Talk:Charlie Kirk

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

Add following section to "Legacy and recognition"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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