Talk:Assassination of Charlie Kirk/Archive 6

Discussion on moving the article

Comment - The page WP:ASSASSINATION may be useful in this context, as well as the recently closed discussion for the same destination title: Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk#Requested move 10 September 2025. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Note that WP:ASSASSINATION is an essay, not a policy or guideline. 162 etc. (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - Killing is preferable at present given the lack of any identified shooter and therefore motive. While some sources are using the term "assassination" or reporting on prominent figures using the term I don't think we put the cart before the horse and instead wait for events to develop. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - without a shooter and without a known motive I think we should stick to the verifiable "killing". Guettarda (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Bro we got the shooter Beluga732 (talk | contribs) 10:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  I know I might sound like a broken record, but we stil don't have a motive before we have any legal findings. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 13:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Enough has been reported in the news media, by family, friends, and officials, the general direction the motive is going. We nay not have 100% crystal clear rationale and inner thoughts... but we rarely do in many crimes, let alone one as prominent as this. It was an assassination. In good faith, you must see that... Mercster (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - While true that we don't have a motive yet, using the reference of the Trump shooting last year, we never got a motive from that shooter, and yet we changed the page title to "assassination attempt" once the police and FBI announced they were investigating it as such, which I believe the police said they were going to do for this last night. Regardless, they confirmed that Charlie Kirk was specifically the sole target here, which meets the description of an assassination. Red0ctober22 (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

every news outlet is calling it an assassination Abf2022 (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

We dont need news opinion. We need authorities or law experts opinion, as per WP:NOTNP Simple non combat (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - Law enforcement are confirming this was an assassination. News agencies are calling it the same. SickNWristed (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet.

@SickNWristed yes, true, therefore I believe it makes the most sense to move it to assassination. RW471 (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.

There's no criteria for "a confirmed motive" as many editors are claiming. Not sure where that is coming from. This is obviously not a planned mass shooting as some have proclaimed. SickNWristed (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet.

Oppose - There are very few details out currently regarding the shooter and they are still at large. Assassination might prove to be more acceptable in the future when more details are out but for right now it should remain as killing. Kachow03 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait but don't close as this case can move quicker than we think and enough evidence for a move could come as soon as today. Plus, someone else would just make a new move discussion anyways. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 15:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Title is perfect. It was a killing. Charlie Kirk died. There's no good reason to imply anything else. SerialDesignationV (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

There's plenty of reason for implying an assassination. The FBI and many news outlets have declared it as such. Theologism (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support "Assassination of Charlie Kirk". We changed it to "Assassinato de Charlie Kirk" (literally "Assassination of Charlie Kirk") on the Portuguese Wikipedia. heylenny (^talk/_edits) 16:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not the Portuguese wiki. We don't follow the Japanese Wikipedia, Italian wiki, French wiki, or any other language wikipedia's policies. Babysharkb☩ss2 ^(DEADMAU5) 17:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You might want to watch your language there. "Jap" is a slur, which is forbidden in WP:IUC... Félix An (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm appalled to see the word "Jap" here. You should definitely clarify. Takipoint123 (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Dude, are we being serious with the slur? Justinbigdude (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

"good job" for being racist mate Ghostingb (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support – Some have suggested that calling it an assassination is jumping to conclusions, but perhaps the opposite is true. The available evidence points in that direction, and even without a confirmed assassin or manifesto, the deliberate targeting of a prominent political figure fits the definition. Media outlets and public figures are consistently using the term, as reflected across Bing Search, Bing News, Google Search, Google News, Yahoo Search, and Yahoo News. Pædia 17:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Support I understand the desire to not jump to conclusions, but there is no realistic argument for this not being an assassination. Multiple outlets are describing it as such. NotQualified (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Too early to tell, this discussion should be reopened later. Cottagechez (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Well that might not be up to date now. Beluga732 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Support. Everyone calls it an assassination nonetheless, including numerous politicians. I feel like it fits best if we rename it to that. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Also, both Kirk's wife and Trump had called the incident an assassination. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Neither of those 2 people are credible, and will use whatever language that will rile up as many people as possible. RedBlueGreen 93 19:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Support once suspect caught and some motive found (which it likely will be) <<chramo94>> (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now, because no motive has been identified as the sniper has not yet been found. An assassination of a political figure would have a political motive, but we do not know what the motive is currently. If the motive is found to clealy be relating to Kirk's political views, then the page should be moved as it would fit the definition of a political assassination. Otherwise, "killing" is a perfectly apt term. LVMH11 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Way too soon. We have yet to hear from the FBI or other similar authorities about what the motive was conclusively. WP:COMMONNAME also doesn't seem to be universal. AG202 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support - it was clearly targeted. It was not a random act. Targeted to Kirk and he is being declared assassinated by news outlets. Wikisteveb4 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree personally, but I think we should possibly wait until his killer is captured and we know more of his motives, because technically we can't accurately use the term "assassination" with no information to include about the assassin, the plan of the attack, his motives, etc Iristhescorpio (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support Nearly every news network calls it an assassination and calls the killer and assassin. The term "killing" just doesn't fit. Like Charlie Kirk was assassinated as MLK was assassinated, not Charlie Kirk was killed as MLK was assassinated. Rexophile (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait but don't close as an assassination is defined as a "The murder of a person, especially for political reasons or for personal gain." Even though it is likely he may have been assassinated, we don't know yet. Hogrider26 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME and that it meets the definition for an assassination. He was a political figure, and all sources clearly assert this was a targeted killing. Icantthinkofausernames (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Until a clear motive is established, it's too soon to call it an assassination. Argkitsune (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Regardless of political statements from either party line stating an assassination, it would be best for the time being to have it tiled with Killing. As another member had mentioned, the textbook differential between a killing and assassination would be political motive, of which we have no concrete evidence to support. Iheartdjagger (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@JE98 Both of New Zealand's prominent newspapers, The Post (STUFF) and The Herald in 12/9 print papers, along with RNZ and STUFF online articles have described this as an assassination

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/572873/analysis-the-ugly-aftermath-of-charlie-kirk-s-assassination-it-didn-t-used-to-be-like-this

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360820123/live-charlie-kirk-shot-dead-university-event-utah YodaInHisHondaCivic (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support The definition of assassination is the murder of a popular or wealthy person, usually a politician or leader in which he was a well-known conservative politician. Because of this, it would make more sense to use the term "assassination" rather than "killing of" for the title. Also the fact the perpetrator struck him first shot clearly indicates that this was well planned out and that most assassinations are planned whereas simply Killing someone is usually not planned out unless you are a hit man which is a whole different story.

-Republic of Selmarya Republic of Selmaria (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Only a small amount of initial publications referred to this as anything but an assassination. Pretty much every article that has came out since then has used to the word assassination, as well as the FBI, ATF and the White House.

There has never been a requirement in Wikipedia's policies for there to be a proven motive or a guilty conviction, despite the insistence of some editors, for a page to be renamed to Assassination, only that it meets COMMONNAME which at this point it does. The flowchart at WP:DEATHS is only to be used if there is no clear COMMONNAME, which there is.

«ΤΞΔ» - Please mention me when you reply to me or I wont see it! (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support for these reasons. cagliost (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Most reliable news sources have referred to it as such. This delay in calling it one is absurd. Twinbros04 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ASSASSINATION Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support moving to 'assassination' per several reliable sources and per above. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Voted previously for use of assassination, that was early on, now that more time has passed the WP:COMMONNAME being used is the verbiage "assassinate" not "shooting". It is past time to change it. Suspect doesn't need to be apprehended to know that this was pre-planned and that Kirk was the target. COMMON SENSE

MaximusEditor (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support - To pretend it wasn't an assassination is beyond ignorant. To oppose calling it an assassination says a lot about your character. Everyone, including the media, is calling it an assassination. It is time Wiki followed suite.

Cryptkeeperfun (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Soft Support, as time goes along this seems to be more and more of a common name. We seem to have a lot of pointing to essays here, but the policy is to go with the common name, and while I don't think there's harm in a modicum of patience, this seems to be the emerging trend. If this doesn't end up sticking, this need not be relevant— but there have been cases in history of things termed assassinations without an ideological motive. Beyond that, this doesn't need to be some place of moral judgement on the figure who was targeted, or those reacting to it.

-Etatrisy (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait It's still very early and we don't have any intention or motive if even calling it a politically motivated assassination is likely. But, if we get into weeks or months with no motive I feel it would be safe to move it to assassination Leecannon11 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm changing to Support after the press conference with Gov. Cox I feel there's enough evidence to safely and accurately call the events an assassination Leecannon11 (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support - I don't think anyone can, in good faith, pretend this wasn't an assassination. Here is NBC calling it as such, here is CNN, here is WSJ, and here is Fox News. Wikipedia should reflect what the public is calling this - an assassination. Laeësis (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

OPPOSE - Please respect the man's last opinion. We have no idea whether this was or was not gang violence. Calling it an assassination without reliable sources would be speculative. Hteza (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify this please? Laeësis (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

this is a reference to the fact that his last words were "counting or not counting gang violence?", but Kirk was not referring to his own death as he had not yet been shot. See Snopes. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose and moratorium, there is as of yet no evidence that the killing was an assassination – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support News agencies and law enforcement are calling it such, it meets the definition. This is pretty open and shut LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support if there are statement from law experts or authorities. Oppose if the source for naming it based solely on media opinion.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP Simple non combat (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - There is strong evidence that Mr. Kirk's death was indeed an assassination. An assassination denotes the surprise targeted killing of a high-profile individual. We can't call the assassination of Abraham Lincoln "Killing of Abraham Lincoln" because it's not calling it what it was: assassination. The evidence so far - that the individual highly disagreed with Mr. Kirk's stances, politics, and beliefs - points toward assassination. Even though there were people that may have seen the shooter on the roof prior to shooting, there is precedent that suggests that it still counts toward assassination; when Donald Trump was shot in Butler, PA on July 13, 2024, clearly people saw Thomas Matthew Crooks with a rifle on a rooftop aiming at the rally even an hour before the shooting, and it's labeled an assassination attempt. There is enough evidence that points towards a political assassination, especially since Kirk, while not a politician, was still a highly notable conservative figure in American politics of the 2020s. Justinbigdude (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support. He was a very widely known and controversial political figure, it is very reasonable to infer that it was an assassination. Hamjamguy (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong support - A clearly planned and targeted attack on a public figure. dom 08:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait. Though there is a shift toward use of the term "assassination", there is no cost in waiting. Indeed, there is no deadline. But I also must acknowledge that because this discussion has been closed and reopened many times, this specific response was made with the current media picture in mind. Consensus can change. I have also previously articulated why I oppose a moratorium.

b3stJ (IPA: /bʌˈθrɛstˌdʒeɪ/, formerly AEagleLionThing) | User talk page | 08:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Instate a temporary moratorium on move requests. Pretty much every support seems to be based on opinion. Until a motive is determined by authorities, Wikipedia should stay with the more generic term. – MW_(t•c) 08:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong support - WP:ASSASSINATION does not refer to whether motive has been established. Wiki policy of COMMONNAME takes priority. Currently, nearly every reliable publication uses the term. ChimaFan12 (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Support - It has all the signs of one if you ask me. I really doubt that the shooter only fired one shot and didn't go after anyone else if it wasn't a deliberate assassination. We can always change it back if it turns out not to be the case, but it's a very reasonable assumption right now. Pickle Mon (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support: I believe that despite the motive of the killer not yet being evidence, WP:COMMONNAME has swung in the direction of changing the name of the article such that I now support it.

NBC News is calling it an assassination

Fox News is calling it an assassination

NYT columnists are beginning to call it an assassination

The US president has called it an assassination

The Utah governor has called it an assassination

this is not an exhaustive list, however it goes to show that the common name is beginning to swing or has swung towards assassination, and for that reason I support moving the article to "Assassination of Charlie Kirk" despite the motive not being clear. Varials (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support "Killing" is incorrect and I was surprised that "Killing of Charlie Kirk" is the name of the article, it's like calling the Assassination of John F. Kennedy the Killing of JFK, it's completely wrong. This was a political assassination. NottinghamNinja (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, the article is brand new! It's just a wiki, not a newsroom. Give us time to get it right! Feoffer (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes that is true but the article should at least have the correct name for what it is. NottinghamNinja (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - It was clearly a planned attack on Charlie Kirk, done by what it seems like a experiences shooter. Highly unlikely that this was simply an accident or that the shooter just fired at a random person. Only one bullet was fired, which immediately hit Kirk. Undeniably an assassination. SDVBou (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - While I do think it was a targeted and politically motivated assassination, that is just an assumption at this time. Organisations like Wikipedia have a duty of care to verify information before making conclusions and not base them around assumptions, however obvious or likely they may be.

There's also very little need to be hasty; we'll know the motivation of the killer soon enough and if it turns out, as is likely, to be a political assassination, it'll be changed. No need to change it asap. Madlief (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - The shooting was most certainly targeted. Why would the shooter fire a single bullet and flee instead of aiming into the crowd afterwards if this weren't an assassination? The rifle located was bolt-action as well, not the greatest for mowing down a crowd which I imagine wasn't the shooter's intent at all. Shawtybaespade (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - This was basically the same kinda situation that happened to Trump last year, this was obviously an assassination considering he is a big figure. Justsomeguy0418 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong support – per nom and WP:Assassination, similar to Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

strong oppose Just like the last two times this has come up already. So, are people just going to keep proposing this edit until they get the outcome they want?

WP:Assassination has rules and we can't satisfy them without a motive or even a suspect. I understand that people's feelings are getting in the way of facts but just like any other school shooting, Kirk's wishes would be "We cannot allow them to emotionally hijack the narrative". SydCarlisle (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

That's an essay, not a rule. GlacialHorizon (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

comment Can we get an @admin in here for WP:AIAV?

This is the third time this has come up since yesterday. It was already decided twice to wait until there is a suspect and motive. Someone is obviously sending people here to brigade this page and build a narrative. SydCarlisle (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Huh? Justsomeguy0418 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong support this was certainly a political assassination, even if we don't have motives yet, news stations, and just the general public are saying 'assassination of Charlie' or 'assassination of Kirk'. I have yet to meet a single person who says 'shooting of Charlie' other than in the context of 'they shot Charlie!' same for 'killing of Kirk', this is my argument

thank you- wikipediahistorian3516 (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per User:ChimaFan12 and User:Varials. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy Support this should not be a question at this point. Many RS refer to it as an assassination,the authorities call it an assassination. It was a planned targeted attack to kill one political activist, one bullet was shot at the target, killing the target, it doesn't get more clear than this, it's a textbook definition of assassination. WP:ASSASSINATION says "the willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important." every criteria is met. There's no reason to call it anything other than an assassination.

TR (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support. The FBI just called it a 'political assassination' Green Needle (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support. I held off on supporting "Assassination of" in the last RM, but seeing that multiple reliable sources say that this is an assassination, I think now it is very clear that this wasn't just some random killing, but a targeted assassination. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - There is no reason not to call this an "assassination." By definition, an assassination is "the premeditated, targeted killing of a prominent person" (Oxford Dictionary), and this incident clearly fits that description. Major news outlets, including CNN and the Associated Press, have also referred to it as an assassination. EXANXC (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support as it's clearly a political killing, especially with the suspect in jail now. Killuminator (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - Clearly an assassination. PJM (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment bumping Strong Support - Bullet casings discovered with inscriptions saying "Hey fascist! Catch!" NottinghamNinja (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support I don't know if this is even being discussed anymore, but the bullet casings (if real, although I don't think the government could pull off that kind of unfunny reddit humor) prove it was an assassination. Wackistan (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support This is seriously a assassination, as Wackistan and Nottingham said, the bullet casings are definitely targeted against the late kirk. shane (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support as the assassination is becoming the common name as stated above. Irrefutable evidence has been stated by Utah governor Spencer Cox declaring the premeditation against a prominent political figure. This should classify under WP:ASSASSINATION Vataxevader (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per common name. I would also suggest that any votes predicated on the lack of information prior to today be re-evaluated after the information which has come out this morning (arrest of suspect, reveal of specific political slogans, descriptions by law enforcement). I don't see an issue in waiting a few days before making this decision, but a 1-month moratorium is excessive. "Killing" remains accurate but characterizing this as plausibly being a non-assassination killing no longer makes sense as of today. Cookieo131 (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Sources have recently confirmed that one of the bullet cases was engraved with "Hey, fascist! Catch!"

The assassination was premeditated and political.
— Urro^{[talk] [edits]} ⋮ 22:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

About the engravings in particular, it's not 100% clear yet if they indicate anti-fascist politics and certainly not premeditation.

The Verge argues that they could have an ideological meaning "albeit not necessarily a straightforward one" (especially since it precedes an indisputable Helldivers 2 reference; the game itself deals with fascism too). CNN reports that "memes are supposed to be read by meme audiences" and that "Hey, fascist! Catch!" "could be a reference to the Helldivers game." quidama _talk 22:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The Verge makes the connection that two of the casing engravements were related to facism in distinct ways, creating a theme that goes beyond videogame references.

Regardless, ... EDIT: The same press briefing talked about an intervirew with a family member of the shooter. This individual claimed that (BLP violation removed) did not like Charlie Kirk for his views and the messages he spread. He disliked his politcs.
— Urro^{[talk] [edits]} ⋮ 23:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The Verge article makes the case that the engravings specifically do *not* go beyond video game references. It gives a charitable explanation for why officials think they're anti-fascist but then concludes that "as it turns out, the messages are a confusing mix of internet memes and pop culture" and "ultimately, the messages on the shooter's bullet casings can best be described as bizarre and extremely online." quidama _talk 08:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

And regarding your edit, another family member of his claimed that he was apolitical. It's way, way too early to make any assumptions about his motive. quidama _talk 08:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: I moved the above !vote and discussion down to it's proper chronological place. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 15:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Very Strong Support – Several reliable sources state that it was an assassination. Beluga732 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Support The FBI and a majority of news outlets are calling it an assassination. NesserWiki (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. ADifferentMan (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Support as more sources are calling it such. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Support – This has more in common with the assassinations of JFK and Franz Ferdinand than it has with the murder or killing of Jo Cox or David Amess, per WP:ASSASSINATION Aside from that, most sources now appear to be using "assassination," as highlighted by numerous users prior. Lf8u2 (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support per WP:ASSASSINATION and common sense (may it prevail). TH (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - he wasn't an Official, General officer or a senior militant. As others mentioned, this suggestion doesn't follow WP:ASSASSINATION. IdanST (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait for now 'Assassination' sounds more informative depending on the context. Although personally, we should still hold on until we know any further information of the incident, such as the perpetrator's reasons for Kirk's murder, once they are 100% confirmed of course. GuyMan529 (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Strongly agree: President Trump himself has called this an assassination. GeorgeM2011^{(talk to me) | (My Edits)} 15:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose: Regardless of whether or not this was an assassination, to call it such could be libellous and a violation of WP:BLP. We have to err on the side of caution and 'do no harm'. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support - Shooter had Antifascist song "Bella Ciao" and another antifascist reference. JaxsonR (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Support moving the article title to Assassination of Charlie Kirk as it meets the criteria of WP:ASSASSINATION. Assadzadeh (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree as this was variably a political motive from the shooter (rationale stemming from political and personal reasons) 9mm.trilla (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME, and (if only it existed) WP:COMMONDEFINITION. If anyone said in a personal conversation that, "Charlie Kirk was assassinated", I am positive there would be no misunderstanding or disagreement. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹(Tadg^Talk-Email) 15:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Wait - One the one hand, assassination definition is murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons. This seems to be the case, but it could turn out to be more personal than that, and murder/killing would fit. From a Google search perspective, as of this morning:

247K "charlie kirk"

246K "charlie kirk killing"

212K "charlie kirk murder"

209K "charlie kirk assassination"

 • Bobsd •  (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Should we name this article just ‘Charlie Kirk’ 38.57.224.15 (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

no, we already have an article on him shane (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Sources write pages, and if the sources say it's an assassination, support User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 23:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. natemup (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Strongly support per OP Snokalok (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - per nomination. EnSingHemm (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Very Strong Support - Clearly falls under definition of assassination in every major dictionary up to and including: Cambridge, Oxford, Merriam Webster, Collins, dictionary.com, Longman etc, which all use a definition following a similar line of, "the killing of a prominent figure" with most (and more dictionaries not mentioned) adding on with "for cultural or political reasons" which not to mention is all written in the official wikipedia page for Assassination, "Assassination is the willful killing, by a sudden or secret attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important. It may be prompted by political, ideological, religious, financial, or military motives." And furthermore, it is also backed up by wikipedias naming conventions per WP:ASSASSINATION.

Whilst this is recent, the fact that it is a political assassination should not be contentious. It was planned, premeditated, and politically motivated which is clear from the available evidence regarding the shooter (engravements on weapons, testimonies by family of shooter, online activity etc). It also goes without saying that Charlie Kirk was a very prominent figure in US politics.

I believe that whilst formerly it would have been most appropriate to label this as a killing, I believe that we have more than enough available evidence to label this as an assassination, and I think it would be ignorant to say otherwise. Joecompan (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Support An influential political figure has been dead and there is some political motivation behind the act. Rager7 (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - per WP:COMMONNAME Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - WP:LAGGING and WP:NOTNP. There is no obvious WP:COMMONNAME yet - there is a split in mainstream news between "assassination" and other descriptors - killing, shooting, etc. This is particularly the case when considering English language news globally - not just US specific. Google Trends shows "shooting of" to lead both "killing" and "assasination" by a substantial margin globally and in the US. The definition of "assassination" is a politically-motivated murder. This is not yet a murder as there is no murder conviction. Legally, it's a homicide (albeit with a charged suspect). Per WP:DEATHS, the appropriate thing is to retain "Killing of" until such a time as a murder conviction is reached, at which point it can be changed to "Murder of", or more likely "Assassination of" if the trial demonstrates the murder to be politically motivated or it emerges as an indisputible COMMONNAME. To change it to assassination at this point - pre-trial - is to editorialise and pass judgement on it and feels - in itself - politically motivated. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or crystal ball. It is a neutral encyclopaedia, and the neutral title is "killing". The word "assassination" is a loaded term and inappropriate for an evolving case. The plethora of WP:OR in this discussion from those showing support is frankly astonishing (as is the level of sockpuppeting). Hemmers (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Support -- (strong) -- Obviously an assassination per secondary and primary sources, meets WP:ASSASSINATION MWFwiki (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support - it was an obvious assassination, and majority of mainstream media is calling it as such. CanadianOntarian (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support - Enough has been reported in the news media, by family, friends, and officials, the general direction the motive is going. We nay not have 100% crystal clear rationale and inner thoughts... but we rarely do in many crimes, let alone one as prominent as this. It was an assassination, widely if not unanimously called such in news media. Mercster (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, at least until the court appearance on the 29th. There is no established commonname with significant majority, and no convicted killer. Also, if anything, the new information points to this being personally/emotionally motivated, for believed protective purposes. I agree that it should be changed once there is a conviction or motivations are understood to explicitly be political, but at this moment I do not believe we should. LeoWal1 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Assassinations are murders of prominent political figures. End of the line. The ‘it has to be for political reasons’ is nonsensical. Every definition of ‘assassination’ has political reasons being a probable cause of assassination, not as its defining feature. The title must be changed. Anyone denying it at this point is doing it out of sheer bad faith. 38.57.224.17 (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to !vote. Put the bold word "Oppose" or "Support" at the start of your comment (in the manner you see everyone else is doing. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Since he was not actually a politician, and we have no convicted killer or objective established motives, it should remain as killing until we have information of one or both of them, or assassination becomes the significant majority commonname, which it is not yet. LeoWal1 (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - It seems like there’s a fair consensus among media outlets and search trends that this is being commonly referred to as an assassination. Imagine offline (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support WorldMappings (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Provide a reason for your vote: Beluga732 (talk | contribs) 23:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - We should wait until we better understand motivation. Best not to alter the title of a headlining article Dow97 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Let's wait for RS's to say it's an assassination before committing to that ourselves. WP:TIND so we can come back to this discussion later if needs be. IzzySwag (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. That Kirk was killed is fact. 'Assassination' remains speculation, even if highly plausible, until we know what the motivation was. Go with the factual title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose let's avoid speculation—blindlynx 14:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Wait - We literally just discussed this. We can't label it an assassination until a motive is found. 99% chance it will happen but that 1% is enough to make us consider sitting around and waiting. MountainJew6150 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - We just spent the last day discussing this and it was agreed "Killing of" was the best course of action (for now). WP:ASSASSINATION has not been fulfilled at this time. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose still too soon to say, very little has changed from the discussion that was closed less than 24 hours ago. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Going against my past vote by opposing. This isn't really an assassination, at least to me. I don't care what the Utah governor says, this isn't comparable to something like JFK.Babysharkb☩ss2 ^{(Sympathy For The Devil)} 15:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. This RM was opened mere hours after the previous one was closed. Let's give it some time and revisit in the future once the dust has settled. 162 etc. (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Would a moratorium discussion be helpful? Babysharkb☩ss2 ^{(Sympathy For The Devil)} 17:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose We had one of these yesterday. Nothing significant has changed since then. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Lets respect the last RfC for now. "Killing of.." is progress from "Shooting of..." R. G. Checkers ^talk 17:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per my argument in the previous RFC; most high-quality sources are describing it as a killing or shooting and are not using the word assassination in the article voice. I'd support a moratorium until there's reason to think coverage has clearly shifted. --Aquillion (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support. It meets the WP: ASSASSINATION definition. There are now a plethora of reliable sources on AP, CNN, NBC calling it an "assassination" and in their headlines, not when quoting other people. Even The View was calling it an assassination. SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• A comment on the last close, from the closer. I see several comments above saying to "respect the last RFC." I want to comment on that, and only that, not the merits of this proposed change. It is respecting the last close to propose this change. The outcome of my close was to say "we have consensus to change from 'shooting' to 'killing' because Kirk actually died after the article was created, with no prejudice against re-proposing a change to 'assassination' from that new title." The close does not say "we must wait a certain amount of time because of the close." I did say that we should wait for an official government agency statement about a suspect's motives before we make a further change, but there is reasonable debate whether we already have that. (I'd say we don't, but that's just my opinion, and irrelevant to whether this is a viable discussion.) So, I think this is a discussion that respects the last close, and that rationale should not be a reason to close it. There might be any number of other reasons to do so, of course. Mike Selinker (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. Too soon. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  For the record, since some editors have suggested that today's arrest negates earlier oppose !votes, I maintain my opposition, on the following basis:

  # It is still too soon. This is a rapidly developing story with a substantial amount of coverage. Facts and prevailing usage could change tomorrow or next week.

  # Guidance Recommendations at WP:ASSASSINATION calls exercising caution with this terminology except when it is an established common name. The determination does not depend on an arrest or usage by *some* official or independent sources. See also: my discussion here down below.

  # "Killing" remains accurate even if future developments eventually confirm that "assassination", "murder", or some other term is warranted. "Killing" does not perpetuate any particular interpretation nor does it place a political or values judgement on the crime. It provides the most flexibility to accurately describe the current state of coverage without the risk of prematurely declaring a more specific designation in Wikivoice.

  --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close, we just had a discussion closed yesterday where this was presented as one of the options. We don't need to have daily RMs. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Still oppose even after the arrest, for the record. And for all the times I've been told that news media outlets aren't WP:RS for these kinds of things, I think waiting to see what the long term name is will better inform what we should call this article. I've seen primary sources (news events) go back and forth between murder, killing and assassination. Until we get some actual secondary sources to weigh in on this, it all (still) seems premature. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support Multiple sources have called it an assassination. A commenter said that it might just be a deranged student. You think Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't deranged? --rogerd (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  No reason not to wait another day or however long a motive takes IMO. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 22:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close, in favor of a moratorium until some further sourcing comes out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I've been reading news about an assassination all day.—St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 23:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support. I !voted for "killing" in the previous RM, but the sources support it (e.g. What we know about Charlie Kirk's assassination, NBC, today). Also, some commenters here don't seem to know what "assassination" means: our article says "It may be prompted by political, ideological, religious, financial, or military motives." In other words, the motive doesn't actually matter, and we don't need to wait until the killer has been found. St Anselm (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  The definition at Assassination does not indicate that "the motive doesn't actually matter". The statement in the article is also not supported by the source, which says assassinations typically [have] a political or ideological motive. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support Many sources across the political spectrum are describing this as an assassination. Charlie Kirk was a close ally of Trump, major figure in American right-wing politics, and was doing a political event when he was killed. This meets all the common sense definitions of an assassination. Bowwow828 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support move as per my previously mentioned reasons. Now the WP:RS uses "assassination" across the spectrum. Félix An (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I support it even more now that I learned about the inscriptions on the bullets. Félix An (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  Did the inscriptions say "assassination"? Because otherwise that sounds like a metric tonne of WP:OR on your part. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  I mean they did make the motive pretty clear. Basically all the RS's are calling it an assassination at this point. It looks kind of silly that we're arguing about it. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  And yet they're not all calling it an assassination, the silliness is trying to force this through with no arguments or evidence beyond a smattering of sources (finally) and original research. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support Per nom, I think Assassination is appropriate. I also like @Red0ctober22:'s explanation for his support. Furthermore, numerous sources also call it an assassination. BBC: "Charlie Kirk was fatally shot in front of hundreds of young people, many of whom recording on their phones at the time. Moments later, videos of his assassination could be seen on social media." Al Jazeera "Read more about the assassination of Charlie Kirk and law enforcement's hunt for the killer here." Noorullah (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Not enough details on perpetrator, motives, or anything. Just too soon. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, I already stated that in the moved archive, a suspect has not been arrested and the motive still remains unknown. Even if he convicted, it should have been Murder of Charlie Kirk because the title is not a complete criterion of assassination. QalasQalas (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Considering the multiple similarities to the assassination of mlk, this should be considered one unless you consider mlk to be "killed" rather than "assassinated" Generikuser (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - As "assassination" is not on the flowchart at WP:DEATHS, the only way we can name the article that is if it becomes clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for this event. And we can't know if it's the WP:COMMONNAME until new information slows down and we get sources that are no longer breaking news but talking about the news in a historical context where the facts are generally agreed on. That's not going to happen today, or tomorrow. It probably won't happen by the end of the week. If it doesn't happen for over a month I honestly wouldn't be surprised. In the killing of Brian Thompson, it took about a week to make an arrest and establish a probable motive, and since no conviction has been obtained we're still not 100% certain what the motive actually was months later. Loki (talk) 01:43, 12September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. We currently know nothing about the shooter and his motives, which may not have been political. Premature to call it an assassination. WWGB (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Literally all RS's are calling the killing an "assassination", including the Associated Press. Opposes are either bad faith or bots in my opinion. LJF2019 ^talk 02:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • That's not an "opinion" but an accusation against your fellow editors, and an unfounded one. It is not constructive. WP Ludicer (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  @LJF2019: Please remember to assume good faith. Keep it civil and constructive. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  🤣🤣🤣🤓🤓🤓 LJF2019 ^talk 17:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose 'Was killed'/'was shot' seems to be the most common term used as of right now, so that should be the title of the article. Others already explained the criteria for a killing to be called an assassination. Obviously subject to change as more information comes, but that hasn't happened yet. EH86055 (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support due to the extensive WP:RS describing it as an assassination. The point raised by many regarding no confirmed political motive is asinine. There is still no explicit political motive for Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, and it's still labeled as such. ~ HAL 333 03:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Everything seems to be calling it an assassination now. Not going with the WP:RS at this point seems more agenda-driven -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely. Change the name. Theologism (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree! Just try Googling "assassination of charlie kirk" and look at the top news results. Félix An (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is like saying Earth should be edited due to what's found by googling "earth is flat". There is only one news source calling it an assassination and the rest are using an algorithm to connect the killing with what people are searching for. SydCarlisle (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  No! Multiple sources (which have green checks on the WP:RSP) are calling it an assassination, not just one. Search it for yourself! Félix An (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think the confounding factor here is it's at university and shootings at universities are (unfortunately) common in America. It could've been an assassination, or it could've been a school shooting. There's discussion about that elsewhere on this talk page. But if no new information is presented in the coming days it should be changed to assassination. Leecannon11 (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. A quick and by no means comprehensive roundup of English-language headlines shows them use a mix of terms: "shooting" by BBC and The Guardian; "killing" by ABC News, CBS News, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Telegraph; "murder" by CNN; and "assassination" by NBC News, The New York Times, and The Financial Times. Those are just the headlines specifically right now; several sources use multiple terms (CNN, just as an example, uses "murder" for the main headline but "assassination" for an analysis piece). Given that, there does not seem to be a single common name according to reliable sources. The article title can be kept as is for now, although if it were to be moved, either "Murder of Charlie Kirk" or "Assassination of Charlie Kirk" would still be appropriate. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 03:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support It's most often being called an assassination cause that's what it was. I've seen people say it hasn't been universally called that, but it's called that MORE than killing, by presidents, congressmen, news articles, from the left and the right. It's certainly not universally being called a killing so why call it that. If the argument is about waiting for motive or something like that, looking at precedent, George Floyd and Shinzo Abe were both called murder and assassination right away, respectively.
• Strong Support From Collins Dictionary: "assassination 1. the act of deliberately killing someone, esp a public figure, for political or religious reasons" Three news sites (NBC News, National Post, and AP News) labelling it "assassination": , , . Israell (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. Every assassination is also a killing/murder, but not every killing/murder is an assassination. All the WP:RS calling it an assassination are not doing so because it's not also a killing/murder, but because in addition to being a killing/murder, it's also something more specific. -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  The article on George Floyd was also called killing until Chauvin was convicted. LeoWal1 (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  That is the case when it comes to any murder article, but not necessarily assassination articles. Take the Minnesota Law Maker shootings for an example. In the text, it acknowledges that the Hortmans were assassinated. 174.110.170.165 (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well to fit the criteria of assassination it should fit the criteria of a murder too right? If we cannot call it a murder, how can we call it an assassination? LeoWal1 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Until we know why and by whom. Qwirkle (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose makes sense to cover this like Killing of Brian Thompson Czarking0 (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Wait and impose moratorium per below. This issue was closed yesterday for good reason. There was little consensus in favour or against. In 24 hours there has been no apparent change in this, nor has there been any apparent clear WP:COMMONNAME or anything along the lines that would consistently support WP:ASSASSINATION. There is yet to be anything consistent in reliable sources. Let alone this, no suspect has yet been found nor their motivations. Without that information or a clear settling of the dust with a WP:COMMONNAME over the next couple weeks to a month we cannot make a decision. We do not know who did it. We do not know what their motivations were. We cannot rule many things out. In practicality, we know barely anything about the actual killing itself. Therefore, this request should be closed without prejudice but with a moratorium imposed for 2 weeks to one month per the below. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support This is the common name, there is no reason to shy away from this. Wolverine MI (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose – As an encyclopedia, we should avoid political rhetoric and stick to verifiable facts. At present, the identity of Charlie Kirk's killer is unknown, and their motives cannot be assumed. I appreciate that this naming issue stirs strong feelings (and attracts sockpuppetry), but it is disruptive to propose another move less than 24 hours after the last discussion. There is clearly no consensus to move the page at this time. The most accurate position remains that the current title reflects only confirmed facts, and we should wait to see whether later evidence establishes this as an assassination. Promethean (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  There is no indication that it is political rhetoric at play here; left-leaning and right-leaning publications all report that it is an assassination. as an encyclopedia, we have a responsibility to meet the facts as they are reported. Assassination is well-sourced at this juncture. ChimaFan12 (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Two rebuttals: The FBI and other statutory investigating bodies continue to consistently describe this as a "fatal shooting" or "murder." Utah's Governor, who is only an elected official and possessing far more latitude for speculative language, has alternated between "assassination" and "murder" reflecting the breadth of appropriate terminology. (For a reliable source, see today's press conference with the FBI Director, along with the FBI's official social media channels and website for sources.) The media, unsurprisingly, favour "assassination" because it makes for a more dramatic headline, but that is not encyclopaedic at this stage and Wikipedia is not the news. Second rebuttal: It is no more appropriate to title the article "Murder of Charlie Kirk" (as murder is a legal finding that has not yet been made and which requires knowledge of motives) than it is to call it "Assassination of Charlie Kirk" (as the perpetrator's identity and motives remain unconfirmed and speculative) hence the most accurate name at this stage is "Killing of Charlie Kirk" since all that is known is that he died to a bullet. Promethean (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  We don't need to know the perpetrator's motives, just that it was a targeted killing. And RSes are definitely reporting this was a targeted killing. Feoffer (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:ASSASSINATION notes that articles should follow the common name used in reliable sources. However, in this case WP:RSBREAKING is directly relevant: news articles alone should not be given decisive weight in a fast-moving situation where the killer is still unidentified. On balance, official investigation sources and press releases -such as those from the FBI- are more reliable, and they are consistently using terms like "killing" or "murder". Invoking WP:COMMONNAME is not decisive here either since straightforward comparison of coverage shows that terminology such as "killing/killed" appears more frequently than "assassination/assassinated/assassin," even when filtering search results for those mentions. Releases from elected officials are also to be given less weight to those of statutory officials and investigative reports for obvious reasons. Promethean (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Guettarda. Without a shooter and a motive, it's all speculation. TarnishedPath^talk 10:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Update on my !vote above as there is now apparently a suspect. WP:ASSASSINATION states that

  The term "assassination", per Wikipedia's definition, means "the willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important." That said, Wikipedia does not always call the killing of a "prominent or important person" an "assassination".

  Given that we do not have a conviction as yet, we should not be stating in wikivoice, by way of the article name, that the suspect is guilty. It would be a clear WP:BLP violatoin to do so. TarnishedPath^talk 03:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I pray to God that the murderer is caught very soon and confesses immediately. Not only because justice will be served, but because that will allow us to rename the page ASAP to "assassination", or "murder" depending on what's most adequate. While I do understand naming conventions, this case is so high-profile that this debate makes it look like we're downplaying Kirk's murder (yeah, I know that's not the case of most editors, but this is what many people will think anyway and that's upsetting). Psychloppos (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree assassination is the best term, but nobody's downplaying it. It's a wiki, it's under construction, and it has a big banner at the top to remind readers that it's not done yet. There's a whole flowchart on naming conventions and it takes time to get things right. Feoffer (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I know: I'm just saying that the context is upsetting, especially after the recent furore surrounding this page. Psychloppos (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• With great regret, very strong support (pending new updates). Targeted political violence is really bad, but RSes are consistent in charactering it as such. RSes say so, so should we. Feoffer (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME, which it is right now. We can always change it back to killing later, if for whatever reason, we, or new stations, later decide assassination isnt appropriate. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. Multiple RS are calling this killing an assassination (see above). Also strong oppose to any moratorium since this situation is rapidly developing (Al Jazeera have recently reported that the suspected shooter is likely in custody), in which case any moratorium would lead to Wikipedia being dreadfully behind the facts and be completely inappropriate. ★Maxman013★^(talk) 12:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose As of now, neither the culprit nor motive have been confirmed. The situation is still RAPIDLY developing, and I believe that within the next few days we will have enough information to accurately call this an "assassination". But for now, I agree that this page stays named Killing of Charlie Kirk. Remember, it isn't permanent. Just until we have enough information. Haaayzey^(talk) 12:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Support I don't think anyone here would seriously argue John F. Kennedy's death was anything other than an assassination simply because we don't know Lee Harvey Oswald's motive. It's likely the most famous assassination in history. On the other hand, Oswald never got a chance to explain his motives thanks to Jack Ruby, and we'll almost certainly never know for sure why he did it. Meanwhile, this killer is still alive and apparently in custody, so we will likely know more within a few days. So there's no significant harm in waiting a little bit if that makes people feel better. Smartyllama (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Given the news reported in the press conference a few moments ago that has been widely reported in reliable sources including the AP, indicating that the shooter clearly had political motives, change to Strong Support. Even if we wanted to wait for a motive, it's pretty clear at this point and reliable sources are calling it such. Smartyllama (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Good explanation. Unknown0124 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Clearly politically targeted. Kirk also clearly meets the "prominent" category for a targeted killing. Finally, FBI and several reputable news sources, including AP and Reuters, are calling this a clear assassination. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Strong Support for the same reasons MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - Frankly, too sensationalist. Leave it at killing. Alaney2k (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support the murder fits the definition of assassination, being politically motivated. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - The BBC article here https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c206zm81z4gt provides some official details, including a confession, the detail that the shooter "didn't like" Kirk, most strikingly, having inscriptions on bullet casings – one for example reading "Hey fascist! Catch!". I think that may be just enough indication that this is a political murder. AKTC3 (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support - this is beyond appropriate now- what's the holdup here?
• Oppose When the consensus among reliable, independent secondary sources calls it an assassination, then so will we. — Fortuna, imperatrix 16:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - the front pages of New York Times, WSJ, CNN all use "Kirk shooting" so if anything the commonname may be that, so killing of as default is right as of this moment. Raladic (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for now until proper information comes out SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The just-concluded press conference indicates the suspect had a political motivation, so by WP:ASSASSINATION this is the most correct nomenclature. Significant numbers of sources are now also referring the event that way, and it matches the commonplace discussion. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 16:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I read WP:ASSASSINATION and reach the opposite conclusion. It states (in part):

  Wikipedia does not always call the killing of a "prominent or important person" an "assassination".

  When an article is about an assassination, and the event has a single commonly recognized common name in reliable sources, then the article may be titled as an assassination... Even if a death appears to be an assassination, the article title should not use the term assassination unless that term is part of the established common name.

  This calls for caution and avoidance of the term. One or two days' worth of coverage is not enough to established a true "common name" for this killing. As others have noted, "killing", "shooting" and other terms remain quite common in reliable sources. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I read the section you quoted as a note to be careful, but not as a proscription, especially in light of the example RM discussions it lists (Amess, Attanasio, and the two Cox ones). In those, the sticking point many editors expressed about "assassination" was unclear motive, which seems much clearer for Kirk's death. There was also a question whether "assassination" was a US English preference (I'm not aware of that being the case, but if so then it would be a point in favor of this move).

  I agree that there hasn't been enough time for an overwhelmingly common name to emerge. There's also no guarantee that one will, and we're not beholden to wait for one. I prefer to err on the side of clarity and I think moving to "assassination" does so, especially now that more sources and officials are using that terminology.

  I do think the RM team should leave this open for at least few days to allow time for consensus (and since you recombined the sections I'll also say no moratorium). – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 21:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree it's not a proscription but I read the essay as recommending caution quite strongly. "Killing" is perfectly clear and consistent with much of the coverage over the last 48 hours. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Wait It's probably an assassination, I won't deny it, but no need to hurry. Let's wait for law enforcement if they get caught, if they don't ever get caught, then we'll look for whatever arises by reliable sources.--Takipoint123 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Table until next week. Here's the problem with an early RM like this. A lot of early opposes were written before the arrest of the suspected shooter. That plus the volume of responses mean this will likely close no consensus, which just opens up another nomination. We may be able to have a little more clarity next week, so my recommendation is to start fresh with a new discussion next week, after (some of) the proverbial dust settles, so everybody has a chance to look at the same data, the same proliferation of sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - again, not a politician. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Was MLK? Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 17:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Charlie Kirk was nowhere near as important as Martin Luther King Jr. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  We are not arguing importance we are arguing assassination. And he was the equivalent to his base. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Also, worth looking at: MLK's daughter Bernice King reacts to Charlie Kirk's shooting Iljhgtn (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Look at this. Charlie Kirk's Christian Supporters Mourn Him as a Martyr - The New York Times

  A "modern day MLK" as quoted from the New York Times. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Plainly irrelevant. Vanishingly few men can be called as important as MLK Jr. Cookieo131 (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Was MLK a politician? Answer the question. 38.57.224.15 (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Neither Jamal Khashoggi nor Malcolm X were politicians, and neither was as important as Martin Luther King, Jr. Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and Assassination of Malcolm X. OCNative (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  For Jamal Khasoggi, the article started at "Assassination of...", but was moved the same day, and went between "Death of...", "Killing of..." and "Murder of..." before returning to "Assassination of..." over a month later.

  We haven't had a thorough source review during any of this RM, and while it looks like someone finally produced some sources, simply finding sources that call it an "assassination" needs to be checked to make certain those sources weren't cherry-picked. I've seen many sources that don't use "assassination" whatsoever. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support Since the arrest of the suspected shooter WP:RS' have stabilised around the terminology "assassination", Utah Governor Spencer Cox announced earlier today that the bullet casings had engravings that include "Hey fascist! Catch!" and "Oh Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Bella Ciao, Ciao, Ciao". It is very obvious at this point that this was a politically motivated attack, and that is verifiable. Coleisforeditor (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support I was waiting for the suspect to be arrested before voting. The engravings on the bullets make it very clear that the shooter was specifically targeting Kirk for political reasons. Unnamed anon (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support, though the page could always be renamed back to "Killing" if somehow this was PROVEN to not be an assassination and a new WP:COMMONNAME were to crop up, however, as of right now, sources across the politically spectrum are nearly universally using the descriptor of "assassination" to label the event. Including even political opposite of Charlie Kirk, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who called it an "assassination" and many, many, many others on record for doing the same. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support - numerous sources are now saying this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support, the use of the term 'assassination' is practically universal - In fact is there a single new outlet which has and article posted in the last 8 hours which dosen't refer to it as an assassination?
• Comment FWIW, many of the opposes, opposed on the basis that we did not yet know if it was an assassination or not. This seems to be in WP:SNOW territory now DarmaniLink (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, definitely fine to SNOW close it as no consensus with at least a one month moratorium before considering the title again. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose until perpetrator is convicted. See flowchart at WP:KILLINGS. Common name is not clear. Kire1975 (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC) Kire1975 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support — WP:RS have labeled this an "assassination". For example, AP ("Suspect in assassination of Charlie Kirk..."), NBC ("Charlie Kirk's assassination..."), The New York Times ("Charlie Kirk's Assassination"), CNN ("aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination"}, ABC ("Investigation into Charlie Kirk's assassination"), CBS ("Lawmakers scale back outdoor events after Charlie Kirk assassination")Oluwasegu (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support. The article should be renamed Assassination of Charlie Kirk per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION: reliable sources across the spectrum already use "assassination," and the event was a deliberate, targeted killing of a prominent political figure. Objections that it is "too soon" or that no motive is proven misapply WP:RSBREAKING and WP:ASSASSINATION—Wikipedia titles follow how RS consistently characterize an event, not judicial findings. "Killing" is accurate but imprecise; "murder" is a legal conclusion avoided in titles; "assassination" is both descriptive and widely recognized. Consensus does not require unanimity, only prevailing RS usage, and titles can always be revised if long-term coverage shifts. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per rationale of int21h above, and the ever-increasing multitude of RS's using the term assassination. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support This is a pure example of a political assassination no different than the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. that is meant to shake the foundation of this country to it's core.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Fruitloop11: Did you mean to place this under the main section? This is a separate discussion on whether to impose a moratorium on future RM discussions here. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

My bad. yeah I did. thank you for letting me know Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Fruitloop11: No worries, I've moved it to the main section. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• (Personal attack removed) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Alpha Quadrant I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Please withdraw your personal attacks. Guettarda (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support calling the killing an assassination. It very clearly meets the definition of an assassination; a political motive is not required for it to qualify as an assassination. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support I'm not even American, but I'd like to share my perspective. As other Wikipedians have already pointed out, this incident clearly falls under the definition of a political assassination. Charlie was a prominent figure in the Republican Party and one of the most influential political activists in the United States. I always enjoyed watching the debates he participated in, whether on university campuses or on YouTube, he was very smart and I enjoy watching smart people debating. I would often watch not only him but also Dean or Parker, simply to learn and to challenge my own political views with stronger arguments. I have my own political beliefs which have no interest here, so from an unbiased standpoint, this was unmistakably an assassination. Phosphor (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support "assassination". The clear common name in sources. It is clear that, regardless of why, this was a plan by the assailant to shoot someone to kill them. This was not some random shooting, or one where the motive of why they chose to kill the person. It's still an assassination as it was a targeted killing - maybe not targeted a specific individual, but someone at a specific event that they knew would be happening. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support. Reliable sources are calling this an assassination, and the killer's motive seems clear. O.N.R. ^(talk) 01:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support planned targeted attack of a prominent figure and substantial RS coverage. Metallurgist (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Assassination appears to be the COMMONNAME per reliable source coverage. As I said in the first RM, this also has all the characteristics of a typical assassination -- sniper, high-profile political figure, etc. I don't believe that will change any time soon. R. G. Checkers ^talk 02:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Let's use common sense here. This was clearly a politically targeted attack on a controversial figure, and there has been significant coverage that has called Kirk's death an assassination. TheInevitables (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support We know this was mentioned in the news that this is a literal assassination like the 2 assassination attempts on Donald Trump and the assassination of Brian Thompson, saying killing be like he was shot from a random school shooting and none of the other college students and adults have been killed unlike the first assassination attemp on Donald Trump had caused two deaths while Donald Trump survived the attack.DigiPen92 (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME. List is below OCNative (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  While this is an impressive list below, and if I were creating the article now I would use "assassination", a weakness of these sources is that they are all from immediately after the event. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  • NBC News: "Charlie Kirk's assassination highlights a history of political violence in the U.S."
  • CBS News: "What's next after suspect arrested in Charlie Kirk assassination"
  • ABC News: "Investigation into Charlie Kirk's assassination uncovers new clues"
  • CNN: "Who is the suspect in the Charlie Kirk assassination?"
  • Associated Press: "Suspect in assassination of Charlie Kirk arrested on suspicion of capital murder, weapons and obstruction offenses"
  • The New York Times: "A Suspect is Caught in Charlie Kirk's Assassination"
  • The Washington Post: "Details are still pouring in about the capture of the suspect in the assassination of Charlie Kirk."

We can easily find sources that use other terminology:

• • • • CNN: Charlie Kirk shooting suspect identified and taken into custody
      • CNN: Charlie Kirk's social media accounts have gained millions of followers since his murder
      • NYT: Charlie Kirk Shooting Updates: Family Member Alerted Officials to Suspect
      • Guardian: Questions linger about alleged shooter's motivation for killing Charlie Kirk
      • CBS: Charlie Kirk shooting suspect in custody after manhunt, Erika Kirk vows to keep holding Turning Point USA events
      • BBC: BBC reports from house linked to Charlie Kirk shooting suspect

Often an article will use multiple terms. For example, The Guardian piece I linked uses (variations of) shoot 2 times, kill 7 times, murder 3 times, and does not use assassinat* at all. What we see in sources is a lot of variation. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Or we can use one of OCNative's sources. The NBC article uses (forms of) assassin 4 times, kill 4 times, and shoot 3 times. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Most reliable sources are referring to it as an assassination, and all available evidence points to it being an assassination. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support The more facts come to light, the more it points to this being an assassination. Especially with so many WP:RSs above citing it as an assassination, it makes sense that we follow suit. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose We can argue forever what defines a 'killing' and what an 'assassination' but I would argue that sticking to established naming conventions makes the most sense in this case, see Killing of Brian Thompson. User:222emilia222 (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2025 (CET)
  • The established naming policy/convention is WP:COMMONNAME. As listed above, multiple relevant RS are using the term "assassination". ★Maxman013★^(talk) 08:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Wait for reliable secondary sources, which at a minimum would be two weeks, before reliable secondary sources demonstrate a preponderance for murder (driven by personal intent), assassination (driven by political motivation) or killing (random or generic or unclear etc). "Killing" is not wrong. Title stability is important, per Policy WP:TITLECHANGES. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  My reading of WP:TITLECHANGES does not preclude changing a title if the title has never been stable (If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed, emphasis mine). The article is days old, no title could reasonably be called stable now. Not changing the title for the sake of title stability isn't a good enough reason to not even discuss changing the title (If it has never been stable, ... and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, emphasis mine). ★Maxman013★^(talk) 08:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  My reading of TITLECHANGES is that we should avoid creating instability, and that it is highly conceivable that we could learn very soon that the killers motivation was personal not political, which would mean that this rename was done over-hastily. Underlying this is that we don't know enough yet to be sure that "assassination" is correct. It's worth waiting a couple of weeks, to ensure title stability.

  Also, there is the angle of citogenesis, Wikipedia is supposed to follow usage in reliable sources WP:UCRN, and until that has been established, Wikipedia should not lead. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's fair enough to say we shouldn't speculate on the killer's motivation WP:BALL. I also think a discussion still needs to be had now as to whether there is consensus among RS, since there are definitely multiple RS calling this an "assassination" (see some lists above). "Title stability" just probably isn't the right justification to not move the article, lack of consensus among RS is. ★Maxman013★^(talk) 10:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree usage in RS is most important, but SmokeyJoe brings up additional reasons to favor the current title at this time. For the sake of argument, let's say sources were 50–50 between killing and assassination at the present moment. With hundreds of articles published daily in a rapidly changing information environment, the situation calls for retaining the less specific title (killing). If usage in sources were overwhelming and stable, that would warrant a different call. The citogenesis concern is also valid. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  The title stability argument presumes no consensus among reliable sources. If there is no consensus, do not make titles unstable by moving lightly.

  I disagree that an article being new means that there was no stable title and so that clause fails. No. Instead, for a new article, the title chosen by the original author has special precedence and should not be moved lightly, and should be presumed to be a stable title. Either that, or new page creators are to be subjected to willy nilly fiddling of their chosen title. Page creators *should* have special standing in the face of no consensus to change what they created. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Note that the page was moved (without prejudice to re-opening discussion) from its original title, Shooting of Charlie Kirk, on the third of three RMs on September 10, the same day the article was created. The title has never been stable. I don't entirely agree with SmokeyJoe's position that the original title always gets special standing. However, I do agree that current relative stability is a reasonable consideration (one of many), especially in a situation like this where coverage is changing almost by the hour. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support, easy to come to that concusion after reading all of the above and sources talking about the assassination.Halbared (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Wait WP:BLP very much applies here; by calling it an "Assassination" we assume that the suspect is guilty. Yes, the suspect has been described as being "pretty left on everything" which would motivate him to assassinate Charlie Kirk (if he's guilty), but we need to tread very carefully because of WP:BLP. I believe the accused suspect did it, but he has a right to due process, presumption of innocence, and I find trial by social media loathsome. Samboy (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support, WP:ASSASSINATION says "the willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important". The killing was willful (not accidental). It was sudden. Based on many FBI communications, it was planned. The targed was prominent and important, if the days of worldwide coverage are to be believed. The criteria is already met, and some could argue it was met within 12 hours. Albeit not strongly - but the sources are getting more plentiful as time passes. Wikinium (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support move. Prior comments have demonstrated to me that RS's refer to the act as an assassination, and Wikinium's reasoning on WP:ASSASINATION makes it seem that Assassination is the most appropriate conclusion. To address the idea of Kirk being "not a politician", MLK was assassinated and he wasn't a politician. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME TocMan (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per per. jp×g 🗯️ 18:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Wait for now without accepting that any title has consensus. This is a rapidly developing story and what we know a month from now may be much different that what we know now. Honestly, this is an example of where it would probably be best if Wikipedia didn't try to keep up with current events and instead waited just a bit until things had slowed down and we could sift through RS sources that were breaking news vs ones that represented a summary after the facts developed. I think assassination is probably the correct title but I see no reason to move to quickly one way or another so long as any future RfM discussion doesn't assume no-con = leave with this title. Springee (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC) Copied from section below Springee (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• COMMENT/NOTE - I understand WP:CONSENSUS specifically WP:DETCON, but as a note and a good spot to benchmark where we are at the moment it is roughly (and I am emphasizing roughly) around 102ish editors support the motion to change the article to "assassination" versus about roughly about 42ish Oppose. Make of it what you will. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for doing that @MaximusEditor. I think the consensus is obviously and overwhelmingly in favor of "assassination" at this point, plus, at worst, people seem to hold the incorrect assumption that it could not ever be changed back. The "unfinished puzzle piece" logo of Wikipedia demonstrates that this project is dynamic and always subject to further changes as the evidence presents itself. If for some reason, somehow the evidence were to CHANGE and the COMMONNAME which is presently "assassination", were to change to something else, then the article could always be updated at that time to reflect that. I do not see why we would not then follow that COMMONNAME now, and then if necessary, change it later IF evidence were sufficiently strong enough to warrant such a change at that later time.

  I guess a closer needs to just come in and make it happen now at this point. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• KEEP. He was not an elected official, he was just a podcaster. CNC33 (. . .talk) 23:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@CNC33: Did you mean to place this under Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk#Discussion on moving the article? Consider moving this to the proper subsection of this discussion so your !vote will be more visible. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Moving !vote by User:CNC33 from Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk#Archive moratorium discussion to Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk#Discussion on moving the article where it appears more appropriate. Please notify me or revert if this was inappropriate. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support: per the above arguments; including engravings on bullets, planned sniping of a public figure at a public event. one single bullet straight to his neck. this was no "normal" killing, this was an assassination. Al83tito (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Speculative back and forth over motive is not relevant. The question is whether "assassination" or "killing" are the WP:COMMONNAME, which is the policy that takes precedence here. Users above have demonstrated that assassination is the common name being used in the reliable sources. Flip ^and Flopped ㋡ 00:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Most reliable sources call this an assassination and it is the common name as others have pointed out and it clearly meets the definition of an assassination. Cyrobyte (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Weak oppose. Personally, I am certain that it was a political assassination. But who cares about my opinion? WP:COMMON NAME please. After looking at the sources, and discussin above I am not convinced that majority of RS qualify it this way. Yes, there is a suspect, but his guilt was not proven in the court, and his motives are actually unknown (one can only guess). My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes What do you mean the motives are unknown? Assassination is defined as "the willful killing, by a sudden or secret attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important". The motivation does not matter unless you are referring to whether the motivation was to kill Charlie Kirk or not. Cyrobyte (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean that a typical recent publication on this subject by non-partisan sources, such as Reuters is entitled as Accused sniper jailed in Charlie Kirk killing awaits formal charges in Utah. Yes, it does mentioned Donal Trump calling it a "heinous assassination." Hence, this particular publication does not really cal it an "assassination". Same with most other recent publicatons. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to highlight that whether motivation was political or not does not affect whether it was an assassination. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support -- WP:COMMONNAME, next to all media outlets are calling it an assassination:

• NBC News: "Charlie Kirk's assassination highlights a history of political violence in the U.S."
• CBS News: "What's next after suspect arrested in Charlie Kirk assassination"
• ABC News: "Investigation into Charlie Kirk's assassination uncovers new clues"
• CNN: "Who is the suspect in the Charlie Kirk assassination?"
• Associated Press: "Suspect in assassination of Charlie Kirk arrested on suspicion of capital murder, weapons and obstruction offenses"
• The New York Times: "A Suspect is Caught in Charlie Kirk's Assassination"
• The Washington Post: "Details are still pouring in about the capture of the suspect in the assassination of Charlie Kirk."

Prominent figures have described it as such:

• The US president has called it an assassination
• The Utah governor has called it an assassination

TimeToFixThis | 🕒 02:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose / Wait - An assassination is the killing of someone for political/religious purposes. We don't know for sure what the suspect's intentions were (even though we can take an educated guess). And we can't say for sure that this suspect is the killer even if it is highly likely that they are. I say we wait until we have more information before describing this an assassination. I think it's currently too soon. IJA (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: A number of !votes here make poor arguments for changing the name, often pointing to some policy/guideline but without meeting the requirements of those PAGs, and in some instances, trying to utilize essays. In detail:

• WP:COMMONNAME: Many !votes invoking this provide no sources to support their claims. The few sources provided so far amount to a drop in a very large bucket of sources. To invoke COMMONNAME in support of a title such as this, a full deep dive of reliable sources is necessary, not simply cherry picking a handful and leaving the hundreds of other sources undiscussed.
• WP:ASSASSINATION: In addition to being part of a larger essay on naming murder/death/killing/assassination page titles, the text at that section says When an article is about an assassination, and the event has a single commonly recognized common name in reliable sources, then the article may be titled as an assassination. Again repeating the COMMONNAME counter, so far nobody has done an exhaustive source analysis (which would be difficult, as there are hundreds at this point) to back the claim up that this meets the threshold of a single commonly recognized common name as ASSASSINATION lays out.
• Just a ton of WP:OR, some selected examples from !votes in this RM:
  • The English word "assassination" is defined as "murder by sudden or secret attack". Charlie Kirk was a very conservative commentator that regularly engaged in public debate. He was assassinated for his beliefs, everyone knows this without any doubt.
  • The engravings on the bullets make it very clear that the shooter was specifically targeting Kirk for political reasons.
  • the murder fits the definition of assassination, being politically motivated.
  • I don't know if this is even being discussed anymore, but the bullet casings (if real, although I don't think the government could pull off that kind of unfunny reddit humor) prove it was an assassination.
  • this was certainly a political assassination, even if we don't have motives yet, news stations, and just the general public are saying 'assassination of Charlie' or 'assassination of Kirk'. I have yet to meet a single person who says 'shooting of Charlie' other than in the context of 'they shot Charlie!' same for 'killing of Kirk', this is my argument
  • This was basically the same kinda situation that happened to Trump last year, this was obviously an assassination considering he is a big figure.
  • The shooting was most certainly targeted. Why would the shooter fire a single bullet and flee instead of aiming into the crowd afterwards if this weren't an assassination? The rifle located was bolt-action as well, not the greatest for mowing down a crowd which I imagine wasn't the shooter's intent at all.
  • It was clearly a planned attack on Charlie Kirk, done by what it seems like a experiences shooter. Highly unlikely that this was simply an accident or that the shooter just fired at a random person. Only one bullet was fired, which immediately hit Kirk. Undeniably an assassination.
  • A clearly planned and targeted attack on a public figure.
  • He was a very widely known and controversial political figure, it is very reasonable to infer that it was an assassination.
  • Support - There is strong evidence that Mr. Kirk's death was indeed an assassination. An assassination denotes the surprise targeted killing of a high-profile individual. We can't call the assassination of Abraham Lincoln "Killing of Abraham Lincoln" because it's not calling it what it was: assassination. The evidence so far - that the individual highly disagreed with Mr. Kirk's stances, politics, and beliefs - points toward assassination. Even though there were people that may have seen the shooter on the roof prior to shooting, there is precedent that suggests that it still counts toward assassination; when Donald Trump was shot in Butler, PA on July 13, 2024, clearly people saw Thomas Matthew Crooks with a rifle on a rooftop aiming at the rally even an hour before the shooting, and it's labeled an assassination attempt. There is enough evidence that points towards a political assassination, especially since Kirk, while not a politician, was still a highly notable conservative figure in American politics of the 2020s.
  • To pretend it wasn't an assassination is beyond ignorant. To oppose calling it an assassination says a lot about your character. Everyone, including the media, is calling it an assassination. It is time Wiki followed suite.
  • Everyone calls it an assassination nonetheless, including numerous politicians. I feel like it fits best if we rename it to that.
    • Comment: Also, both Kirk's wife and Trump had called the incident an assassination.
  • While true that we don't have a motive yet, using the reference of the Trump shooting last year, we never got a motive from that shooter, and yet we changed the page title to "assassination attempt" once the police and FBI announced they were investigating it as such, which I believe the police said they were going to do for this last night. Regardless, they confirmed that Charlie Kirk was specifically the sole target here, which meets the description of an assassination.
  • ...and many more.
• Trying to use WP:PRIMARY sources (as with the OR point, this is not exhaustive, just some selected examples):
  • President Trump himself has called this an assassination. That'd be a WP:PRIMARY source, which contrary to popular belief aren't outlawed here, but must be used with extreme care. POTUS doesn't decide what is and isn't an "assassination".
  • The FBI just called it a 'political assassination'
  • ...and more.

Suffice it to say, this is not a vote, and the merit of the arguments presented (which as demonstrated above are basically none in many cases) should be the factor heavily scrutinized here. With all that in mind, also seriously consider the weight of similar !votes in the moratorium request, as we simply cannot in good conscience tie up the community with these kinds of disruptive requested moves. We had 4 RM's in the span of 24 hours. Give it a rest for a while so the sources can (hopefully) align behind a common name. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

A basic google search shows walls upon walls of sources calling this an assassination.

More information Extended content ...

Extended content

Close

And so on. This comes off as bureaucratic. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't think it fair with a subsection called "comment to the closer", just for this one long comment above, so I removed the subsection and wrote just "Comment:" instead. Tell me if this was overstepping. If I'm wrong, and this should be a new subsection, I guess it should be "comments to the closer" instead? (I believe one can list plenty of weak arguments from the opposing side as well.) —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 14:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I've compiled a fairly lengthy list of WP:RS's calling the killing an assassination, or the killer an assassin:

More information Extended content ...

Extended content
(alleged assassin)

Close

This isn't a full deep dive, but it paints a picture Coleisforeditor (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

These sources demonstrate mixed usage, and we can find other stories by most of these outlets that also show this:

The others are behind paywalls and I don't have access. Again COMMONNAME has not been demonstrated. Hundreds, probably thousands, of stories have been published.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The article currently has 174 references (Special:Permalink/1311345635#References) and this is probably the #1 story in the United States for four straight days. A dozen or so links do not and cannot demonstrate a that assassination has become the common name. None of these sources address the concern that it is simply too soon to declare that assassination is the best title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Probably also worth mentioning that moving the page to "Assassination of..." would likely be a severe WP:BLP issue since the person currently in custody, who hasn't been charged or convicted, is presumed innocent. "Killing of..." doesn't suggest guilt like "Murder of..." or "Assassination of..." does. In addition to the lack of consensus in WP:RS and all the other reasons explained elsewhere in this RM... —Locke Cole • t • c 00:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

"Assassination of" doesn't suggest that the person charged with the crime is the one who committed it. If the article does abide by BLP and makes it clear Tyler Robinson is a suspect and not found guilty in any court then I do not see how "Assassination of" presents a BLP issue. Many sources use the word "assassination" because of the words inscribed on the bullet casings and the victim, not because of the suspect (who even complicates it, as sources don't seem to agree on what his individual potential motives may be) Coleisforeditor (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose "Killing of" is satisfactory for me. "Killed", "assassinated"; the outcome is the same: the guy is dead regardless of what word we use. At the end of the day, if someone is assassinated, they've been killed. Just leave it the way it is. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 08:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Is this meant to be stylistic preference, or do you think renaming the article would add some level of laborious tedium? I'm trying to understand your rationale. Saying "it's already name that" isn't really a valid point, otherwise nothing would be renamed. The reason we have these discussions in the first place is because we think it shouldn't be left as is. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Hamjamguy. - TheProEditor11 (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and moratorium – Since we don't know if it is a politically motivated crime as of yet (conflicting information on the suspect's political leanings still exists with some erroneous information that has led to press retractions due to lack of verification as well as disinformation about the motive from right-wing allies of Kirk has been floated), the current title is appropriate for the time being. I would suggest, depending on whether the motive is discovered and/or charges against the suspect are upgraded, that changing "killing" to "murder" would suffice. TVTonightOKC (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  nothing about ASSASSINATION depends on the political leanings of the assassin trending towards either direction. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Tvtonightokc it looks like you meant to put this under the main section, Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk#Discussion on moving the article. Is that correct? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  I thought I did. TVTonightOKC (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tvtonightokc: I have moved your !vote into the main discussion. If you disagree with this change you can revert or let me know. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support It's only an essay I find WP:ASSASSINATION to be persuasive in its interpretation of Wikipedia p&g, and this would fit, especially given how the shooting is being framed in the highest of reliable sources (not just right-wing or center-right media). I find the argument that we have to determine a political motive to be less persuasive; impressing Jodie Foster isn't exactly a political action, either. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ASSASSINATION. Most WP:RS are referring to this as an assassination and so has the FBI. BlueShirtz (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support It seems as though there seems to be media consensus and unity across party lines that this was an assassination. For example, AOC has stated that the "assassination" of Charlie Kirk was "tremendously disturbing" and postponed her events for "safety concerns" presumably out of fear of being similarly assassinated.^[1][2][3]. Additionally, I believe WP:COMMONNAME applies here as you can find basically a never-ending stream of sources that refer to it as an assassination across a wide variety of acceptable sources such as The New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, the Associated Press, and many, many more.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]}. This is by no means an exhaustive list, any search will yield an infinite number of reliable sources calling it an assassination. Additionally, I think WP:ASSASSINATION, while only an essay is the best tool guiding what the stance should be here which reads that the definition of assassination is, "the willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important." This was certainly the case here. Additionally, the essay agrees with the argument I made RE WP:COMMONNAME when it states, "Even if a death appears to be an assassination, the article title should not use the term assassination unless that term is part of the established common name." So even the stipulation does not apply to this current case since "assassination" is definitely the common name here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support per commonname and also natural description of the event. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support WP:SPADE. JJARichardson (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose According to WP:ASSASSINATION, Even if a death appears to be an assassination, the article title should not use the term assassination unless that term is part of the established common name. I agree with the essay, and I believe that no such established common usage exists. I have the impression that people say "killing", "shooting", or "murder" just as often as "assassination". --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  From a Google search perspective, as of this morning:

  247K "charlie kirk"

  246K "charlie kirk killing"

  212K "charlie kirk murder"

  209K "charlie kirk assassination"

   • Bobsd •  (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  hmmm...an increasing number of sources call it an assassination! Beluga732 (talk | contribs) 23:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support: Article meets [[WP::ASSASSINATION]] and, by extension WP:COMMONNAME. Deemed an assassination by many popular figures of both sides of the spectrum, and the killer is known and had a motive. Definitely an assassination. from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 23:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose any name change for now. Support moratorium on this discussion. In media coverage is the sub-plot that the suspect may have been interested in video game memes, and messages that look anti-Fascist in nature may be no more than video game memes. If this turns out to be true, I will continue to oppose any name change. If it turns out that the suspect did it for political reasons, at that point I might support naming it an assassination in the article title. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Moving !vote by User:Anomalocaris from Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk#Archive moratorium discussion to Talk:Killing of Charlie Kirk#Discussion on moving the article where it appears more appropriate. Please notify me or revert if this was inappropriate. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• weak support as it was very likely to be an assassination. But only about half of reliable sources are using that term so my support is only weak for a change. Also excessive moves and discussions of moves are degrading the article, as the notification of this discussion is the first text in the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Regardless of political statements from either party line stating an assassination, it would be best for the time being to have it tiled with Killing. As another member had mentioned, the textbook differential between a killing and assassination would be political motive, of which we have no concrete evidence to support as yet, per Iheartdjagger. Despite attempts to assume or conjecture a political motive, this could still turn out to be a disturbed person's means of gaining his 15 minutes of fame. it was very likely to be an assassination may be true, but isn't a sufficiently solid basis for renaming, we should go with what is sure, not what is probable. Pincrete (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

There was a recent reveal that the suspect had a text exchange with an accomplice or accessory where he said he hated Charlie and hated what he stood for, which would back up the assassination claim. I don't know how many outlets have covered it yet, but that's the first time there was more than just hearsay. Wikinium (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support Most WP:RS's are calling it an assassination, and it bears all the hallmarks of a political assassination, especially with recent revelations about the preparator. President Loki (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support I support it for the same reasons I said before as per WP:ASSASSINATION. And looking back at it. I am more confident than before with this renaming. Master106 (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support as per many others. "Killing" is not wrong but it seems unnecessarily general, lacking specificity. For instance, he was not killed in a car accident (which would also be killing); he was murdered at a minimum and then the discussion would be whether murder or assassination is a better fit. And since so many sources use "assassination", it seems fine to defer to them. As for WP:ASSASSINATION, it says: 'The term "assassination", per Wikipedia's definition, means ""the willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important."" That said, Wikipedia does not always call the killing of a "prominent or important person" an "assassination". [...]'. The definition fits; Charlie was prominent enough to feature in a South Park episode. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support after careful consideration. It's not like he was killed by a stray bullet. We could afford to wait for the suspect to be officially charged, though (probably won't take long). Psychloppos (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CRITERIA, particularly Precision and Consistency. Recognizability and Naturalness: Sources use both "killing" and "assassination", current Google searches return similar numbers for either term, hard to tell which one might be more recognizable / natural. Precision: "assassination" clearly is more precise than "killing". Concision: "assassination" is a few letters longer, doesn't matter. Consistency: "assassination" is much more consistent with similar articles than "killing", e.g. Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, the ones listed in Category:Assassinations in the United States, etc. Is there any article about a similar incident that uses "killing" instead of "assassination" in the title? — Chrisahn (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  The 'consistency' argument begs the question, assuming that this is properly classified as and titled 'assassination'. These other assassinations either have a clear common name or should be re-evaluated separately. As you acknowledge for this crime, Sources use both "killing" and "assassination", current Google searches return similar numbers for either term. Thus, assassination is premature and over-precise. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Pincrete. Jon Ace ^{T C} 12:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Wait but do not close - But only because more facts about suspect and his motives need to make their way into reputable sources before finalizing. Otherwise, strong support I think there will be little doubt that this was a targeted political assassination once all the facts about the suspects motives are reported. Even if the shooter turns out to be an attention-seeker more than someone with a coherent ideology, I refer back to the historic precedent of the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley Jr., which also had an incoherent motive. Peter G Werner (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOVTITLE, WP:POVNAMING, WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:RSBREAKING, and WP:KILLINGS. WP:ASSASSINATION is an essay rather than a policy or guideline under WP:POLICIES or and is not an explanatory essay under WP:SUPPLEMENTAL so it's guidance is not controlling and is probably inadvisable to follow for a topic as controversial as this has become in U.S. society, and also where news about the event is still actively being reported and the event itself is still being investigated by legal authorities.

I would think in the interest of neutrality that the word that is used should follow legal definitions rather than common use definitions, and after a Google Search, the only U.S. federal law definitions of "assassination" (18 U.S.C. § 351; 18 U.S.C. § 1751; 28 U.S.C. § 376) I can find appear to only cover government officials but I'm not a lawyer. At present, while a suspect has been apprehended, charges have yet to be brought, and unless the charges include "assassination", I would think that changing the title to include the word "assassination" would be inadvisable but I'm not confident in this justification since I'm not a lawyer.

While Wikipedia has articles about murders of persons who were not government officials that include the word "assassination" in the titles (e.g. Malcolm X, George Lincoln Rockwell, Martin Luther King, Orlando Letelier), most of these occurred decades before Wikipedia was created, and without having reviewed each article, I would guess that most of their content would be from WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY sources in contrast to this article. Conversely, Joseph Smith was killed when he was a presidential candidate in 1844 but the title of the article about Smith's death uses "killing", and while he was primarily known as a celebrity musician, John Lennon notably engaged in well-publicized political activism but the title of the article about Lennon's death uses "murder" rather than "assassination". Also, King's murder was investigated by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and other titles of articles about killings of political activists (e.g. Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, Harry and Harriette Moore) do not refer to them as "assassinations". As such, it would appear that Wikipedia's convention for use of "assassination" in article titles for articles about murders of persons who are not government officials is to only do so if secondary sources do so.

I really wish there was clearer guidance for this. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Deciding whether or not something is a "legal" definition would fall under WP:OR. With respect, this is exactly the kind of reasoning that the policy was created for. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No offense taken, but there are legal dictionaries that are widely used and would appear to satisfy WP:RS. If there is no legal distinction between "assassination" and "murder" in such RSs then fine, but if there is a distinction, I would rather use that than whatever the most popular term in breaking news articles happens to be because I would argue that a legal definition is more neutral and terms used by news organizations are more likely to be chosen in accordance with sensationalistic news values per WP:HEADLINES rather than neutrality. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

But more importantly, if an WP:RS does establish such a distinction on its own, then it's not OR. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Just for the record, as of this comment, a search on Google News shows the following counts:

"charlie kirk killing" — 10.3 million

"charlie kirk assassination" — 9.91 million

"charlie kirk murder" — 5.86 million -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Should have added MOS:LABEL to the list of WP:P&G policies and guidelines that inform my opposition to the move request. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support As has been noted, most media outlets are calling it an assignation. As·sas·si·nate: "murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons." No matter the the accused statements, it is clear by the writings on the casings, that on Mr. Kirk, a political influencer, was targeted and by the statements of Governor Cox (with knowledge of the investigation) that Mr. Kirk was murdered in a surprise attack for political reasons. Therefore, it is an assassination, by definition. Further, many right wing outlets are noting the double standard compared to other Wikipedia pages which do include the word "Assassination." Gcarrell (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is not a double standard at all. In cases where a WP:COMMONNAME has not been established, we can follow the chart on WP:KILLINGS which states that we should not even call this a murder until we have a conviction if there is no settled upon common name for it, which immediately rules out assassination in the title due to the requirement for it to be murder. We do not have a WP:CRYSTALBALL and should not make changes to this title until we can confidently say it is the common name, or we have a conviction. Other recent cases referring to an event as an assassination or killing also went through this phase, and I am almost certain that this will eventually be renamed to "Assassination of", but not yet. LeoWal1 (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support We should follow sources and call it an assassination. CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, CNN, USAToday, NPR, AP, etc. etc. etc. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment whomever ends up being the closer on this deserves a flood of barnstars and a medal of honor. I do not believe that I have ever seen a flood of !votes this deep ever before. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Or maybe they deserve a stiff drink. But I agree with you. I don't think I've !voted here in the main discussion (unless I did it earlier and have since forgotten!), because I don't feel that strongly and think the title works either way. But I do think it's been a problem with trying to decide before all the sourcing is available. I think the "landscape" of what the sources can tell us today, is quite different from what it was a few days ago when the RM was started. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I lean towards "assassination", but I think "murder" would also be acceptable. "Killing" though I think fails on both WP:COMMONNAME as well as appears almost intentionally (at this point) aimed to dilute the impact of the event. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Either way I do think all of us could use a stiff drink at the end of this one. Meet at the Winchester? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'll refer you to the 2022 Fox News RFC on that note. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 00:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose (still). It will likley be "proven" as an assasination eventually, but I believe the reason that title being pushed for now, and is being described as such in the news, is because its a more intriguing term. No need to get articles with the most clicks (Which this article in no way fails to get), just try to be as accurate as possible based on the facts at the moment. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 01:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously WP:COMMONNAME is the guiding principle here, but I'd also encourage folks to simply think about definitions. Oxford English for "assassination" is The murder of a person (esp. a prominent public figure) in a planned attack, typically with a political or ideological motive. What part of that definition does this "killing" not meet? Kirk clearly had a fan base and thus was a prominent person. This was obviously a "planned attack". I guess we can't be 100% sure of the motive at this point, but it seems at least very likely that there were idealogical or political motivations. NickCT (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Oxford English for "assassination" is The murder of a person (esp. a prominent public figure) in a planned attack And on Wikipedia we don't move pages to Murder of... until a conviction has been secured. Which according to your definition, rules out Assassination of... as well. We don't even have charges filed against the person in custody yet, and as noted above, sources aren't showing a consensus as WP:COMMONNAME requires. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Your contention is that Kirk may not have been murdered? NickCT (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well, he hasn't been murdered in legal sense until proven in court. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 14:52, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Sure. In a legal sense. But how about in the sense of something that's just obvious? NickCT (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  The subjective sense of "obviousness" would fit into WP:OR. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 13:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. WP isn't really written for legal folks. It's written for the general public. I think in a general sense it's fair to say Kirk was murdered. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Has a suspect been convicted of the criminal charge of murder that I've missed? Do you have a reliable source for that that meets BLP requirements? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Is it your contention that someone cannot of have been murdered if a suspect hasn't been convicted of murder? I think lots of folks have been murdered in instances where no one was convicted.

  Lots of reliable sources are using "assassination" now. NickCT (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Is it your contention that someone cannot of have been murdered if a suspect hasn't been convicted of murder? No, it's not my contention, it's the contention of WP:SUSPECT, which is part of WP:BLP, a policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well, I'd agree that if we had a Tyler James Robinson article and in that article we said explcitly "Tyler Robinson assassinated Kirk", that would likely be a WP:SUSPECT violation. But that's a long way from what we're doing here. The article title is merely saying that someone was assassinated. It's not saying a specific person is an assassin. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:NPOVTITLE, WP:POVNAMING, WP:CRYSTALBALL, MOS:LABEL, and WP:KILLINGS, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to use "murder" in an article title until a conviction in court has occurred. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  And which part of those policies/essays do you think apply here? The flow chart on WP:KILLINGS may suggest "Killing" is the right name, but chart also pretty explicitly states that it doesn't apply if there's a WP:COMMONNAME. In this case there is a COMMONNAME, which is "assassination". NickCT (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  First, as of this writing, a search on Google News gives the following counts:

  "charlie kirk shooting" — 14.2 million

  "charlie kirk assassination" — 14 million

  "charlie kirk killing" — 13.6 million

  "charlie kirk murder" — 8.1 million

  So, "assassination" is still not the most common name being used to describe the event by WP:RSs and is not substantially greater than "killing". Per WP:BUREAU, I believe the underlying principles of all of those policies, guidelines, and explanatory essays apply here along with WP:SUSPECT (which I was unaware of due to being less familiar with WP:BLP) and WP:RGW.

  With respect to WP:NPOVTITLE, WP:POVNAMING, and MOS:LABEL, the principle is that Wikipedia is supposed to avoid using contentious and value-laden language in an article title if an alternative non-judgmental and descriptive title can be used instead. In WP:SUSPECT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:RGW, and WP:KILLINGS, the principle is that Wikipedia itself does not determine whether a crime has been committed, should only refer to an event as one if a perpetrator has been convicted of a crime rather than on the basis of formal accusations by law enforcement, and should avoid using descriptors that imply that a crime has occurred unless a conviction in court has been secured.

  What those principles together imply for the use of "assassination" in article titles is that the word should only be used with great care—which I do not believe that changing the article title to include "assassination" at present would be doing (even it was the most common name). It's also why I believe that it would be preferable if there was WP:P&G policy or guideline or WP:SUPPLEMENTAL explanatory essay provided specific guidance for use of the word "assassination" in article titles since WP:ASSASSINATION is not a policy, guideline, or explanatory essay and the absence of a global consensus following WP:CONLEVEL about how it should be used is probably why it has been used inconsistently in Wikipedia article titles despite the requirements of WP:CRITERIA. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is a good update, based on this, I think it is now actually more apparent than ever that we should in fact go with "assassination" over" killing. Also, "shooting" was not even in the running, so you'd need a new RM for that (please God do not).

  So of the options between Killing of Charlie Kirk and Assassination of Charlie Kirk, I think you've helped present some great new evidence which solidly, definitely, and conclusively shows that if we take both of the most relevant policies in mind here, WP:COMMONNAME and one more that ensures that Assassination takes precedence over the far less precise "shooting" per WP:PRECISE, one can only conclude that a swift close of this RM to "Assassination of Charlie Kirk" is finally in order. Thanks for looking into that and providing the data to make it conclusive. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Interesting, that's not the conclusion I took from that at all. This is, at best, a no consensus situation. And hopefully we'll be spared a revolving door of RM's with a moratorium long enough for us to see the sources settle down and arrive at a consensus. The proposed title also suffers significantly from WP:RECENTISM, while it's interesting what breaking news sources are calling this incident, the long term test will be what historical documents call it over a span of many years. There's also the WP:SUSPECT concerns of calling an article with a charged (but not yet convicted) subject discussed prominently within an "assassination" when it implies the criminal element of a "murder". —Locke Cole • t • c 04:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Locke Cole that this is a no consensus situation under WP:NOCON given the requirements of WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:DETCON, and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY rather than a situation with a consensus in favor of the proposed article move. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  A no consensus is in some respects a defacto endorsement just for the "Killing of Charlie Kirk", which as demonstrated above is neither the WP:COMMONNAME nor the most WP:PRECISE.

  Though lets say it were to be moved to "Assassination of Charlie Kirk", and for some reason some here don't like that, it could just be changed back later too. What is the problem there? Iljhgtn (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  For the period that the article uses that title, Wikipedia would be using a title that at present is also not the most common name, would effectively be passing judgment on criminal charges that have not been demonstrated in a court to be true, and further inconsistently imply that certain public figures who were not government officials had a degree of political stature that warrants describing their murder as an "assassination" without regard for whether their work in life or their deaths are of an enduring significance and notability in political history—all of which violates the larger principles of WP:5P1 and WP:5P2 as articulated in WP:POVNAMING, WP:NPOVTITLE, WP:SUSPECT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:NOTNEWS. I would reiterate that this is why it would be preferable for Wikipedia to have an explicit policy or guideline for when to use "assassination" in an article title. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  I be real interested to know how Supports outweighing Opposes by 2-to-1 equates to "no consensus". NickCT (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Even when accounting for WP:NOTAVOTE it is clear that the weight of the arguments supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are also (probably at least in a similar 2-to-1 manner, on the side of a move to "Assassination of Charlie Kirk". Iljhgtn (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  it is clear that the weight of the arguments supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are also... on the side of a move to "Assassination of Charlie Kirk" As far as I can tell, that's disputed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:DETCON both require that the simple popularity of a position does not create consensus and instead emerges from the quality of the arguments given through the lens of Wikipedia policy. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NOTAVOTE. A metric ton of WP:IJUSTLIKEIT, WP:OR or WP:PRIMARYSOURCE !votes is not going to overcome well reasoned opposes based on reliable sources and our core policies and guidelines. I would encourage the closer to note there is a strong consensus for editors who like the title, believe in their own opinion it should be the title, or heard someone important call it an "assassination", but that simply liking, believing or hearing someone call it a title is not enough to justify moving the article in the face of well reasoned opposes backed by WP:PAGs like WP:SUSPECT, WP:POVNAME, etc. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  I like citing WP:NOTAVOTE after I've lost votes too. Clearly a lot of good folks at places like CNN, AP, CBS "just like" "assassination". We should follow what those sources "just like". Cause that's what we do here on WP. We reflect sources. NickCT (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  We reflect sources Unless the sources put us into conflict with WP:BLP/WP:SUSPECT and only represent 28.1% of the overall results. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  It think we do. BLP and Suspect don't prevent us from reflecting sources. They just tell us we need a higher level of sourcing than we'd typically have for non-BLP related issue. If "assassination" was only used by one or two media outlets, or only by non-mainstream media outlets or something, I'd agree BLP tell us to avoid the word. But the word is used by virtually everyone..... NickCT (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is a good update, based on this, I think it is now actually more apparent than ever that we should in fact go with "assassination" over" killing. It is baffling to state that what CommonKnowledgeCreator wrote supports the opposite conclusion without any explanation or engagement with what was written. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't really done a hard-nosed search engine test, but let's say I accept your figures and agree that "shooting", "killing", and "assassination" are equally used. In that instance we should still go with "assassination" simply b/c it's more WP:PRECISE. NickCT (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with @NickCT Iljhgtn (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Disagree. The significance of each term is not equal. First of all, all "assassinations" are "killings" but the reverse is not true. "Assassination" is WP:OVERPRECISE when usage is mixed and the story is still breaking news. "Assassination" is also the more problematic term in light of the various policies, guidelines, practices, and even essays that have been cited. Declaring in "Wikivoice" that "assassination" is the most accurate term is at best premature. Any argument that this is a close call or that there has been a shift in very-recently-published sources is an argument to stick with "killing". --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Almost all mainstream RS has used the word "assasination" in at least one of their articles by now. Just b/c some sources have jumped back-and-forth between "killing" and "assasination" does not mean RS's are mixed on this. It just means they're recognizing what your point about all assasination being killings but not vice versa. NickCT (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think this is *partly* right. A source is not going to use assassination over and over again when suitable synonyms exist. However, the overall lack of consistency, especially at this early stage, along with the other concerns raised, still argues for keeping the current title. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps the data will make more sense with the percentages shown:

More information search term, count ...

search term	count	percent
"charlie kirk shooting"	14.2 million	28.5%
"charlie kirk assassination"	14.0 million	28.1%
"charlie kirk killing"	13.6 million	27.3%
"charlie kirk murder"	8.1 million	16.2%

Close

As you can see, no option achieves even 1⁄3 of the overall results, and even if you were to hit >50%, [Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) to invoke WP:COMMONNAME.

Taken together with the fact that we only have a charged suspect, not a convicted killer, that rules out murder as an option altogether, and as assassination implies a convicted killer (notwithstanding someone who dies prior to having a chance to have a trial), per WP:SUSPECT we should not imply guilt by featuring the charged suspect in an article where we call the event an assassination or a murder. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Even if no one name has a "significant majority" we should obviously select between ones names that's more frequently used. So WP:COMMONNAME according to the stats above would argue we selection shooting, assassination, or killing.

It's not really clear to me that featuring the suspect's name of a page named "Killing" versus a page named "Assassination" makes him seem more or less guilty of anything. If I saw your name listed under article about a "killing" or "assassination", eitherway, I'm going ot assume you may have done something bad. NickCT (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm going ot assume you may have done something bad Which is precisely why naming the article "Assassination of..." or even "Murder of..." prior to a conviction is also a violation of WP:SUSPECT/WP:BLP. WP:POVNAME applies because "Assassination of..." and "Murder of..." implies guilt of the accused. On Wikipedia, individuals are innocent until proven guilty. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. You read what you said.?I'm going to assume you did something bad if your name is on a page titled "Killing" or if it's on a page titled "Assasination". Being suspected of killing someone seems bad. Being suspected of assassinating someone also seems bad. Where's the difference? NickCT (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

And now we've completed the circle back to my reply from above:

Oxford English for "assassination" is The murder of a person (esp. a prominent public figure) in a planned attack And on Wikipedia we don't move pages to Murder of... until a conviction has been secured. Which according to your definition, rules out Assassination of... as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You see how you changed tacks there from arguing "People will assume Tyler did something bad if his name appears on page titled Assassination" to "What happened doesn't fit a legal definition of murder"? Those points seem like non-sequetors. Could we debate one thing at a time? Do you agree or disagree that having your name on an article titled "Killing of Person X", may cast you in a negative light, in the same way that having your name on an article titled "Assassination of Person X" would do? NickCT (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, I guess you missed the point of WP:5P2, WP:NPOVTITLE, WP:POVNAMING, and MOS:LABEL, and the absence of a community consensus of when it is appropriate to use "assassination" as a descriptor of murders where the victim was not a government official. Even if "assassination" were more satisfactory under WP:PRECISE, it is a value-laden word that makes assumptions about the victim's political stature, and that's why it's not clearly preferable. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I did see the policy soup. Not really sure how many of them come into play. You seem to be assuming your POV is the neutral POV, hence there's some kind of violation to POV policies. I personally assume the POV's of the majority of RS's is the neutral POV. From what I see, the majority of RS's have called this an assasination. NickCT (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

What part of only representing 28.1% of the overall results is a majority? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The argument that "assassination" is NPOV seems predicated on the idea that some sources aren't using it, and some are. Almost all sources are using it. Just cause CNN for example jumps back and forth between "killing" and "assassination" doesn't mean the folks at CNN don't agree that "assassination" is a neutral term. NickCT (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Fascinating. I had no idea there were people who thought 28.1% was equal to almost all. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you point to a single, large, mainstream news outlet that hasn't used "assassinated" in one of their articles? NickCT (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming your POV is the neutral POV, hence there's some kind of violation to POV policies. What's my POV? If anything, my POV is that the absence of a policy or guideline over use of the word "assassination" in article titles and its inconsistent use in article titles in practice is problematic and makes it unclear whether it should allowed in this case or in general when a murder victim is not a prominent government official. But I don't see how that really is or ought to be a POV in the sense of WP:NPOV or MOS:WTW because it has to do with usage of the word itself. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME as WP:RS are using "assassination" almost unanimously to describe the event. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  It looks like 28.1% of reporting is calling it an assassination, WP:PROVEIT is the WP:COMMONNAME if you wish for the title to be changed. LeoWal1 (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support This is the accepted common understanding of this murder. Standing on procedure ESPECIALLY in this case is just tone deaf. Fix it. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support After waiting a few more days for more information to come out, it seems both in reliable news circles and in the views of notable figures of varying prominent political affiliations- this does merit being called an assassination. Count3D (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. No prejudice on revisiting when not in the immediate aftermath and a clearer common name has emerged, but as of now the proposed title doesn't look to meet the common name guidelines.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  The latest figures above show it meets both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE. Earlier that might not have been the case, but it certainly is now. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Which figures show that? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Wait...what about any reliable sources that say it's not an assassination? Beluga732 (talk | contribs) 19:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  What exactly are you saying? Also, that is a fallacy if I read your words right. Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  To prove that the "Oppose" votes are true, we should find any reliable sources that suggest that the attack wasn't an assassination and instead just a killing or murder of Kirk. Beluga732 (talk | contribs) 20:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  That's not how WP:BURDEN works, or logic for that matter. Burden of proof (philosophy), When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo; see also Hitchens's razor and ECREE. The status quo is the article remains at Killing of Charlie Kirk. Once a conviction is obtained for the criminal act of "murder", it's standard for these types of articles to be moved to Murder of Charlie Kirk. The burden to prove their case that we can short-circuit the criminal justice system and skip straight to Assassination of Charlie Kirk falls on those wishing to make the move. Those of us opposed simply need to point out the various WP:PAG such a move would likely violate. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support Suspect said this about their motive; I had enough of his hate. Some hate can't be negotiated out. To me, this is a cut and clear assassination. He's also being charged. jolielover♥ talk 05:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Nick CT. The definition of the word assassination and the application here is clear. Move it and let's move on. Jusdafax (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Has not been sufficiently shown to be the common title. Local Variable (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Prosecutors/police chiefs/the Utah governor saying it was an assassination should be enough, don't have the time to check which of those in the Kirk shooting have said "assassination" yet. In a comparable, Melissa Hortman's infobox says assassination by gunshot, the 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators article lead says that, and at least some major media (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/special-election-fill-slain-minnesota-lawmakers-seat-shines/story?id=125588419, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrat-wins-special-election-seat-held-slain-minnesota-lawmaker-rcna231458, https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/16/politics/minnesota-special-election-melissa-hortman) seem to use that phraseology because the prosecutors/the Minnesota governor used it. Benica11 (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support. It was obvious on the day of the event that this was an assassination. A week later, it is undeniable. There is no shortage of reliable sources calling it an assassination. There is no legitimate reason, policy or otherwise, to delay the renaming of this article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  There may be no shortage of RSes calling it an assassination, but there is also no shortage of them calling it a killing, murder or shooting. Despite you believing it is undeniable this is an assassination, there is no common name, no conviction and no objective established motive. We have not even begun a trial. A week later it could be argued that it looks LESS like an assassination due to the motive seeming to be personal/emotional for perceived protective reasons, so it is definitely not undeniable. I agree that once at least one of the prior conditions is satisfied (common name established, objective motive or conviction) it should be changed to assassination, but until then policy suggests it should remain as killing. LeoWal1 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Charlie Kirk was a YouTuber/podcaster, not important enough to have been assassinated. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 01:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  He was still a popular pundit, especially so when the lead of his article says he "became recognized as one of the most prominent voices of the MAGA movement in the Republican Party". Hwqaksd (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Searching Wikipedia for "Assassination of" articles, one finds people like JFK, MLK, Franz Ferdinand. Can you find a Wikipedia article about the killing of another podcaster/YouTuber/twitch streamer that is titled "Assassination of"? WP:ASSASSINATION is an essay, while WP:CONSISTENT is policy. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 02:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  This assassination is as culturally and societally impactful as those. You may try and trivialize him because you don't like him and call him a "podcaster/YouTuber/twitch streamer", but The New York Times, Politifact, NBC News, the LA Times, and countless more reliable sources are unambiguously reporting on the assassination using this WP:PRECISE, WP:COMMONNAME and accurate term. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  This assassination is as culturally and societally impactful as those.

  While I can tell you are joking, others may not, so it's recommended that editors use the {{jokes}} template when making humorous remarks. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CHERRYPICKING, as noted above, the use of "assassination" is not nearly as unanimous as is necessary per WP:ASSASSINATION: When an article is about an assassination, and the event has a single commonly recognized common name in reliable sources, then the article may be titled as an assassination. Note also the concerns about "assassination" possibly being a contentious label (depending on the context), given that we haven't even started a trial, let alone secured a conviction. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Also, WP:ASSASSINATION is an essay, not policy. Usually there's a gaggle of editors ready to point this out any time an essay is mentioned, but they seem to be absent from this discussion. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW, I pointed it out above in my very long "comment to the closer". But even as an essay, if you follow the spirit of the wording, this RM doesn't qualify given the source situation (as described repeatedly above). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  This has been pointed out repeatedly but mostly ignored/missed. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Notice how this guy stopped arguing and instead started whining 38.57.224.15 (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support given WP:ASSASSINATION. Hwqaksd (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Support, per WP:ASSASSINATION. This one is obvious... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Not obvious, from WP:ASSASSINATION Outside of a well-founded argument that "Assassination of X" is the common name, a proposal to move a page to such a name will probably be met with much controversy and be unlikely to succeed. You must WP:PROVEIT that it is the WP:COMMONNAME, which previous discussion indicates it is not. LeoWal1 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not envy whoever decides to close this discussion. guninvalid (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC) moved from below moratorium guninvalid (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Wow, thanks for that. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. AP and NBC News were two WP:RS I saw that ran all their Charlie Kirk coverage under an entire website section titled "Charlie Kirk Assassination" (e.g. AP, NBC). The fact that they and other providers also use other words like "killing" or "shooting" too does not mean that "assassination" is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Trying to explain why their use of "assassination" as the WP:PRECISE term for the event does not fit with what we think the definition of an assassination should be is WP:OR. -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  As regards the OR claim, that's simple, BLP, specifically, WP:SUSPECT, applies here. Calling it an assassination, in wikivoice, implies guilt on the suspect. As we haven't even gotten to a trial date yet, it's very premature for an encyclopedia to start calling it an "assassination". See also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  +1 to this. If we move the article name to state in wikivoice that it was an assination, that will be a BLP violation given no conviction has been secured. TarnishedPath^talk 04:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Saying that Charlie Kirk was assassinated (as attested by the WP:RS) is not the same as saying that this particular suspect is guilty of assassinating him. -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  That is a great point.

  Thinking on this further, if we look at what we know without any shadow of a doubt, Charlie Kirk is dead as a result of targeted, intentional sniper fire during a political/activist/student event.

  In all seriousness, regardless of "motives", is it even possible to die of sniper fire to the neck and NOT be assassinated? Serious question. The more one thinks of it in such terms I hate to say it, but this whole RM has become an exercise in absurdity if we cannot see the obviousness of this as an assassination in WP:SKYISBLUE terms now. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with TarnishedPath, on top of there being no conviction, no confirmed motive, and no established common name. The trial hasn't even commenced. In cases like these WP:KILLINGS supports that it should not even be called murder yet, let alone an assassination. And yes, it is possible to die of sniper fire to the neck and not be assassinated. I absolutely believe that this will eventually be rightfully renamed to assassination, but we cannot do so just yet, since we do not have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. LeoWal1 (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  In all seriousness, regardless of "motives", is it even possible to die of sniper fire to the neck and NOT be assassinated? Serious question. It's a fair question, and one we don't have specific guidance on. If someone is stabbed to death in their home, most people would say they were "murdered" and the press will cover it that way, but we don't call the article "Murder of…" unless and until there's been a conviction. Or the "mushroom murders" that were widely described as such, but we called our article "mushroom poisonings" until the trial concluded with a verdict. Are assassinations a special kind of murder that warrant different treatment? It's a discussion worth having but we should take the BLP/murder concerns seriously. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  As brought up below, the 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators article opens with "Melissa Hortman was assassinated" even though the suspect in that case has not yet been convicted. What was the reasoning there? A conviction in either case would be for "murder", not for "assassination". -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  "Assassination" is a type of murder by the common meaning of both words and many definitions that have been shared here both in support of and opposition to this move. If an assassination is a planned, deliberate murder committed for political or ideological purposes, why would BLP allow us to title an article "Assassination of X" while prohibiting "Murder of X"? The fact that the Minnesota legislators article is not titled "assassination" is evidence that we don't automatically use this term for every event that can be described as one. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think in the case of that article "assassination" is not used in the title because only two of the four people shot in the event were killed. The other two survived. The article does not shy away from saying that Hortman was assassinated though. There has also been no conviction as yet for suspects in the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania or the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida. -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  There has also been no conviction as yet for suspects in the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania or the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida. For the first, the shooter was killed immediately, so no conviction is necessary and there are no BLP concerns. For the second, the page was moved to the "Attempted assassination..." title nine days after the event was documented. Regardless, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is hardly a compelling reason to do something, and as a counter example, 2016 Donald Trump Las Vegas rally incident exists and isn't called an "Attempted assassination..." by us. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Stating that Charlie Kirk was assissinated is exactly the same as saying that someone assissinated him. Given that we have a suspect, it implies that the suspect assinated him. WP:BLP says we shouldn't do this. TarnishedPath^talk 04:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose / Wait Let us wait and see what motive the investigation can actually prove--Trade (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support Motive doesn't determine whether it's an assassination. IMO it now seems to be a WP:COMMONNAME majority term. I would like people to consider the word "assassination" as used in the attempted assassinations of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Political motive need not apply. Squeaky Fromme and John Hinckley Jr. were both... a little off-kilter. Hinckley just wanted to impress Jodie Foster. It's a subjective term, but we should be consistent, and if Hinckley and his obsession with Jodie Foster constitutes an attempted assassination, this should use the term too, regardless of motive. As for prominence of the victim, compare his prominence to Harvey Milk, who we also say was assassinated. I think Milk was less well known outside San Francisco and less influential than Charlie Kirk. We also call the killing of Melissa Hortman an assassination, and I think she was less influential than Harvey Milk. Political motive is not our standard. Dcs002 (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:PROVEIT is the WP:COMMONNAME, as of now, no evidence that it is the common name, but there is evidence against. Also note the article on the killing of Melissa Hortman is 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators. LeoWal1 (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thought that article uses "shootings" in the title because not all the victims were killed. Also, that article says Melissa Hortman "was assassinated" even though the suspect has not yet been convicted. -- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Regardless, WP:PROVEIT is the WP:COMMONNAME. At this point I have google search results showing:

  Over last month:

  "charlie kirk shooting" - 14.8M results

  "charlie kirk killing" - 10.4M results

  "charlie kirk assassination" - 9.8M results

  "charlie kirk murder" - 4.4M results

  Over last week:

  "charlie kirk shooting" - 9.1M results

  "charlie kirk killing" - 5.2M results

  "charlie kirk assassination" - 4.4M results

  "charlie kirk murder" - 2.9M results

  Over last 24hrs:

  "charlie kirk shooting" - 140K results

  "charlie kirk killing" - 110K results

  "charlie kirk assassination"105K results

  "charlie kirk murder" - 44K results

  The order of used names has not seemed to alter at the current point, and killing still seems to be the best title to use until we have a conviction, confession or otherwise proven motive. LeoWal1 (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Who actually gives a damn about google search results? You know the internet is filled with bots and children? 38.57.224.15 (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. Putting all personal opinions aside, it clearly meets the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  I just don't see how it is the WP:COMMONNAME without WP:CHERRYPICKING only articles that use the title. See my above comment for search engine result counts. LeoWal1 (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  You've replied enough to others who disagree with you such that you are bordering on blugeoning. It isn't helpful or desirable to reply to so many that disagree with you, and in fact, it can be considered disruptive. This isn't a debate. Just because you don't understand how it fits, that doesn't mean it doesn't fit. No one owes you an explanation of their !vote or rationale. Let the closers do their job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, just trying to have a discussion and understand reasoning behind all the common name arguments, didn't mean to come across as being owed an explanation. LeoWal1 (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support rename While not wholly without a downside, essentially this is an obvious name, and carries a level of precision that makes it probably the best reasonable name for the article now and in the future. Editors are right to be cautious and think carefully, but they are not right to blindly follow either essays, guidelines or (whisper it) policy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC).
  

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I searched for "X of Charlie Kirk", "Charlie Kirk X", and Charlie Kirk's X", where X stands for "assassination/killing/murder/shooting"

More information X of, X ...

NOW-Corpus

	X of	X	's X	Total
Assassination	581	137	389	1,107
Killing	246	33	134	413
Murder	286	62	184	532
Shooting	424	212	59	695

Close

A similar analysis, but now applied to The New York Times, as the most popular American newspaper.

More information X of, X ...

The New York Times

	X of	X	's X	Total
Assassination	32	4	19	55
Killing	20	1	15	36
Murder	9	0	3	12
Shooting	27	11	2	40

Close

Some editors have tried to address the issue of COMMONNAME by using Google News. However, when I tried to search, I didn't see a total number of results, and the output was limited to only 100 items. Additionally, I doubt there are millions of articles on this topic. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment I believe the NOW-Corpus data is better for resolving the WP:COMMONNAME dispute (which word is the most common name) than the data I and others have provided using Google Search or searches of Google News since NOW-Corpus uses a corpus linguistics approach and was founded by a professional linguist. It's a closer analogue to Google Ngram for news. However, I don't believe that it resolves the other policy issues raised in the discussion. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Recalling that news sources are typically considered WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, they are written differently than an encyclopedia, e.g. they use WP:NEWSSTYLE, and they tend to gravitate towards sensationalism rather than taking a longer view of their work. Google searches also include other non-news sources, so I find their value better in determining how often a term is used overall. And again, BLP concerns as we don't have a conviction should be disqualifying outright for "assassination", as it implies the criminal element of "murder". —Locke Cole • t • c 15:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong SupportCharlie was clearly killed because of political reasons according to many new sources. 76.8.89.146 (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

support albeit my reason not because of those media consensus, but rather to the very definition of assassination itself, which very Fitting with the current general knowledge about Charlie Kirk's death Simple non combat (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Support Not only is "assassination" the WP:CONSISTENT title with similar instances, it is also the WP:COMMONNAME per the clear summary from Kelob2678 above. This event blatantly meets the definition of "assassination"; the sanctity of patience should not veto common sense. MB2437 15:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Moratorium on RM discussion proposal

Archive moratorium discussion