Talk:Charlie Kirk

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)