Jump to content

Talk:Charlie Kirk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox image

If he dies now, would it make sense to use an older image as the infobox picture? So is the custom, right? Which one and from what year would you propose? Nurken (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request makes no sense. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We won't always just use an older picture, we use a picture of them in their prime. Kirk is still in the prime of his career so there's no point choosing a different image, if he does die.  Nixinova   T   C   20:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Went from conditional to past tense in the time it took me to write that...  Nixinova   T   C   20:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least change to a more flattering image where he isn't frowning. Here are some examples I found:
  • 2019
    2019
  • Sep. 2020
    Sep. 2020
  • Dec. 2020
    Dec. 2020
Nurken (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
call back the image, he did not come to the page P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can choose this one from a few months ago
  • 2025
    2025
Wcamp9 (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
using one from this year just defeats the entire purpose of why I brought this up. It's an unflattering image anyway. Nurken (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That image from Dec 2020 is a clear image of him where he's not frowning, not looking up, not oddly faced to the camera, etc. That's the best of what you posted and better than what we have now. Vir4030 (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose changing image, keep current infobox image for the following reasons:
  1. Lead images of dead people use pictures of them in their prime, as pointed out by @Nixinova. Kirk was as popular/well-known as ever this year.
  2. Related to point no. 1; the current image shows Kirk as he is most known, that is, at his most recent age. The proposed images from 5/6 years ago may somewhat surprise (WP:SHOCK) readers by his youthful 26/27-year-old appearance compared to the 31-year-old appearance they are most likely more familiar with.
  3. In the background of the current image, a blurry but recognisable TPUSA logo is visible; Kirk is partly known for founding TPUSA and it is part of his legacy. I consider this the strongest argument for keeping the current image.
  4. Grasping for straws here, but the current image shows the shorter version of his "iconic" hair, 2 of the proposed images show a longer version than usually seen.
And besides, the 2025 image with light blue background simply looks horrendous! 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 13:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about it the last couple days. I agree, good points. Nurken (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current one is perfectly fine. Nevermindddd (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see why the infobox image should be changed. The current image is fine as-is. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change image - Charlie was often seen smiling and should be portrayed as such.

@𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? - While the importance of the TPUSA logo in the background is important, it is obscured, blurry and not easily recognizable in the current photo. The average person will instead notice the expression on his face.

Here are two contending portraits of Charlie of which I recommend the first:

  • June 2024
    June 2024
  • June 2024 Option 2
    June 2024 Option 2

Moseswhite1 (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moseswhite1, these images you provided are certainly better than the ones previously listed as options!
I'm not sure if he was particularly known for his smile but it wouldn't hurt to display a more joyous expression than the current lead.
It's also true that the TPUSA logo is too blurry in the current image to be immediately noticed by readers, especially by those not that familiar with Kirk.
If a change absolutely has to be made, my preference goes for the first June 2024 image, for the reasons of the slightly bigger smirk (compared to the other June 2024 image) and the red-white-and-blue background, as well as fulfilling the criteria I stated above (except the TPUSA one). The second image works just as well, I just don't like the colours as much 😅 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bis-Serjetà? and Moseswhite1: I think the first June 2024 photo is the best option as well. Kirk is in focus, the background is not blending in with him, and his hairstyle is close to what he had the day he died. Yue🌙 00:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most beautiful his imaga is from December 2020. Why not to use it?--Stebunik (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because Kirk had not had that hairstyle in years. Yue🌙 19:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • June 2025
    June 2025
I think that this image should be used that shows Charlie smiling and is from a few months ago, so it is recent when Kirk's popularity seemed to spike and also a flattering image. Wcamp9 (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are using the most current image (July 13, 2025) available. This is an encyclopedia, "flattering" shouldn't be one of the criteria we use. The June 2025 image lacks source info, and there's too much contrast between light and shadow. Space4TCatHerder🖖 12:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    June 2025 is a crop from another photo by the same guy who has made a lot of all these pics Gage Skidmore I will try to fix it later but if u look at the original before the crop it has source info Wcamp9 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    obviously flattering is an important metric for the image as kirk kind of looks like hes frowning which isn't optimal and the light and shadow contrast really doesn't matter that much because it can be fixed and it's not so recognizable it defines the image Wcamp9 (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic views

5 times Kirk made antisemitic remarks Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an anonymous editorial from a source that is not considered WP:RS. It's a hit piece to smear Charlie Kirk. Peptidylprolyl (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kirk tainted his own reputation, the article is just a collection of offensive antisemitic remarks he said when he was alive. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of the Jewish community as such is not anti-Semitism. I say this as a person with Jewish roots. Besides, Kirk has always been an openly pro-Israel and pro-Zionist activist who has stood by Israel even when everyone around him criticized Israel's policies in Palestine. Of course, his arguments sounded rather crude, since he did not choose the best wording, but for example, the phenomenon when universities sponsored by Jewish organizations create activists who openly promote anti-Jewish violence (including things like raising money for Hamas under the guise of charity for the Palestinians or cooperation with their propagandists) has long been known among our community. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Jews control … the colleges, the nonprofits, the movies, Hollywood, all of it.”
“Jewish philanthropy “subsidising your own demise.”
“The number one funding mechanism of radical, open border, neoliberal, quasi-Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits" is “Jewish donors.”
“Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them,” and said that “the philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country.”
How are all of these statements not antisemitic? Kirk has repeatedly pushed antisemitic tropes and called out Jewish individuals and donors, baselessly blaming them for fueling “Jew hatred” on college campuses. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With stuff like that, how can anyone here be claiming he wasn't very bigoted on the subject? Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Jewish roots" or not is not relevant here and he said those things about American Jews. Theofunny (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you would actually read the article, you would know he criticized "liberal Jewish donors". All of these remarks are not antisemitic because they politically criticize left Jewish donors and not all Jews as a whole. IdanST (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IdanST, I don’t think your defense holds up. The issue isn’t just who is being criticized, but how they are being described.
  1. Collective attribution: The quotes don’t single out specific individuals or organizations. They repeatedly use “Jews” or “Jewish communities” as if all Jewish people act as a bloc with a unified agenda. That’s a textbook antisemitic trope: blaming an entire ethno-religious group for political or cultural changes. Saying “liberal Jewish donors” would be legitimate criticism if actually specified, but the language used is sweeping, generalized, and accusatory.
  2. Conspiracy framing: The remarks recycle the classic antisemitic narrative that Jews secretly control media, education, and culture. Talking about “Jews control the movies, Hollywood, all of it” is not policy critique; it’s echoing one of the most persistent conspiracy theories used historically to justify exclusion, violence, and persecution.
  3. Double standard: If someone said “Christian donors are responsible for racism” or “Muslim communities are pushing hatred,” we would recognize instantly how unfair and bigoted those blanket statements are. It’s no different here. Political donors of any background can be criticized for their influence, but targeting Jewish identity itself crosses into antisemitism.
“Not antisemitic because it’s about liberals” doesn’t work: You can’t launder antisemitism by tacking on “liberal.” The criticism still essentializes Jewish identity as a political and cultural threat. Even if the intent was to call out certain progressive donors, the language used demonizes Jews collectively, not individual funders or organizations.
In short, the problem isn’t criticism of political donations—it’s the framing that ties Jewish identity itself to shadowy cultural control and national “demise.” That is antisemitic by definition. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comment. I'll add that the article should fairly represent his views, and quoting him is an excellent way to do so. Some readers may agree with IdanST that Kirk was not an antisemite.
We could go further and add reports of notable opinions on each side of the question. Presumably there are some prominent right-wingers who've propounded the same arguments as IdanST. JamesMLane t c 01:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking out against Israel is not necessarily antisemitism. Charlie was a huge Israel supporter. He has visited the country more than once. 2603:7081:1D00:65A9:1CE0:C5F7:189D:FD04 (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Antisemitic" allegations

Kirk, along with other such conservatives in the public eye, has routinely been the target of those playing the race card, the nazi card and the antisemitic card, all based on the same sort of selective and far from conclusive examples that we're seeing here. Unless Kirk came right out and said, in so may words, Jews are all evil, the antisemitic allegation comes off like an other baseless partisan attack. Kirk has defended Israel coming and going. Saying that the Mafia was run by Italians is not an attack on all Italians. This is exactly what is happening here by saying Kirk is "antisemitic" - i.e. the hatred of all Jews just because they're Jewish.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

Support for Israel & being antisemitic/holding antisemitic views are by no-means mutually exclusive - Zionist antisemitism is a known phenomenon. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Unless someone hates Jews for no other reason than they are Jewish, there is no actual "antisemitism". One can have an opinion about the Rothschilds, or the news media, or anything else involving Jews without being antisemitic. And as the article/section you linked to says, the majority of allegations of antisemitism are coming from the left. On the same ticket, claiming that the biggest source of antisemitism is coming from Christian Zionists can be taken to mean the any such accuser hates Christians, or is a Christianophobe. Same assumptive methodology, same finger-pointing nonsense.The section you linked to should get a NPOV tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter experts appear to disagree with you on what constitutes antisemitism, even those who draw a bright line between anti-Israel sentiment and anti-semitism do not such thing for conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the banking and media sectors. Those opinions you describe are in fact antisemitic, there is no non antisemitic way to hold the opinion that "the Jews" control banking and media. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you got "claiming that the biggest source of antisemitism is coming from Christian Zionists" from, who made this claim?
Also, may you clarify what you're specifically disagreeing with, as I only said that it is possible to be both antisemitic & support Israel at the same time - are you disagreeing that that is possible or something else?
I ask because Israel is not synonymous with all Jewish people, someone can support a country & still be bigoted towards an ethnoreligious group. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I indented your comment another notch to keep the responses clear - hope that's okay.) In any case you apparently didn't even read the article you linked to.This is the passage I was referring to:
    "Ben Lorber and Aidan Orly, writing in Religion Dispatches, have described Christian Zionism as "one of the largest antisemitic movements in the world today""
  • "Experts"? It doesn't take a doctor to tell us when someone is bleeding. Opinions about Jews in banking, etc are just that. We only have opinion that says that such claims amount to hatred of all Jews and that this is the only reason such claims are made. Sorry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So an opinion can't be antisemitic unless "such claims amount to hatred of all Jews and that this is the only reason such claims are made"? How do we get antisemitic tropes then? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back— It seems you feel if that any sort of criticism aimed at someone Jewish it's automatically "antisemitic". Most of the tropes come from people who think so. I tried to make an analogy, by asking if claiming the Mafia was run by Italians makes someone a hater of Italians. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who claims that the Media was run by Italians would probably be a hater of Italians so to speak, it depends on context of course as does the mafia claim... The claim that the Italian Mafia was run by Italians would not be anti-Italian but to say that the Mafia overall was run by Italians would be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I undid your indentation as I was replying to you, not Horse Eye's Back)
I did read the article, I simply did not know which passage you were referring to as I couldn't find the claim you made represented within the article. I see now that I couldn't find it because the passage you were quoting says something different. There is a difference between being one of the largest antisemitic movements & being the biggest source of antisemitism as a whole.
Again though, may you clarify what it was above that you disagreed with? - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The passage taken exception to is highlighted in green, just above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand the quote in green & already explained the difference between "the biggest source of antisemitism is coming from Christian Zionists" (your words) & "Ben Lorber and Aidan Orly, writing in Religion Dispatches, have described Christian Zionism as "one of the largest antisemitic movements in the world today" (the article's words)
I am asking what part of "Support for Israel & being antisemitic/holding antisemitic views are by no-means mutually exclusive - Zionist antisemitism is a known phenomenon." do you disagree with? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already made it clear, no I don't agree, and as the article intimates, most of this sort of speculative conjecture is coming from the left who attempt to take 2+2 and tries to pass it off as 100.. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Ok, so just to be totally clear, you disagree with the premise that someone can both support Israel & be antisemitic/hold antisemitic views. That if they support Israel, they are automatically not antisemitic. Is that what you are saying, or am I misunderstanding your position? - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Nothing was said by me about "automatically", unlike the argument that claims that any criticism of Jewish involvements e.g. banks, news media, amounts to "antisemitism". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that doesn't answer my question - do you disagree with the premise that someone can both support Israel & be antisemitic/hold antisemitic views? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of Jewish involvement in media and banking does in fact amount to antisemitism... The way you are framing it is itself antisemitic, the very conception of "Jewish involvements e.g. banks, news media" is antisemitic. Religion has nothing to do with it outside of antisemitism, there is no rational non-antisemitic argument that there is "Jewish involvement" in the banks and news media. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC):::[reply]
You are trying to read more into it than what's actually there. "Jewish involvement" doesn't mean all Jews, just as Italian involvement in the Mafia does pertain to all Italians. Antisemitism is the hatred or contempt of all Jews just because they are Jewish. To assume this is the case in regard to banks and the media is a gross assumption. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, your second sentence doesn't make sense. Are you sure that is what you meant? --Super Goku V (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's got you confused. To reiterate — saying that the Mafia is headed by Italians should not be construed as to mean that it's like claiming that all Italians are criminals. This approach has frequently been used to silence the discussion or otherwise scare someone away from asserting such opinion, diverting focus on the one making the claim, rather than on the claim itself. Old hat approach, involving issues of race, gender, homosexuality, antisemitism, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The confusing part to me was just as Italian involvement in the Mafia does pertain to all Italians. It felt contradictory to say that, but maybe I am misunderstanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains In November 2023, Kirk said that "Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them." citing The New York Times twice and The Guardian. (The quote also appears in the thread encompassing this.) (An archived copy of the second cited New York Times article is here.) On September 12 2025 The New York Times removed that and added a correction at the bottom: "An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast. He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it. It was not his own statement." The Guardian has not issued a similar correction. I do not intend to remove the statement. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC) Update: it's in New Statesman too, but The Free Beacon noticed the error and the correction. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not merely a conservative

Hello, many reliable sources argue that Charlie Kirk was not merely a conservative activist but also a far-right one, so I'd like to see the 1st paragraphe on the lead section mentioning his far-right positioning:

[https://www.leparisien.fr/international/etats-unis/etats-unis-linfluenceur-dextreme-droite-charlie-kirk-se-fait-tirer-dessus-lors-dun-evenement-10-09-2025-S6SWWCC27ZGEFP4Y25DUFR4DXY.php]

[https://www.rtl.fr/actu/international/etats-unis-donald-trump-annonce-la-mort-charlie-kirk-tue-par-balles-7900539940]

[https://abcnews.go.com/US/charlie-kirk-shot-event-utah-university-jd-vance/story?id=125451514]

[https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/09/10/charlie-kirk-l-influenceur-conservateur-americain-blesse-par-balles-lors-d-un-rassemblement-dans-une-universite-de-l-utah_6640349_3210.html]

[https://www.letemps.ch/monde/charlie-kirk-le-martyr-du-trumpisme-qui-pourrait-mettre-le-feu-aux-poudres]

[https://www.20minutes.fr/monde/etats-unis/4172386-20250910-charlie-kirk-influenceur-pro-trump-fait-tirer-dessus-lors-meeting]

[https://www.franceinfo.fr/monde/usa/fusillades-aux-etats-unis/charlie-kirk-apres-l-assassinat-du-proche-de-trump-une-chasse-a-l-homme-est-lancee_7486624.html]

[https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/etats-unis/linfluenceur-charlie-kirk-figure-de-lextreme-droite-americaine-et-pro-trump-blesse-par-balle-f15e3a76-8e79-11f0-b582-5820cfc46140]

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/10/charlie-kirk-shooting-political-violence] (The Guardian at first glance states that Charlie Kirk is a conservative, but one of the category article is "Far right (US)".) Médicis (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d support changing it, “conservative” does feel like it’s watering it down a bit Snokalok (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed EnbyEditor (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. He was obviously far-right, this is well supported, as is his promotion of numerous far-right conspiracy theories. The descriptor "conservative" is extremely misleading. --Tataral (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of evidence for the far-right Christian nationalist and white supremacist label:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhvg-nAHCcE&t=65s
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-if-youre-wnba-pot-smoking-black-lesbian-do-you-get-treated-better-united
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-goes-unhinged-racist-rant-prowling-blacks-go-around-fun-go-target-white
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/heather-mac-donald-charlie-kirk-white-civilization-has-decided-engage-great
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1679829904026730496
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-tells-taylor-swift-submit-your-husband-and-have-ton-children
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-we-need-have-nuremberg-style-trial-every-gender-affirming-clinic-doctor
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-says-he-cant-find-christ-compassion-long-term-immigrants-who-dont-speak
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-american-democrat-party-hates-country-they-wanna-see-it-collapse-they
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-pushes-great-replacement-conspiracy-they-wont-stop-until-you-and-your
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-large-dedicated-islamic-areas-are-threat-america
https://www.mediamatters.org/media/4032192
https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1965281328108343507
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-there-no-separation-church-and-state Accuratelibrarian (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need WP:RS that explicitly call him far-right, unfortunately we can't make that assessment no matter how many far-right beliefs he expressed. Médicis' links are a good start. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got the links from The Guardian, that newspaper labels him as far-right. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPR Illinois - "far-right conservative talk show host and northwest suburban native Charlie Kirk" (July 16, 2024)
The Guardian - "The far-right activist, who was fatally shot this week in Utah, galvanized young conservatives through online antics and inflammatory views" (September 12, 2025)
France 24 - "Far-right influencer and podcaster Charlie Kirk" (September 11, 2025)
The Independent - "Footage captures the panic after a shot was fired at far-right political activist Charlie Kirk" (September 11, 2025)
Hope these help. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit pushing it, @Cdjp1, given we had all the sources long before today, and before far-right was removed from the article. Also, by not doing so, and highlighting his odder, extremely racist statements and theories, one leaves the impression that USA Conservatives and even right-wing are equally as extremely racist. That's pushing into the actually doing harm; which we most certainly shouldn't be doing! Heck, it may even be tainting the far-right unfairly - but we probably don't have the sources to use extreme-right. Nfitz (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need a solid case for labels that have proven time and time again to be extremely contentious additions to articles. I would like nothing more than to point at a duck and call it a duck, but there are too many people who will point at a duck and call it a dog. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of what others could point to (though I think it is more damning for America in it's current overton window), the following sources all place Kirk in the mainstream of US conservatism, and contrast him against more extreme elements (assorted neo-nazis and fascists) which have tried to steer TPUSA in their desired directions:
  • McAdams, A.J., & Castrillon, A. (Eds.). (2021). Contemporary Far-Right Thinkers and the Future of Liberal Democracy (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003105176
  • Milonas, P. (2024). How the Capitalist Media Altered Our Epistemology and Led to the Rise of the Far-Right. In: Capitalism's Safety Net: News Media and the Far Right. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-79078-2_2
  • Liang, C.S., & Cross, M.J. (2020). White Crusade: How to Prevent Right-Wing Extremists from Exploiting the Internet. Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • Kay, R. (2022) "United in misogyny: the manosphere – far-right nexus and marginalized masculinities". Thesis for International Master in Security, Intelligence and Strategic Studies. University of Glasgow, Dublin City University, University of Trento, and Charles University.
  • Burley S. (2021) Why We Fight Essays on Fascism, Resistance, and Surviving the Apocalypse. AK Press. 978-1849354066.
These were scraped from searching for "Charlie Kirk" and "far-right" in Google Scholar. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following sources all place Kirk in the mainstream of US conservatism.
If Kirk's views are considered mainstream in American right-wing circles, I cannot even imagine what an extremist would be like, an outright nazi? Accuratelibrarian (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the comment you replied to, contrast him against more extreme elements (assorted neo-nazis and fascists). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To further expound on the case of describing Charlie Kirk as far-right, there are several sources that explicitly label Turning Points as a far-right organization by which he was the CEO and founder or showing him openly working with far-right organizations and organizing him.
From these alone, it's clear that at minimum, he has a history of organizing and coordinating with (optional argument for far-right affiliate) or explicitly far-right himself. (Wordy) (talk) 02:47, 13 September, 2025 (UTC).
One leaves the impression that USA Conservatives and even right-wing are equally as extremely racist.
I don't agree, Nixon, Reagan, Ford, the Bushes and many American politicians were conservatives without exposing far-right views, at least on public. I think the arrival of Trump to politics has been a pivot moment for the American right. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum to discuss politics. Peptidylprolyl (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful point! Afarkas (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on labeling Kirk as "far-right." These selected sources that use this term are opinion-based or show ideological bias. Reliable coverage presents a range of views, and the majority describe him as a conservative rather than far-right. Greenknight dv (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proof that a "majority" describes him as conservative? The selected articles atop show on the contrary a very wide range of articles saying that he is far-right. Médicis (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could look at this comment and those immediately preceding it to see the broad range of outlets, alongside academic sources that believe Kirk was "far-right". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kirk called for the deportation of Mehdi Hasan, one of his political opponents and a NATURALISED US CITIZEN, because of his views on the Covid-19 epidemic. I think this qualifies as attempting to shut down dissent, and if not, certainly shows an opposition to open and free debate. Kernelblitz (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, most of these sources are from articles made after he was murdered, in a clear case of "smearing the dead". As mentioned here, there are articles of the Guardian calling him "rightwing activist" and others calling him "far-right activist" or "conservative activist". IdanST (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what if these articles are after he was murdered? Médicis (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are inaccurate he was a moderate conservative. He was often attacked by Nick Fuentes for being to moderate. They also bickered becuse Charlie defended gays and blacks. Eoptap (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree. I grew up with a lot of white supremacists (WS) and "lost causers". Charlie's presentation and physical security were not commensurate with a prominent WS. You are a target of multiple groups, notably competing criminal gangs. My take on Charlie's role in this topic is he may have been an angry gullible. He may have sympathized with WS, but ultimately he was used by them and may have been naive as to what they actually represent in day to day life. Gaskew7 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism on civil rights act

SPOINGUS
Closing this. Although the comments were comedic, none of them were constructive. If another user wants to try and argue this point without soapboxing, please do so. Babysharkb☩ss2 (DEADMAU5) 22:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This should be edited with full context. It was never about race or segregation. He said the intent was not a mistake but the way it was written. This can easily be found on YouTube out of his own mouth. He said the it was very noble and he totally agreed with what it initially stood for. It is now being used as an argument to allow men in womans bathrooms and Garland voter id laws violated it. That is what he meant. The way it’s worded makes one believe he was against black Americans having the same rights which is not the case at all. 2603:7081:1D00:65A9:D5F7:7DDC:6FC7:75EB (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He said black people scare him. John Antifa (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is totally false. 49.179.95.160 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. He was proud to say it out loud and often. [[4]]. Dude was an open racist. John Antifa (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your nickname includes Antifa: "...that use...VIOLENCE to achieve their aims." You're the pot calling the kettle black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.124.16.118 (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not ever did he say anything remotely like that. Ever. If so, show the proof. You can’t because there is none. 2603:9001:5200:5B88:6C35:332A:450C:ADB2 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to add a new article: Political positions of Charlie Kirk

His article is stuffed with enough positions to have its own page. It doesn't even include his economic views (opposition to socialism, the Affordable Care Act, etc.) And it can help build extra context on statements he may have made previously. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:ARTICLESIZE and >9K words. CNC (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support struck so someone can WP:SNOWCLOSE this discussion. CNC (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, all that would do would relegate the most major of his positions and actions to that effect to an article no one will click on - in favor of a watered down, incredibly generous summary that misses every major beat. We have the same problem on the Rowling and Musk articles. But there at least they’re notable for other things, here Charlie Kirk’s politics are all that he is notable for. Snokalok (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's either important enough for a standalone article, or it should be dramatically trimmed if not due. "Click views" is not a policy-based argument and in response split offs is what summary style is for. The reality is no-one is going to read what is over 50% of the article unless they want to know everything. Most will only ever read summarises, hence this page would benefit from including one. If readers want to know more, they can go click on the article. This is precisely why there is less clicks to child articles, because most readers don't want an in-depth read of a subtopic, 90% are quite satisfied with an overview. We should be giving readers the accessibility they want, not providing them with what we think they should be reading, or what we think is more important. CNC (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that this is already the page for that. Charlie Kirk is solely notable for his politics, not having his views in his base article is just meaningless obscurement, which makes for a worse encyclopedia. 9k words is a fine size for a figure this significant. Snokalok (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snokalok actually makes a great point. Since he is mostly known as a commentator, I am not too bothered by the length of this section. However, it could potentially be further compressed if it is not to be split off. PickleG13 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also support trimming alternatively. My assumption was based on attention this article has received recently meaning it should be in a relatively good condition and policy-compliant condition, but maybe my judgement is misplaced. If 500 words could be trimmed then the argument for a split would be significantly reduced from (at most) "should be" split to "might need". Either way it should be trimmed down if not down already. CNC (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the page needs to be split yet. WP:ARTICLESIZE is a guideline, not a policy, and notes that pages on certain topics may warrant larger sizes. I think the page is at a good size right now for an influential figure. The section itself is not going to grow any larger due to his passing. BootsED (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The section needs to first be trimmed considerably of excessive quoting, low-quality sources, etc. Kirk was a provocateur who promoted misinformation, divisive rhetoric and conspiracy theories personally at events and rallies, on his podcast, social media, and TV, and in print, and his comments were reported and commented on by supporters and opponents. We need to sort through the details and present a comprehensive account when the current excitement has died down a bit. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support The page is getting too long to read, and we know it has been the subject of high interest for many readers. I do not support pages like Charlie Kirk and LGBTQ issues, which have a higher degree of specificity and would only be likely for a major world leader or philosopher, but I think his views on issues are notable in themselves and it would make the page more manageable. PickleG13 (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--The article is full of errors as is and is rather biased. I feel like a separate page would do little to state what isn't said here and would just serve as a place for people to paint him in the worst possible light and post about how much they don't like him. I think the focus should be on cleaning up the current section. There are also plenty of left- and right-wing political figures with notable views on issues, but we don't have pages for all of them. Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The core of his notability, notoriety, and noteworthiness is his political views, and as such they cannot be forked. Ocaasi t | c 23:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As others have said, the man and his positions are one in the same. This page can be cleaned up to be more readable and reduce word count. Readability and usability for the readers to get quick information all in one place on the subject should be key. Vingold (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article only exists in the first place because of his political positions. That is why he is notable (that and getting shot, but if he wasn't known for his views he wouldn't have been shot, and even if he had it wouldn't be notable). Tulzscha (talk)
  • Oppose, in general we split out political positions for people who are primarily notable for something else (generally business or entertainment) or for politicians who were in office so long that explaining all of the positions they took over the decades and the evolutions in those positions is just too tedious for the main article... I don't think either is the case here, the subject is primarily notable for their political activities and appears to have been pretty consistently taken a limited number of positions across their tragically short career. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If he were still alive, and his political positions "list" would have likely grown, or if there would be continuous evolution within his political positions and beliefs, a separate article MIGHT be appropriate. But, alas, that will not be the case since the Kirk's assassination. The political positions sub-topic belongs in the article on the article subject, not as an article unto itself. ~A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that Kirk was about to convert to Catholicism

The title is inexact. This is about whether to include his interest in Catholicism.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about the text you added about small talk during a brief meeting on the way into a pro-life prayer breakfast. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani boldly added this text on September 23:

According to Bishop Joseph Brennan of Fresno a week before Kirk's assassination, Kirk had met him, and spoke about attending mass with his Catholic wife and children. In Brennan's view, Kirk was very close to converting to Catholicism. (Catholic News Agency article)

I reverted it on September 24, and Nishidani reverted my revert today. To avoid edit-warring, I'm taking this here for discussion. The source is a report on an opinion Bishop Brennan's brother wrote about the "brief, private moment" Bishop Brennan had with Kirk at a pro-life prayer breakfast about a week before Kirk's death: Kirk mentioned speculation regarding his contemplating entering the Catholic Church, saying: "I'm this close." Payne, the writer of the cited CNA article, sums this up as Kirk [] reportedly strongly considering becoming Catholic just prior to his assassination. The source doesn't support our claim that it was Brennan's opinion that Kirk was close to converting. Even if it did, a remark during a brief chance meeting seems too trivial to mention in an encyclopedia. Thoughts? Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly? That adverb alone prejudices matters. There is nothing temerarious about adding a fascinating datum to a page, fascinating because it provides a little nuance to the evangelical thrust of the page. I simply happened to come across a reference to the fact his wife was Catholic, and that he attended (occasionally) Catholic mass. I examined this page, found nothing regarding an item of reasonable importance/interest for this biography, and therefore duly added it. The simple solution to Space4TCatHerder's point is a tweak for greater accuracy.Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD editing, a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I-ve been here for 19 years so don't refer me to the ABCs (teaching grannie how to suck eggs). Adding new information is not per se 'bold'.

The other was a personal exchange between Charlie Kirk and a Catholic bishop who happens to be my brother: Bishop Joseph Brennan of Fresno. The bishop has given me permission to divulge the content of that conversation.

A little more than a week before his murder, Kirk attended a pro-life prayer breakfast in Visalia, California, which is in the Diocese of Fresno. The bishop was among those in attendance and had a brief, private moment with Kirk. As they were parting to attend the more public portion of the prayer breakfast, Kirk mentioned speculation regarding his contemplating entering the Catholic Church, saying: "I'm this close."

So, the article relates that the Bishop confided to his brother that Kirk said to him, - after speaking of his wife's religion and his own attendance at mass -"I'm this close" with regard to speculation he would convert to Catholicism.
The only adjustment required, is to remove 'in Brennan's view', and perhaps to replace it with, Brennan stated that Kirk he was 'this close' to converting. What's the fuss? Certainly nothing to warrant the excision/suppression of that information.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Questionably sourced anecdote ('my brother told me') speculating about something that might possibly have been going to happen, written by someone obviously keen to believe it would? No, it doesn't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source is Catholic News Agency. Why is that questionable, when a bishop authorized the private conversation and the Kirk quote to enter the public domain? And why remove the fact his wife and family were Catholic and that he would attend mass with them? If we note, no objections, that he observed the Jewish sabbath in acknowledgement of the importance of Judaism, why erase this proximity to Catholicism?. Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the bishop's presumption is questionable, not the source relaying it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say that Kirk observe[s] the Jewish sabbath in acknowledgement of the importance of Judaism. We're paraphrasing what he said at a TPUSA event: "Every Friday night, I keep a Jewish Sabbath," he said. "I turn off my phone, Friday night to Saturday night. The world cannot reach me, and I get nothing from the world. It will bless you infinitely." Seems a tad superficial, as the Forward points out. I wouldn't oppose removal of that sentence but at least it's something he said he'd been doing for years because he considered it to be a commandment. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:10, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per AndyTheGrump, this needs to go asap if not already removed. This is far from good enough sourcing for BLP by any stretch of the imagination. The context of the claim makes it even worse; a recently deceased person (who has received widespread mainstream coverage) was suddenly going to do something that gives further support or promotion to your religion, from a source that will naturally be biased about said religion. WP:BLPRS applies, as does WP:BLPSPS which is all this is, and generally it falls under the bracket of WP:HEARSAY. CNC (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My religion?!!! What an extraordinary inference. I'm a pagan. There are dozens of RS ([here, for one) that confirm his wife is Catholic. She was at mass when he was murdered, and was accompanied back by a priest]. There are direct quotes that confirm what our source says:'I go to Catholic Mass every once in a while. I don’t take the Eucharist…but I’m open-minded, but I’m not there yet.” (https://www.catholic365.com/article/53877/charlie-kirk-on-the-catholic-church.html) from Crisis Magazine. It is quite extraordinary in NPOV terms that one can note his respect for Jewish ritual, while suppressing his ipsissima verba testimony that he went to mass occasionally, but is .'not there yet'(Brennan's 'I'm that close'.

“Some of my greatest friends in the world are Catholic…I go to Catholic Mass every once in a while. I don’t take the Eucharist, don’t worry you don’t have to report me…The joke is that serious evangelicals become Catholic. And I’ve seen that happen. I’m open-minded, but I’m not there yet.”

It is a violation of NPOV to note his Protestant, evangelical roots and respect for Judaism while eliding the ecumenical outreach also to Catholicism. I am also opposed to the suggestion that to fix this evident NPOV imbalance, mention of his maintenance of the Jewish sabbath be repressed. Nishidani (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where CNC refers to 'your religion' he is clearly denoting that of the writer of the source. As for the rest, has this speculation about conversion been discussed in any other WP:RS? because if it hasn't, I don't see where NPOV comes into it, since we don't build 'neutrality' around a false balance between single sources and things discussed in multiple ones. Which may be a reason to delete the bit about the Jewish Sabbath, if again there is only a single source for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What ATG said, "your religion" was in reference to the claim. If there is other poorly sourced material about Kirk's religion it should also be removed. Having unreliable content in BLP is no argument for including more unreliable content, it's only an argument for removing more content that is unreliable. CNC (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a recently deceased person (who has received widespread mainstream coverage) was suddenly going to do something that gives further support or promotion to your religion, from a source that will naturally be biased about said religion

The remark was in response to mine, and in context 'your' refers to the prior editor. You may not like this but that is how English works. Sensitivity to language to avoid ambiguity would have led to something like

a recently deceased person (who has received widespread mainstream coverage) was suddenly going to do something that gives further support or promotion to another religion, from a source that will naturally be biased about said religion

In the context of this page, this discussion does show a decided bias against sourcing from a Catholic source. A mere glance at what we permit as sourcing here shows a very high tolerance of trivial, marginal or 'biased' sources, none of whom would pass the RS criteria spuriously adduced to suppress reference to a Cartholic newspaper, many referring, as it did, to what people say Charlie Kirk stated or thought.

There is no consistency in the use of wiki policy, and it all boils down, as often as not, to what an aleatory majority prefers to see, or not to see as determined by the numbers of editors who happen to note a talk page topic and trouble themselves to give their personal take, without troubling themselves to remove masses of sourcing that fail the criteria they adduce for inclusion or exclusion.Ahime. Well, I for one will remember the disappeared datum.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate way to deal with "trivial, marginal or 'biased' sources, none of whom would pass the RS criteria " is to get them removed. Not to add more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The utility of the Catholic News Agency as a source, differing from most of the above, was discussed at RSN, and, as indeed I did in my edit, the advice by very experienced editors was to use attribution. So you're mixing apples and oranges.
So I didn't add a trivial source, as did all of the editors who added 12% of the references on the page from googled junk. Of course, this crap, though now pointed out, will not receive the intense focus that mention of an RS-approved Catholic source has. Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Catholic News Agency isn't inherently trivial. A Comment made in passing, reported second-hand, is. And frankly I am having difficulty understanding why you are making such a fuss over a few words Kirk exchanged with a Bishop. You seem to see some sort of anti-Catholic bias. What I see is an anti-trivia bias, from me at least. And no, I'm not defending anything else in this article. I consider it a bloated mess. I happened to see this thread (I watchlisted the article shortly after KIrk was killed, though I've not really been involved much) and it looked like more of the same. If it is your position that nobody is allowed to comment on anything unless they also comment on everything else, please say so explicitly, and then take it to an RfC somewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore my evidence that 'the few words' exchanged with a bishop in 2025 almost verbatim repeat what Kirk said in a 2021 interview. I've brought it up at the RSN board, Andy. See here. I am genuinely perplexed as to why, as it stands, the page refuses to accept any mention of the Catholic nexus (trivia), while accommodating views re Islam, Judaism, Protestantism and Evangelism (not apparently trivia), in violation of NPOV. I write that thinking of Marlowe's wonderful phrase about 'religious caterpillars'Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"over a few words Kirk exchanged with a Bishop", supposedly said even. As for the claim of "verbatim repeat", that's a WP:SYNTH outlook, even if the claim were true. CNC (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
During the editing frenzy after Kirk's assassination much trivia was added, along with sources that do not meet WP's criteria for reliable sources. All of that will be rectified eventually. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tbhotch changed the status on 10 September 2025 so WP:BLP "... does not apply directly to the subject of this article ...". But if that change was premature, WP:BLPREMOVE still looks like applicable policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That parameter change is somewhat irrelevant, technically it should yes for alive, no for dead, and other for well, other cases of BLP policy applying. Regardless tp notice, BLP still applies per WP:BDP. CNC (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fails wp:undue, there is no evidance this is true, hell, the bishop does not even seem to say Kirk asked about it, only that the Bishop thought it was possible. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah dear. To repeat, what the bishop reported is virtually identical to words used by Kirk in a direct 2021 interview, already reposted twice/ I.e.

“Some of my greatest friends in the world are Catholic…I go to Catholic Mass every once in a while. I don’t take the Eucharist, don’t worry you don’t have to report me…The joke is that serious evangelicals become Catholic. And I’ve seen that happen. I’m open-minded, but I’m not there yet.” Jessica Kramer, Conservatism’s Inevitable Conversion to Catholicism, [6], at Crisis Magazine 16 June 2021)

One dispairs at the eagerness to opine, when slow reading and parsing, and retention of what has been said or given in evidence, are consistently ignored,Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is wp:synthesis, unless he says that he intends to convert to Catholicism (using those words, and not the exact opposite "but I’m not there yet") he did not, and this is just the Bishop's opinion that he intended to. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kramer's piece is an opinion, not a reliable source. Four years after Kirk's interview with the defunct Church Militant (website) (classified an anti-LGBT hate group by the SPLC), he still was "not there yet". Time to drop the stick? Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I question your assessment of these sources with you labelling Spiked rightwing marxist libertarian. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources

I removed a bunch (Spanish, Italian, French, German, and Polish) with this edit and they were restored with this revert. My understanding is that they’re unnecessary for this article because we have sufficient English sources for the claim, but more specifically, my understanding is that the term “far-right” may have a different connotation in European politics as compared to American politics. Do we need the non-English sources and are we sure that their use of the term “far-right” is the same as U.S.-based sources? Mikewem (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all English sources are US-based. Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent point, thank you for the reminder to be more precise with my language.
My decision to remove was informed by WP:OVERCITE and WP:NONENG. OVERCITE says “Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word”. We have 23 refs for the claim Kirk's positions have been described as far-right by a variety of outlets and academics, 14 of which are noneng. NONENG says “English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.” I think that the Anglo-world sources we have for the claim are at least of equal quality. And they may possibly be of higher quality because of the possible different connotation of the term “far-right” in continental European politics. As a jumping off point, there’s this NPR interview [7] that begins to discuss that there may be some scholarly difference of the term. But even if the usage turns out to be identical, OVERCITE and NONENG would still apply and I think would still support the removal of the 14 non-English language sources for the single claim. Mikewem (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Point

Alaska4Me2, re your edit sum one either receives or doesn't receive an appointment to military academies. That's OR (and will probably be misunderstood by most readers). The sources don't use the term, and West Point's web page doesn't either. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_Kirk&oldid=1314763294"