipedia, as the file is hosted on Commons and its copyright status should be contested there. My opinion on the song's copyright status has remained the same since the deletion discussion on Commons: many sources, including ones considered "reliable" by Wikipedia and those from supposedly the publisher/label of the song, consider it AI-generated, and I do not think the addition of a supposed human author to the song's credits changes this. Nilou simp (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

"This album is a creative project by ViVO Tunes artist SPALEXMA. All 11 songs were created as AI-generated tributes in memory of Charlie Kirk. These works are fan-made, inspirational, and for artistic remembrance only." It's the publishing label that states that. I think this case is pretty clear. As I have repeatedly said, the file, as hosted in Commons, should be contested there, but I see at this time no grounds for deletion. I'm not even an AI-generated media fan, but this one sure is one. Bedivere (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

As noted (by me) previously, Vivo Tunes is not credited on streaming and it hit streaming a day before Vivo’s YouTube channel. The streaming copyright is attributed to SP Music Project. In my view, we need a reliable source that says Vivo Tunes is the song’s publishing label. Mikewem (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

"We are Charlie Kirk 2" and a "Deep house mix" are both credited as (P) Vivo Tunes. Both are officially uploaded on Spalexma's "artist" YouTube profile (the first link is actually Apple Music). Me thinks "SP Music Project" = "Vivo Tunes" = "Spalexma". Bedivere (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

And they all very likely equal Sargis Poghosyon, a presumable human, credited as the songwriter, presumably receiving royalties checks. Either way, “very likely” isn’t good enough for me, but it very likely may be good enough for whoever reviews the copyright tag. Mikewem (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

IMO it really just comes down to connecting the dots between all these different aliases and labels. The evidence strongly points to them all being the exact same entity. I do understand your position, however, that you're being extremely cautious. Bedivere (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that the song's credit is disputed, but can you please discuss it without stretching the infobox to oblivion and back with the copyvio template? If you're confident than the file is a violation and "publishing the song in its entirety is blatant copyvio", make a deletion request on Commons. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 06:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not know how to do that. It’s a blatant violation and should not be on this page.

I followed the instructions given, the infobox did not appear to be stretched on mobile. Mikewem (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that you voted in the previous deletion discussion at Commons that ended up as keep Bedivere (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and since then, Spotify changed the song credits. Which means this is now unambiguous and that the most recent addition of the full copyrighted song is a clear and obvious violation of WP:COPYVIO by Jolielover. Mikewem (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

That does not change anything. Did you know that ChatGPT can generate song's lyrics? So does Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek and whichever AI you could use. The file now has a new version containing obvious AI artifacts in some frequencies. I sincerely don't know why you insist on such an obvious matter. Regardless, the venue to discuss this disagreement is at Commons, where the file is hosted. Bedivere (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Why would I remove a piece of media hosted on commons which was not deleted and was decided by Commons to be kept?? It's not an obvious copyright violation. This discussion is not very relevant here since ultimately the file is hosted on Commons. As long as it's there, it can be on the page. jolielover♥talk 15:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Anti-AI Bias

"people leaning towards right-wing are more likely to be exposed to AI-generated content than others leaning centrist or left-wing, consequentially making such content seem more normal to them". That sentence is anything but neutraul towards AI-generated media in the use of the word "consequentially" and somehow suggesting that AI-generated content is not "normal",which I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be. ~2026-35328-06 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality means neutrally reflecting what reliable sources say, not creating false balance or changing what those sources say to make them politically neutral. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

While I agree that we must reflect what the sources say, I am not certain who reached the conclusion that AI-content is primarily marketed towards right-wingers. It seems to be becoming increasingly common in several websites (like YouTube), and I don't see any particular political orientation in some of the generated content. Dimadick (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The next paragraph in the ref says Of course, these studies have all been conducted in the early days of AI prominence. As AI-generated content continues to get better—and more pervasive—it’s possible that any partisan divide may disappear.

I think that’s as good support for WP:RECENT as you’re gonna get.

We did present an opinion of the Mary Sue author as the conclusion of the report (the report did not reach that conclusion), thanks to the temp account for pointing this out, it was a useful fix. Mikewem (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)