Talk:Charlie Kirk

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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