Talk:We Are Charlie Kirk

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Day Creature: reliable source for all caps stylization?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m completely unmoved by the appeal to IAR.

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

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

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