Talk:Charlie Kirk

WP:RSOPINION and calling someone a liar in the first sentence of "political views"

I'm no fan of Charlie Kirk, but I think Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about tone and contentious labels. A "political views" section should, if it exists, be a generalised summary of his views, aiming for as much factuality and as many "Charlie said" statements as possible. Criticism and media response should be secondary. The source linked is an WP:RSOPINION belonging to two random journalists working for the NYT. It's not even about his views, it's a character judgement. Maybe there's a place for the source in question in some kind of media response or media criticism section or something, but a "political views" section should aim to factually state the things he believes without casting judgement. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's calling him a liar per se. The source linked is attributed, so I would support changing the text for better weight or NPOV, but not removing it entirely since it provides a useful description of his views or methods. I would be fine with moving it to another section too. Maybe the "Promotion of falsehoods and conspiracy theories" section. Andrevan@ 20:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think actually the next sentence from that source is a much more interesting description of Kirk's relationship with Trump. "Backed by prominent Republican donors, and with a powerful ally in the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Kirk both amplifies the president’s message and helps shape it."

Would you be happy if I quoted that instead and moved it under "pro-trump activism"? BrigadierG (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't see the need to remove the "walking the line between mainstream conservative opinion and outright disinformation" part. Andrevan@ 20:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that this is an ideal application of WP:RSOPINION, but I also think it's a reasonable WP:COMPROMISE. I've gone ahead and made the change while leaving in the part about disinformation. Other editors are invited to comment on this discussion to help build better consensus. Thanks @Andrevan for being willing to discuss things productively and promptly, always appreciated. BrigadierG (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Andrevan@ 20:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. Wikipedia has a rampant WP:RSOPINION problem. I personally don't care for NYT character judgment pieces. The RSOPINION policy exists because it is very decieving to an uninformed reader visiting the page to read cited information that isn't factual, and more opinionated. I like the suggestion of adding the - "Backed by prominent Republican donors, and with a powerful ally in the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Kirk both amplifies the president’s message and helps shape it." quote. and/or moving it to under the pro-Trump activism section. Eruditess (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was done per the above following the discussion Andrevan@ 18:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

His misleading tweet on Friday

I understand that we can't include a mention of EVERY occasion where Kirk exaggerated, misled or outright lied, because then his page would be a mile long. However, we should mention one of his misleading tweets from August 12th, where he claimed, without citing a source, that "It is now confirmed: 'Indict Trump and make him a felon so he can’t run in 2024' This is their agenda. Has been all along." Here's the tweet: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aIaNRjSMzy4J:https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1558179681483890688%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc%255Etfw&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca.

It appears that Kirk himself originated the statement.

Arthur Corvalay (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Trump was indicted. Charlie Kirk was correct. What do you have to say now? 69.113.233.201 (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Media Matters is a reliable source?

One of the sources used in this article is Media Matters, an obviously leftist website which only criticizes those on the right wing. MM should not be used to source statements on Wikipedia, as there can be much bias (in this case it seems to exaggerate the severity and actual impact of his comment). To me, this comment is not significant, it's simply a cherry-picked statement made on one of his many podcast episodes. And yes, same would apply for right wing websites such as thegatewaypundit in terms of whether they are a reliable source or not. Anyone can find an equally "egregious" comment to one that Kirk made for a left-wing figure such as Cenk Uygur, and put that in the article to damage his character, when in reality the comment bears little significance. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Per its rating in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed." Dimadick (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the fact that, on October 31, 2022, Kirk called for an "amazing patriot" to bail out David DePape, the attacker of Paul Pelosi. Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

So, Kirk advocates in favor of assassination attempts. Not surprising, but how is this relevant to his biography? Dimadick (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's relevant in that he seems to support right wing extremist violence along with the rest of the Ultra MAGAs. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

How do you square that? Do you have any evidence that he calls to assassinate anyone? Why exactly did he ask for someone to bail out DePape? 96.255.82.225 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. This discussion resulted in clear consensus for the proposed move. (non-admin closure) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Charlie Kirk (activist) → Charlie Kirk –
Pretty sure it's safe to say that this article's Kirk is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The activist gets over 95% of pageviews. Station1 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Station1. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2023

Please change:

{{birth date and age|1993|10|14}}

to

{{birth year and age|1993}}

and change:

(born October 14, 1993)<ref name=age/><ref>{{cite tweet|user=libertyu|author=Liberty University|author-link=Liberty University|title=Congratulations to our honorary doctorate recipients Mr. Anthony A. Nobles and Mr. Charles J. Kirk!|number=1127024997485154304|date=May 10, 2019|accessdate=January 16, 2022}}</ref>

to

(born 1993)<ref name=age/>

Someone added an unsourced birth date. It is not verified by the cited sources. The honorary doctorate tweet includes no information about his age. 157.157.113.63 (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I removed the unsourced DOB. I left plain text in the infobox saying he was born in 1993. We're apparently engaging in some light OR to determine the birth year. No objections to removing this and going with the usual Template:Birth based on age as of date, picking one of the two age-related NYT sources.

I left the tweet source, which I think is being used to verify his full name. I moved the birth year citation into the parentheses per MOS:REFPUNCT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

NPOV violation

BLUDGEON. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I tried to take the word "falsely" out of this sentence to restore WP:NPOV, but was reverted: Kirk has consistently supported the extraction and use of fossil fuels and has falsely claimed that humans have no significant effect on global climate change. Fnordware (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Of course it was reverted (by me). NPOV doesn't mean remaining agnostic about scientific facts, leaving readers to think that the claim might be true when we know it's false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC) What does including the word "falsely" add here except to stray from NPOV? The sentence is describing his opinion and we don't need to provide a counter argument. I doubt there are any readers unfamiliar with this issue. Fnordware (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC) If you think "humans have no significant effect on climate change" is a "viewpoint" that must be included in a balance of viewpoints for the sake of NPOV, then you have no business doing any editing connected to climate change. This isn't what WP:NPOV requires. NPOV refers us to WP:FALSEBALANCE -- do take a look, and also WP:FRINGE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC) The article does not state that humans have no significant effect on global climate change, only that he "claims" that. Given how many people also hold this belief (30% of Americans including many elected officials) it is not WP:FRINGE. If you insist on a rebuttal, a more neutral version might be: Kirk has consistently supported the extraction and use of fossil fuels. He is a climate change denialist, claiming that humans have no significant effect on global climate change. Fnordware (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC) How is this not WP:OR? --Hipal (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC) What do you mean? The citations are in the article. Fnordware (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC) No one has argued that the citations and our policies call for the change, hence concerns of WP:OR. --Hipal (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Read the original post. The sentence in the current article violates WP:NPOV. How would removing "falsely" constitute original research? Fnordware (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC) It would be OR if the arguments were being made regardless of the citations, hence my comment immediately above. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC) We are not debating weather or not Kirk believes in climate change (sources establish that), nor are we debating if climate change is real. What we're debating is if stating that his belief is false violates NPOV. Fnordware (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, and it seems to be a debate made without regard to citations. --Hipal (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Which part of WP:NPOV is it supposed to violate? Certainly not Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC) It violates NPOV simply because the word "falsely" is editorializing, which is inherently a non-neutral thing. It would be equally bad to say "…has accurately claimed…". This is an article about a person and it should describe their views, not comment on whether those views are accurate. But then even the article on Climate change denial does not say deniers are "falsely claiming" climate change doesn't exist (which would not be neutral), it says their view "contradicts the scientific consensus" (which is neutral). Fnordware (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC) and it should describe their views, not comment on whether those views are accurate. That would violate both NOT and POV. You may want to read WP:MAINSTREAM before continuing here. --Hipal (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC) There are 3 articles that are cited at the end of the "problematic" sentence utilizing the adjective "falsely". None of the cited articles use the word "falsely" anywhere to describe Kirk's views. It is used in the WP:HEADLINE (which constitutes WP:UNDUE WEIGHT) of the article from climatefeedback.org article. The only other mention of the word "false" was in the climatefeedback.org article at the "update" section in the footer mentioning that Kirk issued a correction saying that their claims were false. Inferring that he made a false statement based off an article saying he corrected a previous false statement is WP:SYNTH. If it wasn't explicitly stated in the WP:RS (which the only WP:GREL source is the New Yorker piece [no mention of "false" statements within the article]) that Kirk made a false statement, it absolutely should be removed. Saying that he falsely made a statement about global warming with no mention that he made a correction is inaccurate. I have to endorse @Fnordware's changes. I like his neutrally worded: "Kirk has consistently supported the extraction and use of fossil fuels. He is a climate change denialist, claiming that humans have no significant effect on global climate change." - Eruditess (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC) I read the article for the first time and was confused by "falsely claimed". Either he claimed that humans have no significant effect on global climate change or he didn't. He made the claim, for which we have WP:RS. The rephrased sentence suggested by Fnordware is an improvement. Given Eruditess's additional findings from the 3 sources, I'm going to modify the sentence.--FeralOink (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC) You didn't seem to actually go ahead and make the edit, so I just did. Fnordware (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC) Aaaand User:Nomoskedasticity put "falsely" back in. Sigh. Fnordware (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC) No, what I, "Kirk" meant by statement made----We do not have enough information. None of us were here last ice age. 67.1.157.146 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Needs cleanup; redundant content

Article has WP:MOS issues, e.g. multiple use of the same wikilinks, single column refs section (should be double column given how many there are).

There is also redundant content. Lengthening this BLP through triple repetition of the same sentences has the effect of exaggerating the subject's importance. That's sometimes a promotional ploy. I'll try to trim some of the worst of it.--FeralOink (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for trimming redundant content. Eruditess (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk: Conservative or Right Wing?

Is Charlie Kirk best described as a conservative activist or right wing activist? Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Conservative activist is best for describing. Eruditess (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Averaging the descriptions of recent WP:BESTSOURCES is the most neutral approach. Llll5032 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I support describing him as a right-wing populist and conservative activist, combining both. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Israel conspiracy theory

Kirk has lately become the highest-profile backer of a conspiracy theory alleging that the Israeli government deliberately allowed the October 7 Hamas attack to happen. He has been criticized for saying this, both by mainstream journalists and by his fellow conservatives. Seems like this should be included in the section on his views. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2B9A (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s not just him, either; seems like other TPUSA-linked figures have been promoting conspiratorial views about Israel lately. See [1]. Looks like the Groypers got to them in the end; both groups seem practically indistinguishable now. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2B9A (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Church and State

I suggest a section on Charlie Kirk and his views on Church and State. [2]https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/christian-nationalists-churches-campaign-trump-charlie-kirk-1234947887/ Collegemeltdown2 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Article should really be deleted or truthfully rewritten

Why does every article on this website discussing right winging people or topics always get obliterated by very obvious liberal bias? NH51907646 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Begging the question and Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Gotta voote blue harder, heh? XD 2804:1B3:AA81:9FB1:3DA8:1CCB:493A:8633 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone called "Funnyfarmofdoom" reverted my deletion of a whole section of Charlie Kirk's misinformation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This was even as I had cited NEUTRAL sources which contradicted the claim of information. The source used did not even elaborate on the "misinformation". It's utter nonsense. Hongkongpenang (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Article is starting to look like a Charlie Kirk repository of quotes

Certain sections in this article, primarily the "Racial Issues" section seems to be a running repository of every controversial thing Kirk has muttered in a public forum, mainly on his podcast. Certain views he expresses that have proper reliable coverage merit inclusion on this page, but it is getting to the point where it is just a place people are dumping gossip without proper context which seems like editors trying to right great wrongs (We know this because the title of the section isn't "Racial Views" rather "Racial Issues"), which compromises the WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC integrity of Wikipedia."Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Certain criteria in these sections need context or need to be trimmed because they lack clarity and conciseness. Anything that has weak sourcing and lacks weight I propose removal. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

How an encyclopedia article covers someone is largely dependent on what they are notable for... Athletes will often have a ton of information about games when for other people documenting specific days they spent at work would be silly. Kirk is notable for having opinions, especially controversial ones... So the article about him is going to feature those opinions in the same way that an athlete's page might have games or records. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Russian misinformation jibe

Whilst I agree that Charlie Kirk has repeated some very dubious and pretentious claims about the war in Ukraine. Ukraine firing mortars / shelling the Donbas is an OBJECTIVE FACT. Backed up by thousands of news reports, human's rights watch, and the U.N.

What is the point of reverting it, when its clearly misinformation ironically in itself? Brainrot. Although I'm not someone who is politically on the right, what's the point of trying to falsely portray someone?

Sources: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/donbas-we-re-used-to-shelling/ https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2016/07/un-report-2014-16-killings-ukraine-highlights-rampant-impunity https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians Hongkongpenang (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You're citing earlier sources, while the text you are trying to delete is about a later period. The timing of the competing claims makes it perfectly clear that in regard to the post-invasion period Kirk was spreading false claims in this sense as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.crisisgroup.org/content/conflict-ukraines-donbas-visual-explainer

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/18/ukraine-shelling-residential-areas-puts-civilians-risk

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/six-killed-11-wounded-ukrainian-shelling-donetsk-russian-installed-official-2023-11-07/

Oh what's this? 2022- onwards reports and investigations about Ukraine shelling the Donbas, before and during the war. What a fool you are. Hongkongpenang (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Either you haven't actually read those sources, or you have read them and completely failed to understand them. They do not support your claim. Grayfell (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You can't just say "I failed to understand them" when you haven't read them yourself.

What the wikipedia article claim: "Russian misinformation of Ukrainian shelling in a RUSSIAN EXCLAVE in Ukraine."

What my sources, HRW, Reuters, Crisisgroup state: Ukrainian shelling of Russian exclave

"Shelling by Ukrainian forces killed six people in the city of Donetsk on Tuesday" Where is Donetsk? In the Donbas, a self claimed Russian exclave. How about YOU actually state why it doesn't support my claim of how it isn't Russian misinformation.

What a stupid red herring fallacy you just stated. Hongkongpenang (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)