Talk:Charlie Kirk/Archive 1

Archive 1

AFD?

Hello. Was there an AFD leading up to the merge please? I see a lot of edit-warring in the history of this page. Please ping me when you reply--I'd like to see the AFD. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

why does Charlie Kirk not have his own page

far past time imo MB298 (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Completing the Split and Updating the Article

Now that the Charlie Kirk article has been split from the Turning Point USA article; I was in the process of adding all of the missing, non-TPUSA information that is relevant and notable to Charlie Kirk but was not part of the TPUSA article split. This has been reverted for WP:PEACOCK and "Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations" by grayfell; I will be reviewing the material in question for "too many peacock" words and re-submitting where appropriate. I do believe that the material inserted was notable and improves the content and integrity of the article, it just needs to be cleaned up. MaximusEditor (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That NY Times best seller: Maga doctrine debuted at #5 on March 22, 2020, with the dagger symbol ("A dagger indicates that some retailers report receiving bulk orders"), dropped to #14 the next week (still with the dagger symbol), and was gone the next week. Last fall, Turning Point purchased about 2,000 copies of Mr. Trump’s book, “Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us,” helping push it up best-seller lists. What are the odds that something similar took place this year or that someone returned the favor? Just saying that if you mention the NY Times best seller status you also need to mention the dagger caveat (IMO). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The titles seem to have come straight from Kirk's own website. Editor-at-large at Newsweek - that just means that Newsweek publishes his opinions (Charlie Kirk is the founder and executive director of Turning Point Action, an advocacy group for young conservatives. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.. Columnist + guest commentator - written + spoken opinion, in his case mostly for right-wing to far-right outlets. Social media influencer - I associate influencer with people on YouTube promoting products for clicks and getting paid for those clicks. Does not seem to apply to him. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Home value

Does the vaule of his home have encyclopedic value? I removed it here and Drmies restored it here. Normally trivia like that is not included in articles. What does since he works for a highly political non-profit allied to the president, this is kind of interesting have to do with anything? PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Well, it's not trivial if it's one of the focal points of an investigation into his rise to wealth. So yeah, that has everything to do with it--at least according to ProPublica, which is a reliable source for investigative journalism. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • So the value and location of his condo speaks to his conservative activism? No I don't think so. We don't do that here since it is clearly not encyclopedic it is just shitty writing. Also yeah not a main focal point of that source. This is not the dumping ground of every piece of verifiable useless trivia. Finally please follow onus and BRD and self revert. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Hmm you were right--that was not great writing. I hope you like the new version better. BTW "shitty writing" (hmm...) is not a ground for declaring something unenyclopedic. Also, your response is not as carefully written as I am used to from you. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Shitty writing was a side note for all the other points I made that you ignored. Also since when have I had careful writing? Perhaps you are thinking of someone else. Still worthless noting the home value other than to make an implication the source does not make. Why do that? Finally please follow onus and BRD and self revert. It is just good practice, you know better. PackMecEng (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
        • You're probably the only reader who doesn't find that "implication" in that article. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
          • You didn't really read the assignment did you? I mean the whole part about his salary and home purchase were outside the investigation and just passing mention. In fact if you actually want to use the info and put it in context it would be following the success of Turning Point in general. Finally please follow onus and BRD and self revert. I had hoped for more from you on this, you always used to be a lot more reasonable. PackMecEng (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
            • PackMecEng, maybe I just got old, or I no longer have the patience to deal with this silliness. "You didn't really read the assignment didn't you"--that's Instagram talk. I remember you being a careful editor, not outright hostile like this. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
              • No hostility here, so not sure what you mean. Regardless, several comments you have made here so far have included personal commentary. Don't do that, please keep things focused on content and not the contributor. Thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Passing mention of a big jump in income coincidental to signing off on possibly fraudulent federal tax returns? The current wording sounds NPOV to me. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue is a few things. The current wording makes it seem like an official or criminal investigation vs one from ProPublica. Second it explains the salary increase comes from the foundation doing well in part because of the backing of Trump and not necessarily because of anything fraudulent. Third, the quote in the article misleading financial claims is a claim made in the headline which runs afoul of the recent RFC. The more I re-read the source the more it looks like a guilt by association setup. PackMecEng (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The body of the article mentions questionable financial arrangements and misleading assertions about its finances to state and federal regulators, so it's not just the headline. And the association is Kirk having signed the tax returns: The IRS requires, under the penalty of perjury, that charities attest whether they received an independent audit. Both Kirk and the co-founder have signed off on Turning Point’s filings. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes but our article is using "" around it, making it sound like a quote from the source when it is a quote from the headline. Also again the source does not say or imply the increase in salary is from questionable financial arrangements, it explicitly states where it is from. So the implication is incorrect and unrelated to the possible IRS issues. The IRS thing is separate and could warrant something on its own, but again it is just a source speculating on criminal activity. Is this one source enough when nothing legally has happened to imply criminal claims against Kirk? PackMecEng (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is a work in progress. Seems legit to me for Kirk's bio to mention the big salary increase, the expensive condo, and the reported dubious financial dealings at the business Kirk is heading, 'though maybe not in the same sentence or in a section called conservative activism. Since editor MaximusEditor is planning an overhaul, let's see where that goes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Kirk's family and official name

From 2012 to 2018, Montgomery kept the books and records of TPUSA, and he signed the tax returns for the tax years until June 30, 2016, which list "Charlie Kirk" as the president of the company. The tax return for the tax year beginning on July 1, 2016, and ending on June 30, 2017, was submitted to the IRS in 2019 (Form 990-T, Form 990). Kirk is listed as the principal officer and keeper of Turning Point’s books and records. He is also the person who signed the tax return Charles Kirk, so that indicates that Charles is his first name. Going to the White Pages, I found several Kirks (no James T., I'm happy to note) listed with an address at 418 Cherry Creek Lane, Prospect Heights, IL, one of whom, Charles J. ("Age 20s") also has an address on Longboat Key, FL, where Charlie Kirk reportedly bought an $855,000 condo. Is "Charlie Kirk" Charles J. Kirk, son of Robert W. Kirk, architect, and Kathryn Smith Kirk, esoteric writer? Is this SYNTH or not? It's material published in the real world. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The International Business Times reported in 2017 that Kirk’s father "allegedly" was Robert W. Kirk, whose profile on his Group A Architects website, founded as Kirk+Partners in 1985, said until 2017 that he was project architect for Trump Tower, NYC. The website appears to have been scrubbed of the categories awards, articles, and principles in 2018. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Organization

After splitting Charlie Kirk out of the TPUSA page; the next step was to add Kirk’s non-TPUSA information, but organizing the information into several incremental edits triggered a revert for WP:PEACOCK and fluffery. Clearly having two sections (Early life and education & Conservative activism) is not sufficient to cover the broad range of topics and the article can be greatly improved by organizing the information into logical sections. So in keeping with updating the article and "depuffing" it, lets start from the very top, sections. My thoughts for an outline:

1) Early Life and Education

2) Career

2.1) Turning Point USA

2.2)Turning Point Action & Students for Trump

2.3) Media

2.4.1) Books

2.4.2) Columnist

2.4.3) Social Media

2.4.4) Television & Radio

3) Conservative Activism

4) Controversies

5) References

Space4Time3Continuum2x, what are your thoughts on this, as you are helping tremendously co-edit this new article. MaximusEditor (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The big problem I see is that conservative activism and Turning Point USA (and that includes TPA and Students for Trump) is his career. Without TPUSA he wouldn't have a social media following, and he wouldn't get to opine in print, on TV/radio, and in books. We don't know really know much more about him than what he's said in interviews or put on his/TPUSA's website. We need reliable sources but so far I haven't come across much. See also my other edits on this Talk page. I won't have a lot of time this week and may not respond quickly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I see your point, yes, Conservative Activism can be perceived as a common theme in those categories, but I also think that Conservative Activism is a category in itself. If the consensus is to change Career to Conservative Activism, then we can change the Conservative Activism section to be Political View. So the outline will look like this:

1) Early Life and Education

2) Conservative Activism

2.1) Turning Point USA

2.2) Turning Point Action & Students for Trump

2.3) Media

2.3.1) Books

2.3.2) Columnist

2.3.3) Social Media

2.3.4) Television & Radio

3) Political Views

3.1) Covid-19

3.2) Voter Fraud

4) Controversies

5) References

I think this is a significant improvement over the current format of the article. MaximusEditor (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It's an improvement if you can fill all those categories with reliably sourced material. That includes negative material like the NYT article you just agreed to remove from the article. I've just searched for recent mentions in RS, and I haven't found any later than the ones mentioning that he was a speaker at the Republican convention. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x He didn't agree to remove the NYT article. He just agreed to remove one biased quote from the lead that served no purpose. That NYT article is used like 7 or 8 times throughout this short bio--seems a bit redundant to me. And in case you haven't noticed, 95% of this bio is filled with "negative material." Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

("He?") The unfortunate fact is that the reliably sourced material on Kirk is negative, and there isn't that much of it. He's mostly engaged in his right-wing bubble or debating left-wing media like TYT at bubble venues like Politicon where he's "destroying" them or they are "destroying" him, depending on which side you are listening to. As for your deletion, Kirk did lie about life expectancy in Cuba being 15 years lower than in the U.S. (there's video at 13.14) and the life expectancy in Cuba is slightly higher), Oberlo does say that small businesses account for 98.2 percent of employment. Looking for RS that covered this event (Wonkette, so far). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

1.) I'm obviously referring to MaximusEditor (I'm honestly not sure if you're accusing me of not respecting pronouns or you genuinely didn't know who I was referring to). 2.) I thought I was automatically allowed to delete that quote since no RS was used and thus it's a BLP violation. If I'm wrong on that--my apologies. 3) As you know, Oberlo (a self-published blog) and a Youtube video are not WP:RSPSOURCES. I highly doubt you will be able to find a RS that fact-checked every claim at some random clickbait 'debate' at Politicon. 4.) At least you acknowledged that the majority of mainstream coverage of Kirk is heavily slanted. This article is really weird: just two sections and the "Conservative activism" section is just filled with instances where Kirk said something untruthful or misleading. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(Why do you assume the male pronoun applies?) The article is a work in progress. I thought it was a bit hasty to have a separate article on Kirk considering the scarcity of information outside the 'bubbles' but here we are. As for the YouTube video, WP:RSPSOURCES says that "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." It's a verified official account, and they are just showing the debate, not reporting or commenting on it, so the question of reliability doesn't arise. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The male pronoun applies b/c he's a male. You can't claim that Kirk made any true or false statements at that debate unless you have a RS. At best, you can claim that Kirk attended that debate, and use the Youtube video as your cited source. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove Last Line in Lead

Let's remove "According to the New York Times, Kirk's rhetoric "[walks] the line between mainstream conservative opinion and outright disinformation."" It's vague and could possibly be WP:CHERRYPICKING. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely agree, serves no purpose to the reader and is WP:CHERRYPICKING, I'll remove it soon. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The NYT article isn't vague at all, it gives numerous examples of the disinformation Kirk has been spreading and that quote sums them up. Nevertheless, I moved it from the lead into the body of the article, along with the mention of the book. 09:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)

Questionable source/misrepresenting quote?

We may need to remove "Kirk promotes the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory through Turning Point USA and Turning Point UK and has said they are working to 'combat it' in universities...". . The two sources are student newspapers, and the first one is an opinion piece (I think student newspapers are generally ok to use as per WP:RSSM, but it's better to use a professional source).

However, in the second source used (i.e, https://cherwell.org/2019/02/17/turning-point-uks-launch-marred-by-parody-accounts/) George Farmer is the only who describes Turning Point USA's "main objective as combatting ‘cultural Marxism.’"--not Kirk. In the next two lines it states: "Asked to elaborate on the term ‘cultural Marxism’, Mcilhiney backtracked on Farmer’s statement, telling Cherwell: “What we are saying is that there’s a shift in the cultural zeitgeist and the cultural mind towards the left. “We have recognised that the terminology of cultural Marxism has some difficult origins, so from now on I think we’ll stay away from the use of that.”. So, it seems as though Kirk was not the one who said he or Turning Point are 'combatting' Cultural Marxism. And it seems that Turning Point, in general, no longer use that term. As such, this could possibly be a WP:QUOTE, WP:NPOV, or WP:BLP violation. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if we should be using an opinion piece and student newspaper for such a claim. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree, and the quote is misattributed to Kirk. I removed it. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Claiming he didn't get into West Point because a less-qualified woman took his spot

Kirk's claims that he didn't get into college because of a woman taking his spot, and subsequent inconsistent rhetoric on the issue belongs in the article. It's covered by RS, and typifies the incendiary rhetoric and grievance politics of this person. It was removed by the editor Emir of Wikipedia with the claim that Kirk's claim was sarcastic. We don't know that Kirk was sarcastic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That is what he claimed, I am not claiming that it is sarcastic. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary said, "do we really need to put in a sarcastic joke." Sounds to me like you did claim it. I think his claim that affirmative action kept him out of West Point and his subsequent claim and denial are important enough to keep. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems more like a minute detail and possibly WP:UNDUE. But, if you really think it's necessary, we can do what Politico did and just mention Kirk believes he lost his slot to West Point to a candidate who was of a "different ethnicity and gender.” Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

That seems like a good compromise. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the source I somehow missed (not for lack of trying). Kirk told me—and has said in public several times—that in high school he received a congressional appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, but lost that slot to a different candidate—a person he told me was of “a different ethnicity and gender.” He believes the other candidate may have been admitted because of affirmative action. (West Point officials have said they do consider race in admissions, but only for candidates who also fully meet their admission criteria.) (I assume he meant a "congressional nomination"; whether the nominee gets accepted depends on a lot of other requirements.) So now we not only have confirmation that he said it but also of him specifically mentioning affirmative action. As for relevance: general credibility? He has a very lucrative business going as a professional provocateur. What sources have said about his college plans/attendance is based entirely on what he told journalists at one time or another, so, considering the current structure of this article, "Early life and history" is as good a place as any other to keep this information for now. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was referring to. I don't think it's necessary, however, to do this back-and-forth, such as: "Kirk claimed he didn't get into West Point because another candidate, of a different race and gender, took his spot. Then he claimed he didn't say it. Then he claimed it was a joke. Then he claimed he never said that joke...etc." That's distracting, so let's just leave it at one sentence. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

How is it reasonable to omit that his comments on the subject have varied drastically? Currently, after "Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d", who has been a user for five weeks (yet rattles of Wikipedia policies as if they were an experienced editor), removed the relevant context, readers will now learn[1] that Kirk claims that a minority woman took his position (with nothing to suggest that this is made-up nonsense). Part of the content that you removed is also long-standing content from the TPUSA page (where the content was duplicated from when this spin-off was created), so you're edit-warring out long-standing content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

1) I really don't appreciate your character attacks against me. Like I informed you on my talk page, I am a new editor and I am just getting the hang of things. However, I've been here long enough to learn that you should always assume good faith. An experienced editor, like yourself, should be well aware of this policy. 2) I offered a good compromise between you and Emir of Wikipedia. He wanted to take out everything relating to the West Point application entirely, and you wanted to include every possible detail. Just because it's on the TPUSA's page doesn't mean it should be there. No where on the TPUSA's talk page, is there a discussion on whether to include those statements relating to Kirk's West Point application. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

We can let the users on the other page know of this discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Five weeks, Snooganssnoogans? 10 days. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• What happened to "let's discuss" and then forging ahead? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing of the page

Emir of Wikipedia went through this page and basically just mass-whitewashed it[2]:

• The lead no longer says he's a conservative activist even though the cited RS in the lead explicitly calls him a "conservative star"
• The body says he "spread his views" on COVID-19 rather than "spread conspiracy theories and disinformation about COVID-19"
• The body says he "spread his views" about Obama's response to H1N1, rather than "spread falsehoods" about Obama's response to H1N1
• The body says he "spread his views about claims of voter fraud", rather than "spread false claims of voter fraud"

The changes do not adhere to what the cited RS say, and have the purpose of misinforming readers about Kirk and lending credence to rhetoric which RS have identified as falsehoods, conspiracy theories and misinformation. It should be reverted ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: You've got to be kidding! Kirk is an acivitist? Animal rights, maybe? Does he have non-conservative activism?. No, he doesn't. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Then we don't need to unnecessarily add extra words do we. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's one word, and it's necessary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it really though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. And I'm seeing that Emir has a purpose and agenda of whitewashing on wikipedia now. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

You wish. In fact my agenda is not known to you, but you can get an idea of it by reading WP:NPOV. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

From a truly "neutral POV" (i.e., based on well-researched information/scientific fact) "disinformation" and "falsehoods" are absolutely the correct words to use, because his opinions referred to by those terms have been proven to be such things. If a neutral point of view is what guides every edit you make, please stick to that agenda, and don't misrepresent what a neutral point of view is. Thank you.--68.186.103.110 (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, yes. Yes, it is. For one good and obvious reason: in current US politics, "conservative activist" tells you a very great deal about the causes the person supports: the promotion of the privileged position of white male Christians, the removal of rights and protections from everyone else, and the rights of corporate giants over ordinary citizens (of which the fight to kill Obamacare is only one aspect). Kirk is a conservative activist, not an activist for any common good. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop accusing others of acting in bad faith. It's completely appropriate to refer to Kirk as a "conservative activist." That's what all the RSs call him, and that's probably what he calls himself. I think the lead needs to clarify that he primarily works on college campuses. However, "Guy's" definition of "conservative activist" is completely inaccurate and he's clearly pushing a POV. As for the section title, "Conservative Activism" or just "Activism" or even "College Activism" seems okay to me. But I find it awkward how it's just a long section broken up into a bunch of small paragraphs. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

West Point

This statement is typical Kirk (chippy and belligerent) but misses the point entirely. People are not admitted to West Point based on test scores alone, they also have to be temperamentally fit for the Army. That's the case for every Western military academy, I think. I'm not sure it belongs - he's said much more significant shitty things. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by missing the point. You have to be nominated by one of these nomination sources; you also have to have the grades, the extra-curricular leadership activities, ACT, SAT, and/or PSAT scores, fulfill the medical and fitness requirements, and spend a night at West Point and part of a day with a cadet. It's only after reviewing all of these that West Point will take affirmative action into consideration if they have two equally qualified candidates. Kirk blaming his rejection on affirmative action as one of his recurring talking points is one falsehood, then claiming the statement was a joke is another one, and then denying that he ever made the statement is a third falsehood. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

All Kirk alleged was that he "lost" his spot to a candidate of a different gender and race, and that "may" be due to affirmative action. . It's an allegation--you don't have the evidence to prove it was true or false. And it seems like you're engaging in WP:OR. Like I said in the discussion above, it's tedious to do this back-and-forth nonsense where we say: "Kirk said he lost his spot to West Point due to affirmative action. He then claimed he was joking. Then he claimed he never said such a joke." That's quite distracting, and it adds nothing to the article.

References

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It does illustrate rather well the sort of gaslighting troll behavior Kirk is known for, and the racism he usually engages in. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No instances of racism on this page. No RS referred to his affirmative action comments as "racist" or "trollish" either. Please stop pushing a POV. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Kirk's Assault?

Should we include Kirk's 2018 assault by antifa? [3] [4] [5] Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Major problems with this "story". There's no record of an actual "assault" occurring, just the WP:MANDY claims of Kirk and Owens, who have less-than-stellar reputations with regards to truthfulness. CNN and TheHill give little to work with, while Fox (which is NOT a RS for anything political per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources shows us how it appears Kirk and Owens are fabricating/misleading/inflating whatever did occur with lines like "Owens, who called Antifa “an all-white fascist organization...”" 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

exceedingly biased language

I have very strong objections to the language used in this article. This is skirting the line on libel here. This is totally out of whack.

WP:BLP states BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves...Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.

If 'conspiracy theories', 'disinformation', and 'false views' aren't contentious labels I don't know what is. I have been told to gain consensus before making a change to the language used so here I am. Beaneater (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources have consistently established what is being spread to be a "conspiracy theory", then that is the NPOV term for it. The same with "disinformation" or "false" this or that. We follow the reliable sources on this. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Even the Washington Post here calls him a 'republican activist'. The New York Times calls him a 'conservative activist' in this article although they later go on to bemoan several of his 'baseless conspiracy theories'. I think this is where Wikipedia needs to draw the line and use restraint. We have to realise that the media is becoming more polarized and change the policy accordingly. Beaneater (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article is pretty slanted, but it was a lot worse before I got here. My biggest concern is that we are over-relying on that one single NY Times article. It's cited like 6 times for that one paragraph, so I think it would be best if we trimmed that paragraph down. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the inclusion of these labels. The terms 'conspiracy theories', 'disinformation', and 'false views' are not "contentious labels" if they accurately describe Kirk's grossly embarrassing antics. Let's call a spade a spade. Telling people to inject chemicals into their blood, claiming that social distancing is somehow sacrilegious, and accusing Chinese doctors of burning their patients are clearly 'conspiracy theories', 'disinformation', and 'false views'. Dosafrog (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Charlie Kirk's disinformation

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.

---

Should the lead include an attributed New York Times statement that Kirk's rhetoric "[walks] the line between mainstream conservative opinion and outright disinformation"[6]? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. A substantial part of the body is devoted to this person's falsehoods and conspiracy theories. His incendiary rhetoric is part of the reason why he is notable. By omitting something on that subject from the lead, the page fails to summarize the body and it fails to communicate to readers who Kirk is and what he does. Reading the lead, he sounds like a run-of-the-mill conservative activist when in fact he's more like a Rush Limbaugh / Dinesh D'Souza style provocateur. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• No. The article already includes too much information from that single NY Times article. We should not be summarizing entire articles. WP:CHERRYPICKING a random quote, and placing it in the lead, violates neutrality and does not give the article an WP:IMPARTIAL tone. "Who Kirk is and what he does" is already clearly established in the lead. However, the lead is too short and should be slightly expanded. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Uncommitted: I don't think leads in general should include quotes or metaphores. If Kirk lies a lot then the lead should state that explicitly without embellishing it. ImTheIP (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• No. For the reasons given by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. That one article is cited six times for the purpose of showing his disinformation, then the claim is made that there is so much mention of his disinformation that it ought to be in the lead. — Swood100 (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• I am not sure: while there's merit in excluding it, today on Twitter he was describing the American left as increasingly extreme and Marxist, which is such a hilarious reversal of the truth that one cannot help but feel that there should be some mention of the relentless absurd counterfactuals he pushes. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I couldn’t find the Tweet you were referring to, but look, “extremist” and “Marxist” are Republican slogans about where the Democratic party is headed. Are you saying that, for example, using these terms to describe AOC and her version of the Green New Deal are a “hilarious reversal of the truth” and an absurd counterfactual? There’s no room for a difference of opinion, either as to whether this accurately describes AOC or whether she represents the future of the Democratic party? People have to allow for the possibility that their political viewpoint is not the only reasonable one. — Swood100 (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Swood100, yes, I'm aware that this is the conservative talking point. Meanwhile the GOP has become so radical they just decided to bring back the Lochner era. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't every case based on substantive due process bring back the Lochner era? That's been going on for some time. — Swood100 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• No so many problems with WP:BLP in this article already that need to be seriously addressed. We also don't want this to be a WP:TABLOID. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d also makes a valid point.Eruditess (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• No - Wikipedia is meant to be an encylopedia, not just a bunch of cherry-picked opinions from The New York Times. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• No We could all find NYT quotes to put in leads, but they are not useful to readers. Put them in the body. Ihaveadreamagain 19:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• No too much repetition from the same source is not good. Wikipedia is not NYT. Bahar1397 (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• No as much as I agree with the sentiment I think the position is more tenable in plain language without the need for a quotation to carry the water. Feature the subject's misinformation (backed up with RS) within the body if you want to refer to it in the opening paragraphs. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• No per Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d's reasons. Idealigic (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• No per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, per Snooganssnoogans. Much of Kirk's notability derives from his spreading of conspiracy theories and other falsehoods on venues such as Twitter. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• No. Outright disinformation became mainstream conservative opinion in the U.S. when Trump became president, or even earlier. There is no such line. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• No But only because I disagree with The New York Times itself, about there existing such a line to be walked. I understand and mostly agree with the sentiment expressed. But I believe WP can and should find a better way of phrasing. Dutchy45 (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, but use additional sourcing and state it more generally. There is substantial coverage of his disinformation, and I'm a bit baffled that the people above who object to using only one source didn't simply search for more. Some possible sources:[7][8][9]. Note that some of additional coverage was published after the comments above as his election-related disinformation attracted more attention. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• No. This is a good quote and belongs in the article, but quotes are rarely appropriate for a lead section. They should only be used there when there's no better way to summarize the body of the article. Here in the body we have a number of statements about Kirk's false statements in support of DJT. Let's just summarize those, without the NYT quotation. R2 (bleep) 19:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• No. This line is far too flowery and poetic to be an appropriate summary of Kirk's positions or output. I think there is scope for saying something akin to "Kirk is known for online promotion of Conservative values and conspiracy theories." if this can be sufficiently well established in sources. Currently, the lead doesn't really cover the nature and form of Kirk's work. Awoma (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2020 (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.

Remove American Conspiracy Theorist Category

Editor "Dosafrog" has twice reverted my edits [10], [11]. Additionally, this editor has engaged in vandalism on this page in the past [12], [13]. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I would not term either of those two edits "vandalism", especially given https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2018/02/02/violence-erupts-csu-protest-conservative-speaker-led/301496002/. Portraying them as such seems to invalidate your argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The source for the line in the article states "Last July, Mr. Kirk was invited to participate in a White House social media summit, ostensibly called to discuss the silencing of conservative voices. The guest list consisted mostly of Mr. Trump’s most ardent online supporters and included a number of fringe figures and conspiracy theorists", and mentions several conspiracy theories specific to Charlie Kirk. I believe the category should be kept and am putting it back based on this WP:RS. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Where do any of those sources allege that Kirk is a conspiracy theorist, neo-nazi, or alt-right? Extraordinary claims, like labeling someone a "conspiracy theorist" requires extraordinary sources--you don't have any sources that allege he is a conspiracy theorist. If you add it in, I will immediately revert you for including libelous information. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC regarding American Conspiracy Theorist category

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.

---

Is the category "American Conspiracy Theorists" appropriate for this article?

Statement by filer: I believe that it is, as sources such as the New York Times report on a number of conspiracy theories that Charlie Kirk either originated or propagates. However, Dr. Swag Lord above insists that it is "libelous". I find that argument to be hyperbolic but I think review from a wider audience is appropriate as Swag Lord has already edit-warred against another editor and does not accept the argument regarding the sourcing above. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose adding American Conspiracy Theorist category. The OP's only source of evidence is this line from a NY Times article: "Last July, Mr. Kirk was invited to participate in a White House social media summit, ostensibly called to discuss the silencing of conservative voices. The guest list consisted mostly of Mr. Trump’s most ardent online supporters and included a number of fringe figures and conspiracy theorists". This source does not state that Kirk, himself, is a conspiracy theorist. All the source states is that Kirk spread some disinformation regarding COVID-19. We need extraordinary sourcing to conclude that someone is a "conspiracy theorist." At the moment, we do not have such sourcing. Clear BLP issue. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the New York Times article, you would see that it in fact mentions multiple conspiracy theories that Charlie Kirk has propagated, including:

1. accused the World Health Organization of covering up the coronavirus outbreak, and upbraided Democrats for opposing the president’s decision to cut the group’s funding
2. claimed Democrats were appeasing Beijing and not doing enough to help Americans left jobless by the pandemic
3. A well-worn conspiracy theory about Hunter Biden’s dealings with China even made an appearance.
4. Mr. Kirk doesn’t always let facts get in the way of scoring points, and in recent months he has been among the louder voices stoking conservative skepticism of the threat posed by Covid-19 and using the pandemic as political cudgel.
5. In his zeal, Mr. Kirk even managed to get himself briefly banned from Twitter in late March, claiming that the drug hydroxychloroquine had proved “100% effective” in treating the virus (it has not), and that Michigan’s Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer, had threatened doctors who tried to use it (she had not)
6. Earlier this month, he repeated a baseless conspiracy theory that the authorities in Wuhan were burning patients.
7. Mr. Kirk has argued that Democratic governors are using the coronavirus as an excuse to push for state funding of abortions,
8. and claimed falsely that officials in Portland, Ore., where a handful of businesses were vandalized after the state issued a stay-at-home order, were releasing dangerous inmates from prisons and ordering the police to stop making arrests.
9. And then, of course, there was his “China virus” tweet. The phrase had been growing in popularity among some on the right, and Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, had been consistently referring to Covid-19 as the “Wuhan virus.” But the president had not used the phrase in public until he retweeted Mr. Kirk.
10. Last July, Mr. Kirk was invited to participate in a White House social media summit, ostensibly called to discuss the silencing of conservative voices. The guest list consisted mostly of Mr. Trump’s most ardent online supporters and included a number of fringe figures and conspiracy theorists. I will leave it to the reader at this point, since the NY Times notated a large number of conspiracy theories Charlie Kirk was involved in spreading just prior.

His record at Politifact may also be of worth. https://www.politifact.com/personalities/charlie-kirk/ IHateAccounts (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Lies, overstatements, or accusations does not equate to conspiracy theories. There are two instances where the NY Times categorizes his statements as "conspiracy theories"-- 3 & 6 on your list. Even after cherrypicking a single article, you can only find two instances of alleged conspiracy theories spread by Kirk. If he was a conspiracy theorist, we should be able to find an abundance of sources that make the claim, like we have for Alex Jones, for example. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Conspiracy theorists are people who peddle conspiracy theories. Not sure why this is such an extraordinarily difficult concept to grasp. Dosafrog (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose based on this New York Time "sourcing". Possibly support depending on if other sourcing is brought forward. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: The New York Times is "generally reliable" according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. What is your actual objection? IHateAccounts (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – the NYT source doesn't actually call Kirk a conspiracy theorist as far as I can tell (though it does call Mike Cernovich a conspiracy theorist). The link from "Kirk has tweeted a conspiracy theory" to "Kirk is a conspiracy theorist" is original research if we make it ourselves; we need a reliable source to identify him as a conspiracy theorist. If there are sources that do so, I'm open to considering them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support; there is substantial coverage outside the NYT. See eg. NBC News. --Aquillion (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- this one is obvious, given the nature of the sources available. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity is that a "support" or "oppose" vote? Bacondrum (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed -- I did it right when I did this post [14], someone must have messed with it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity's vote was changed by M2sh22pp1. --EarthFurst (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The sourcing is simply insufficient for the label. Such a contentious label/tag needs very clear and robust sourcing. We do not have that here. Springee (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Springee. It doesn't matter how many conspiracy theories Kirk has supported; the label is highly inflammatory and we can't call him a conspiracy theorist without at least one reliable source that does the same. R2 (bleep) 00:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Perhaps a conspiracy theorist is anyone who believes a conspiracy theory. According to a New York Times article, this would probably include over half the people in the United States. But to call someone a “conspiracy theorist” in Wikipedia one probably needs a little more, such as that such theories form an important part of the person’s belief structure, or that he is associated with such theories by the public, or that he originates such theories. To begin with, where is any source referring to Kirk as a conspiracy theorist? Why are there not abundant sources asserting this?

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

Without any sources at all, how is arriving at such a conclusion not straightforward WP:ORIGINAL? — Swood100 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Such a label would need to be supported in the sources. The sources mentioned so far, from the New York Times, and NBC, do not call him this, or anything like it. I do note that it would be worth agreeing on a definition of "conspiracy theorist" though. My understanding is that this is a person who produces conspiracy theories (such as Alex Jones), not just someone who believes them (such as Howard Stern) or promotes them (such as Joe Rogan). One could probably gather sufficient evidence to support the latter two behaviours for Kirk, but not the key one. And even then, picking out such a label separate from the sources seems like WP:ORIGINAL. Awoma (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Whether or not the article says that he's retweeted false statements, I mean, who cares. However, inclusion in a category isn't based on whether someone has ever done something; per WP:CAT, A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, James Madison could play the flute, and there are plenty of WP:RS to show that he did, but despite this he is conspicuously absent from Category:American flautists. I think it's reasonable that the same logic should hold even more strongly for a politically contentious label on a BLP (especially with the potential WP:SYNTH issues pointed out above). jp×g 09:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support I personally think this fella doesn't warrant an article on notability grounds, having said that pushing insane conspiracy theories is the only thing this fella is notable for. Pretty much every citation here is an article about him pushing a conspiracy theory of one kind or another. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] etc. etc. etc. Bacondrum (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist and makes his living doing so, I think we can all agree that those two do not belong in the same category with the label of "Conspiracy theorist". As far as Charlie's notability goes, I am going to add into the article the fact he was on Forbes 30 under 30 list, has his own radio show, also had the 5th highest engaged Twitter account in 2019. MaximusEditor (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "we can all agree" on that. Kirk, like Jones, has attained his level of viewership by actively promoting conspiracy theory content, just as how Jones did with his channels and his websites. They took the same path to notability. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support This category sums up the important role that conspiracy theories have played in Kirk's commentary since the pandemic, and now voter fraud conspiracy theories. This is specifically a part of his brand and the links provided by Bacondrum show that this is widely acknowledged by reliable sources.Patiodweller (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2020 (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.

Conspiracy Theorist

Kirk has been mention by several large trustworthy media outlets (WSJ, NYT) as at least a spreader of disinformation, if not a full blown conspiracy theorist. I keep seeing someone take down any edits that are made to show this label (that has clearly been earned, is not slanderous or libel) and enough is enough. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it’s a duck. Let’s add the label and let readers decide for themselves. Boltup76 (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Boltup76: Were you meaning to reply to the above RfC? If so you should remove the section heading, and say "Support" or "Oppose" (it sounds like you support the proposal). RedPanda25 03:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected request

Seems that this page has been repeatedly vandalized, something that will most likely continue. How does one go about getting /requesting a semi-protection?PrecociousPeach (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As suspected, since I've posted this request, the page has already been vandalized several more times. Going to ask around and see if there is any other additional steps to be taken to get this process moving, as I think it is quite warranted.PrecociousPeach (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@PrecociousPeach: Hello. I made a request for semi-page protection. You can find that request here:[22]. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Kirk's role in organizing the Trump rally in DC in January 2021

Per Kirk himself and as reported by RS, he was involved in organizing the pro-Trump rally in DC on January 6. In fact, he boasted about sending 80+ busloads. I don't see a reason why his role in organizing the events should be removed[23]. I also do not see why Kirk's baseless aspersions against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger should be whitewashed from the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the importance of including every single tweet Kirk has wrote in this article. Additionally, the edit gave a false impression that Kirk himself/TPUSA were involved in the storming of the capitol, which would be a BLP issue. Per the source: "It remains unclear how many buses were ultimately used in the shuttle and whether any occupants joined in on the siege." And I would use caution when using the Daily Dot to establish due weight for something. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, Kirk could not possibly have been involved. See [24]:

Hey liberals, do you notice that when conservatives lose races we don’t riot, scream, smash windows, burn cars, assault people, or need days off of work?

It’s amazing how mature and civil conservatives are

Please remember this and take notes when we get Trump re-elected in 2020

To be involved in the insurrection after that would be rank hypocrisy, so surely he would not have done that. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, surely not, the definition of "fight" being "protest peacefully." Kirk later deleted the tweet (coz we all know that nothing on the Internet is ever archived) and said on his podcast that it was "bad judgment" and "not wise" to enter the Capitol but not necessarily insurrectionist. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Big Lie promotion

Per [25]: Kirk hosted Mike Lindell, who generously offered to help the "criminals" involved in (not) stealing the 2020 election to reduce their prison time. He's also hosted Andy Biggs, of the sedition caucus. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure they just talked about pillows ;) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, for sure. Because, after all, "when conservatives lose races we don’t riot, scream, smash windows, burn cars, assault people, or need days off of work. [26]. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Echoing Carlson’s “great replacement” white supremacist rhetoric

Per heading. MMA, not a usable source, but there will be others no doubt. https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/frequent-fox-guest-charlie-kirk-praises-and-endorses-tucker-carlsons-replacement

Conspiracy theorist

I thinks it's pretty clear here's regarded as such across multiple reliable sources. I don't see any reason to remove.Pipsally (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Which reliable source unambiguously refers to him as a conspiracy theorist? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-twitter-deletes-giuliani-tweet-for-spreading-misinformation-2020-3Pipsally (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Further, the other sources are hardly ambiguous about his persistent promotion and propogation of conspiracy theories, which amount to the same thing, even if the direct absolute statement "Charlie Kigrk is a conspiracy theorist" is not there.Pipsally (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" is not verified in the main body of the article--just in the subheading. In the main body, he is referred to as a "conservative youth activist." If it is not verified in the main body of the article, then WP:HEADLINES applies. And, WP:BI, in general, is a pretty weak source for a contentious BLP edit. If that Business Insider article is your only source, then I'm reverting you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There is very extensive sourcing that referred to him in relation to conspiracy theories, certainly enough to call him a conspiracy theorist, certainly enough to pass WP:HEADLINE.Pipsally (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, and those conspiracies are detailed in the rest of this article. However, once again, "conspiracy theorist" fails WP:V (and I guess MOS:LABEL too). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

At some point if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck...Pipsally (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You may actually want to read WP:DUCK: The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. You may also want to familiarize yourself with WP:BLP & WP:SYNTH. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear you like to throw around shortlinks and templates, but not everything goes back to them. It is possible to use the duck analogy in other contexts, which is what I'm doing here, and why I didn't make any ref to that. You might read WP:CIVILPipsally (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying I was uncivil without you? I simply wanted to share guidelines you may have been unfamiliar with. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, sure.Pipsally (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Doc, while I totally agree with you on this matter, in that we necessarily need a reliable source (or two) explicitly describing him as such, this is a rather borderline case. Let's admit that; this edit request is not out of left field. He's been repeatedly described as repeating and promoting various conspiracy theories, and it's not unreasonable or even unprecedented on Wikipedia to describe someone as a conspiracy theorist as a result, including in Wikivoice. But the difference is that this is a BLP, not someone deceased by several years, and thus it requires far more consideration. We rarely ever call a living person something that a reliable source doesn't call them, with a few rare exceptions on the balance of sources. Pipsally's edit request isn't WP:SYNTH, though. Not even remotely; that policy doesn't describe what's being proposed here, and is about something completely different. I'm not sure where the duck thing came from, but that's neither here nor there. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you give me an example where we describe a BLP as a conspiracy theorist without RS using that language? Like I said before, specific examples of conspiracy theories are already listed in this article. Of course this is SYNTH. When we combine Ref 1 that says Kirk promoted a conspiracy theory + Ref 2 that says Kirk promoted a conspiracy + Ref 3 that says Kirk promoted a conspiracy theory, and we write in Wikivoice that Kirk is a conspiracy theorist, then we are reaching or implying a conclusion not explicitly stated in either source. Someone recently made a request to call Tucker Carlson a conspiracy theorist. They provided many sources that describe Carlson promoting conspiracy theories. Most editors shot this idea down. I think TFD gave a pretty good response: It's OR to gather examples of where someone has repeated conspiracy theories and conclude that they are a conspiracy theorist or that they promote conspiracy theories. We would need to show that this is how one is normally described in reliable sources... Normally the description is used for noted conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and David Icke...When you call Carlson a conspiracy theorist or promoter of conspiracy theories you are implicitly stating that there is a pattern or that he has attained notoriety from this. While that may or may not be true, you should have an expert source that reports this conclusion. In fact Exceptional claims were require more than a few isolated examples. If reliable sources don't routinely refer to Carlson as a conspiracy theorist, then I would ask why we should.. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Tucker Carlson has promoted way more conspiracy theories than Kirk, so if there is consensus not to call Carlson a conspiracy theorist, then I don't see how Kirk can be described as one. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth the original edit request wasn't me, nor the latest restoration by the IP.Pipsally (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Pipsally, I recognize that. It's a recurring issue on a couple of articles. And maybe something that we should clarify with an edit notice, if there's consensus for it. But your comments weren't out of line, and were perfectly reasonable defenses of the IP edits. While Swag was totally correct (in my view) as far as needing editorial voice, he also threw a few policies at you that didn't necessarily fit this situation. Honestly, I do think we need an edit notice on the page (which would require an RfC), but I also understand if people want to hold off on that for more sources, or discuss some other way to describe the subject. It's all reasonable. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Kirk's promotion of conspiracy theories is detailed in the article but hidden away under the general nondescript header "Activism." I just changed that. As for the label "conspiracy theorist:" NYT doesn't call him that, but they do call him a "right-wing provocateur." @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: are we now allowed to call him that, instead of or in addition to conservative activist?

References

Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we should stick with conservative activist or right-wing activist. That's the label most sources go with on first reference, as per the NY Times, Forbes, and Washington Post. Provocateur is not exactly an occupation, but we pretty much imply he's a provocateur in the rest of the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Arguably provocateur is an occupation for these talking heads and outrage merchants on both sides of the political aisle these days. It's what they're getting paid for!Pipsally (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Your edit-warring antics are getting tiresome. Why are you incapable of observing WP:ONUS? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Your white knighting is getting tiresome. Onus is covered, and you are edit warring yourself, and repeatedly removing comprehensively sourced and relevant contentPipsally (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

My white knighting? Who am I white knighting for exactly? "Onus" is not covered. When a user makes a bold edit and gets reverted, then next step is to discuss (WP:BRD) and not to revert again. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The section has several reliable sources and it's not hard to find more, specifically in profiles of him in significant reliable sourceshttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-charlie-kirk-turning-point-campus-conservatives-profile-20181019-story.html%3foutputType=ampPipsally (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't read WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. We could find thousands of things written in sources about Kirk, but that doesn't mean we need to include all of those things in his bio. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop telling me what I have and have not read. You could do with reading both WP:OTHER and WP:OWN if you want to go down that route. There may be many other things we could include about him. This one is specific, reliably sourced, discussed in profiles of him, and relevant to his other behaviour especially in regards to fake news.Pipsally (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's trivial information and a very minute aspect of his life. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s a perfect illustration of Kirk’s modus operandi and one of the few well-documented ones from the "before times," before Kirk and Turning point made the Big Leagues in the Trump era. Throw the claim/conspiracy theory out there—in this case that affirmative action at colleges victimizes white males—as exemplified by Kirk himself (my slot went to "a far less-qualified candidate of a different gender and persuasion" - at West Point, that well-known bastion of liberal bias and political correctness ). When proven wrong, delete tweet or deny everything: he was being sarcastic (New Yorker) or just repeating something he’s been told (Chicago Tribune). Never mind that sarcasm would have been "a much better-qualified candidate of a different gender and persuasion" but then he doesn’t know an alliteration from a rhyme, either. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Gun rights

Outside of the Sun Sentinal article I can find no RS coverage of Kirk's views on gun rights and the second amendment. I don't think it's notable, and certainly not to the point of saying he's a 'consistent advocate'. Pipsally (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of NYTimes content with the claim that its sourced to Media Matters

The editor 'Mr Ernie' removed content sourced to the NY Times with the edit summary "media matters is not an appropriate source for this" which strikes me as tendentious and deceptive.[27] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I’ve restored the content with extra RS. Presumably he missed the NYT ref.Pipsally (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article says His guest for the segment, Charlie Kirk, a founder of the conservative group Turning Point USA, compared the campus precautions to “almost this apartheid-style open-air hostage situation, like: ‘Oh, you can have your freedom back if you get the jab.’” The blurb Snoog added is pure NOTNEWS. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Overlinking?

Pipsally, why is adding the piped link "overlinking"? I also just discovered that Montgomery has a page stub, no idea why so I added a piped link to that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2021

Page says Charlie Kirk is a Neo-Nazi, which isn’t true. 2600:1700:36EA:703F:4885:71D7:8592:87C4 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done vandalism removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The evolution of Charlie Kirk

As with any biographical reference, some of the content of this article may need to be revised as Charlie Kirk's perspective and priorities change. Kirk's original position as a teenager, he claimed, was about "free markets", "freedom of speech", and the "right to bear arms," which gave him the the rhetoric to support fossil fuels, the National Rifle Association, and loosely-regulated tech companies, and the justification for creating the Professor Watchlist. More recently, Kirk has said that the conservative movement he represents is larger than that, and includes positions on marriage and family formation and conservative Christian values, which has led to his formation of Turning Point Faith. This is despite the fact that Kirk has had unwavering support for Donald Trump, who's personal life does not reflect those values, but whose political position, and appointment of three conservative Supreme Court Justices has resulted in at least partially overturning Roe versus Wade. According to the Guardian "Although TPUSA works hard to make inroads into mainstream culture with stunts and on-campus events, Kirk has recently staked out more hard-right positions."Kirk's position on race, for example, has become more aggressive as he has been more vocal about Black Lives Matter and Critical Race Theory. Kirk has also recently highlighted the idea that Turning Point USA supports "pro-American values," putting him perhaps closer to neonationalists. It will be important to mention Charlie Kirk's evolving position on social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter and on the Trump Media and Technology Group. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

References

"putting him perhaps closer to neonationalists" What exactly is the distinction between Kirk's positions and other American nationalists? I am under the impression that nationalist sentiments have been thriving since the September 11 attacks. Dimadick (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Dimadick, good point. From what I have been hearing Charlie Kirk saying lately, there is little distinction between his views and those of US neonationalists. "Neonationalist", however, has been used as a pejorative term, sometimes associated with white nationalism. Although Kirk uses techniques of color blind racism and employs a variety of dog whistles to a variety of hate groups, he would be offended (or at least feign to be offended) to be called a white nationalist. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Understanding Charlie Kirk: American Conservative, American Nationalist, Christian Nationalist, or Christian Trumpist? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This debate has occurred before, about whether Charlie Kirk is a conservative or not. But as Charlie Kirk has evolved, has he become more of an American nationalist rather than a political conservative? I know this may be a tricky question because the ideas of conservatism and US political conservatism have changed over time, along with ideas like liberalism and radicalism. I know other conservative youth groups have considered Kirk's Turning Point USA something other than conservative. If Kirk would be considered an American nationalist, what category of American nationalism would he fall under? Or would Christian Trumpist be the best label? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

On his podcast, the Charlie Kirk Show (e.g. minute 18:34-20:53 of the 84th edition), Charlie Kirk regularly says that he and his wife are "preppers." Would a person who identifies himself as a "prepper" be properly labeled a conservative, or would a different label be more appropriate? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Another major change in Charlie Kirk's evolving rhetoric is in his opposition to corporate "villains": large social media corporations including (Google, Facebook, Twitter), pharmaceutical companies that manufacture Covid vaccines (Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Moderna), and Coca Cola, Goldman Sachs, Mattel and other companies that support "wokeism." Would a conservative choose this rhetoric?CollegeMeltdown (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

References

He’s an American conservative. Disagreeing with his views, to whatever degree, does not change that. Boscaswell talk 00:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Racial issues

There's a dispute about this sentence, which I've deleted on grounds of WP:BLPRS (the only source is a tabloid-level website):

During a September 2021 episode of The Charlie Kirk Show, he called for Texas to create a "citizen force" and have them deport Haitians to "prevent the 'diminishing and decreasing [of] white demographics in America'."

The sentence is also at best misleading and at worst libellous. The video in question is embedded in the article, so you can see this for yourselves. The subject talks about wanting to prevent illegal immigration for unstated reasons, and accuses his political opponents of "diminishing and decreasing [of] white demographics in America" in order to manipulate voter demographics. The article confounds these two elements in a similar way to this famous syllogism from Plato's Euthydemus: this dog is yours; this dog is a father; therefore, this dog is your father. H Remster (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

H Remster, your deletion sounds ok to me. That's the way Wikipedia works. Not sure it's anywhere close to libelous in this case, but I'm not a lawyer. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

References

• Editor H Remster has reverted a reliably sourced and video-confirmed edit three times, with edit summaries stating that the information was libel, falsely claiming that It is untrue. The source even has the video embedded, so you can see for yourself. I'm deleting it again on grounds of WP:BLPRS, and that they were going to create a section on the Talk page for you to state your case. In the meantime, I've removed the sentence again in line with the BLP policy. As I pointed out here, the text is true and therefore not libel, and, as I pointed out here, the source, which includes a transcript of Kirk's remarks, and the video are pretty clear about what Kirk said. I'm not about to edit war, so putting this up for discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC) Didn't notice this section because of some loose-end refs. Deleted separate section and moved comments here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As for the claim that Mediaite is a tabloid-level website, that's wrong, and, even if it were correct, you'd have to make a case-by-case decision (see NY Daily News). Per the NY Times, they chronicle() the gossipy media world, per the Wemple Blog (WaPo), they were probably scooped up because the far-right uses links to those stories as if they themselves are news items," responded Howard. Perhaps, but the study laid out five criteria for classification as 'junk' news sites. "Mediaite … would have been used by someone on Twitter during the 2016 election and associated with a political hashtag—that’s how it got on the watch list." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As for the article "confound[ing] these two elements", well, that's your interpretation of what Kirk said versus the journalist's. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to the transcript, which should make this easier to resolve. This is the only place where I can find the phrase "diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America":

[W]e’re going to talk about how the other side has openly admitted that this is about bringing in voters that they want and that they like and honestly, diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America.

Where are you finding it? H Remster (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It's in the first paragraph of Rumpf's article: On his radio show Thursday, Charlie Kirk advocated for the creation of a "citizen force" to be sent to the U.S.-Mexico border to protect against the "invasion" of the country by Haitian refugees and prevent the "diminishing and decreasing (of) white demographics in America." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that it's elsewhere in the tabloid article. I'm asking where else you're finding it in the video/transcript. H Remster (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Back to "tabloid", are we? The full transcript costs 6 bucks, apparently. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, there are two issues here. There's my describing the quotation from the tabloid article as libellous (because untrue and damaging). Then there's the reliability of Mediaite as a source. I realise we can debate the former only so much before we get accused of conducting original research or using this page as a forum, but it shouldn't be too hard for you to give me the quotation from the video/transcript in which the subject states a desire to "prevent the 'diminishing and decreasing [of] white demographics in America'". But you seem to be unwilling to do this. H Remster (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You've read the transcript provided by the journalist, you've listened to the podcast, you've accused the journalist of flawed sophist reasoning, and I'm waiting for other editors to weigh in, if they're so inclined. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

H Remster, you've been a Wikipedia editor for a very long time now. If you don't understand WP:OR and WP:SECONDARY by now -- well why don't you understand them? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I do understand them. My reason for deleting the libellous sentence from the article is the quality of the source. It's there in the very first sentence of this section. H Remster (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If you're convinced the source is incorrect, then your beef is with the source. Have you contacted them? Perhaps if the article is retracted, and/or a correction is announced... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This is tiresome. My justification for deleting the sentence is that it's poorly sourced, i.e. its origin is a website that's the online equivalent of a tabloid newspaper. The stellar OR, which you're free to take or leave, is my justification for rating the sentence as "contentious". H Remster (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, I'm guessing that in the coming months and years that this specific debate will look like trivia. Let's hope that the mainstream media sees what's coming as "fit to print." --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, I have no idea what's coming, but if it turns out to be as ominous as you make it sound, I'll be back here to eat my words. H Remster (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity has found a reliable source (the Guardian) that corroborates my stellar OR, so I've tailored the previously libellous sentence to the source. For the record, if anyone seriously thinks that accusing someone of trying to engineer a situation (what the reliable source says) is the same thing as wanting to prevent that situation from arising (what the tabloid source says), then I really need to have a word with their English teacher. H Remster (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I just fixed the cite—the page was already using the Guardian article for Kirk's CNP spokespersonship. BTW, why did you leave out the first part of the Guardian sentence (Kirk has recently staked out more hard-right positions, saying last week that Democratic immigration policies were aimed at "diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America")? Seems to me that both sources say Kirk opposes allowing non-white immigrants into the country because that is what he said: Deputize a citizen force, put them on the border, give them handcuffs, get it done. Sure that’s dramatic. You know what’s dramatic? The invasion of the country. We’re going to talk more about that, we’re going to talk about how the other side has openly admitted that this is about bringing in voters that they want and that they like and honestly, diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America. That's a dog whistle even a deaf dog can hear whether you're his father or not. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

What, "Kirk has recently staked out more hard-right positions"? Because it doesn't contribute any information, although I don't care if someone else wants to include it. As for the "dog whistle", no, that's not what he said. What he said was that he opposes allowing illegal immigrants into the country, and that the other side's motivation for doing so is to manipulate demographics in order to win votes. Now, that sounds paranoid to me, but for all we can tell from his words, he might not care about demographic change, as long as it occurs organically. And I'm sure it's not the job of a Wikipedia editor to read minds. H Remster (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did you read or hear illegal in either source or the video clip? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere. If I'd been quoting the word, I'd have used quotation marks. H Remster (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

What he said was that he opposes allowing illegal immigrants into the country. Hmm -- if he didn't say "illegal", then where did this come from? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

He talks about "enforc[ing] the law" near the start of the video. Of course, he might be wrong about what the law says, or callous in wanting to see it enforced, but that's not what's at issue here. H Remster (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmmm -- you are reinforcing your reputation for stellar WP:OR... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, "Deputize a citizen force" and "Enforce the law", uttered with reference to preventing immigration, sound to me like calls to prevent illegal immigration. Otherwise there'd be no point in deputising anyone and no law to enforce. If we can't agree on that, we probably haven't got much hope of agreeing on anything. H Remster (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, please wp:FOC, not editors. Springee (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say leave this material out. First, it's a BLP and this is clearly a contentious claim so it should go unless there is consensus to keep it. Second, if Mediate is making a claim that is not true based on their own source that discredits that specific Mediate article even if it doesn't discredit the source in general. That he takes a hard line on illegal immigration shouldn't be seen as a controversial claim. However, when a source tries to make it a racialized thing and does so by twisting a quote out of context, yeah, we shouldn't ever allow such content into Wikipedia articles even if we dislike Kirk himself. Springee (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The journalist is not, repeat, not making a claim that is not true. She embedded the video in her article, so you can listen to it yourself and read the transcript while listening. Where does she twist a quote out of context? Kirk mentions an "invasion" by Haitian refugees, calls for Texas to deputize a citizen force to deport them, and says that "the other side has openly admitted that this is about bringing in voters that they want and that they like and honestly, diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America", all in the same short segment. That's not even a dog whistle, that's a big old fire siren saying white voters must remain the majority. Kirk complains about a "post-constitutional moment", Illinois and other states not "complying with ICE". Kirk is not a lawyer, as Rumpf points out, and whether or not states or cities have to assist ICE detain undocumented immigrants is a matter for state and federal lawyers to sort out. On the one hand, Kirk complains about states not complying with federal law and, on the other hand, he wants Texas to usurp federal, i.e., ICE responsibilities? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Where does she twist a quote out of context? She takes the phrase "diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America" out of the context of what-the-other-side-wants-to-achieve-and-why, and places it in the context of what-the-subject-wants-to-prevent-and-why. Of course, it might be that the reason why the subject wants to prevent illegal immigration is that it serves to diminish and decrease white demographics in America, but you can't simply infer that from what he says, because there are alternative explanations that stick more closely to the words he uses. H Remster (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What ARE the alternative explanations for the other side has openly admitted that this is about bringing in voters that they want and that they like and honestly, diminishing and decreasing white demographics in America? BTW, when, where, and how did who (exactly who is "the other side") openly admit that? Isn't that libelous, a term you seem to be fond of, unless he backs it up with evidence. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Isn't that libelous ...". Yes, if it's false and damaging. What's that got to do with me? "What ARE the alternative explanations ...". That as well as opposing what he believes to be illegal immigration, he wishes to discredit the other side's motivation for favouring it, namely to increase their share of the vote. H Remster (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Rfc: Should Charlie Kirk be described in the lede as an American Conservative, American Nationalist, Christian Nationalist, or Christian Trumpist?

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.

---

Should Charlie Kirk be described in the lede as an American conservative as it currently is, or as an American Nationalist, Christian Nationalist, or Christian Trumpist?--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Christian Trumpist. While Kirk may have been adequately described as an American conservative before 2016, his evolving rhetoric and actions now belie this label. There is a long description of Christian Trumpists in the Wikipedia article on Trumpism, and Kirk appears to meet those descriptions. Charlie Kirk regularly identifies himself as an evangelical Christian and has shown an unwavering loyalty to Donald Trump and Donald Trump, Jr. In The Dispatch article on Christian Trumpists, Kirk is prominently named. In 2019, Kirk's organization, Turning Point Action, acquired Students for Trump.In 2020, Kirk's Turning Point Action created a secret campaign to manufacture social media postings in favor of Trump.Kirk continues to assert that Donald Trump won the 2020 election and that Joe Biden was not truly elected. On January 6, 2021, Kirk sent buses to Washington, DC to rally for Donald Trump. The Falkirk Institute at Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell Jr. and Charlie Kirk was described by the New York Times as "the center of evangelical Trumpism." More recently, Kirk has said that he and his wife are "preppers" which is consistent with Christian Trumpism. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

References

• Leave as is. Sources cited above specifically call Kirk a conservative activist and his group a conservative one in the headline. (American) conservative is a sufficiently broad category that is widely used by reliable sources to describe Kirk and/or TPUSA. The arguments made by @CollegeMeltdown might be valid but absent sources specifically indicating that he is a Christian nationalist etc. they are original research. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Leave as is The use of such loaded and subjective descriptors in the opening sentence of a BLP should always be avoided. Springee (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Leave as is The vagaries of his political ideology can be discussed further down in the article, the lede and especially the first sentence shouldn't bombard the reader with terms like "Christian Trumpist" without first explaining what they mean. I consider myself to be fairly connected to the US political discourse, but have never encountered the label "Christian Trumpist" before. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• No change: in agreement with points made above. The main article, as well as categorizations (current and future), are there to furnish details beyond the broader descriptor of "American conservative activist". The lead section already states that "He is the CEO of Turning Point Action, Students for Trump, and Turning Point Faith", making him easily identifiable as who is is. [Side note: while the so-called evangelical element forms a significant part of Trump's base, I generally eschew any mention of the race or religion of any BLP, unless the subject makes it an integral aspect of their public self, such as in this case.] Lindenfall (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Leave as is What Springee said. Boscaswell talk 00:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Leave as is: "American conservative activist and radio talk show host." Even the sources provided by CollegeMeltdown use the words "activist" or "conservative activist" upon first mention, and none use "Christian Trumpist", thus Wikipedia should follow suit. Kirk's support of Trump/Trumpism is certainly relevant, and could plausibly be added to the lead (which seems a much too brief and incomplete overview of the article), but we cannot invent labels based on creative readings of sources and shoehorn them into the first sentence. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Leave as is: Kirk might be a buffoon, I don't think you've got the sourcing on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:13, 15 November 2021 (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.

Charlie Kirk and the Use of State Power

From the beginning of his political career, Charlie Kirk has preached three conservative values: (1) "limited government," (2)"free markets" and (3) "free speech."

But there have always been political exceptions for Kirk, such as his support for police and the military, and to his opposition to legalized abortion. And the list is growing.

Kirk has publicly excoriated two US corporations, Facebook and Twitter after they censored and later banned Donald Trump from their social media platforms. At the same time, Kirk's organization established a troll farm on Facebook to spread disinformation. Kirk also tweeted that the US Supreme Court should overrule Facebook's ban of Donald Trump.

Liberals would argue that Charlie Kirk's creation of the Professor Watchlist and more recently the School Board Watchlist are in conflict of freedom of speech by chilling the speech of professors and school boards.

In November 2021, Charlie Kirk told Fox News readers that state power should be used to stop teachers from indoctrinating children with critical race theory: "Directly confronting the left, and promising to fight their illiberal ideology with state power when necessary, is the key to winning everyday Americans." --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Maintaining Objectivity While Charlie Kirk Promotes America's Coming Famine

Charlie Kirk is pushing the limits with his "conservative" rhetoric. This time Kirk is predicting and promoting a famine in the US in 2022 while he sells meals to preppers. How does one stay objective in editing this article given pronouncements like this? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@CollegeMeltdown: I think the really important thing to emphasize here is that neither you nor I get to decide nor enforce the boundaries of conservatism. Is charlie kirk a whackass desperate for headlines and money? sure. what else is new in washington. But as long as the consensus of reliable sources is that he is, at core, a conservative activist, we really don't get to parse his rhetoric to question the sources. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, it looks to me like the definition of a "American conservative" has changed radically just over the last year, don't you think? For example, storming the US Capitol, attempting to purge moderate conservatives from the Republican party, calling for Dr. Anthony Fauci to be jailed, disrupting school board meetings, and now predicting a famine in the US in 2022. Or is this just American conservatism returning to its roots?--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Charlie Kirk and the Second Amendment should be reinstated

Some time ago, the section on Charlie Kirk and the 2nd Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) was deleted on the grounds that there was very little credible information. At the beginning of his activist career, Kirk was a supporter of the National Rifle Association (NRA). After the NRA financial scandal, Kirk fought for gun rights after mass killings, such as the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. More recently, Charlie Kirk has been a defender of Kyle Rittenhouse in his double murder trial as well and a public observer (at the very least) in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial. Isn't that enough to reinstate the section on Charlie Kirk and the 2nd Amendment? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure if you can find WP:SIGCOV on all these issues you are speaking about. Then add it in, but if you dont have significant coverage backed up with WP:RS I would say its more WP:OR. I think your main focus would be to disprove the consensus that there is little credible information. Which is what WP:SIGCOV would help you achieve. Eruditess (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)