Tuesday, September 23, 2025

How The Sausage is Made: the Talkpage of "The Assassination of Charlie Kirk" Article

Because we had a giant argument on the messageboard about this, here is the talkpage as it looked today (9-23-2025 at 9:37 PST):

killing< murder (legal term)< assassination

[edit]

question. was this event not unambiguously thought to be a murder before the suspect was picked up? I'm confused. if we're honestly debating whether to move the article to "assassination" (kinda lofty but OK) how could it not be murder? The current version of the article does not characterize it as murder.

I understand that the suspect guy needs to be tried but it's not like this is gonna turn out to be manslaughter or self defense or something. what's the deal? I'm confused. skak E L 11:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not add murder until that is the finding of a court. Murder is a criminal charge. Assassination is not. WWGB (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. (see more...) skak E L 12:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your essay, in contexts like this, we follow the guidelines set in Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles. Typically for an incident like this, before a suspect has been convicted of murder, we would typically call it "Killing of". "Killing" typically refers to intentional homicide, but it can sometimes refer to unintentional homicide. In some cases of unintentional homicide, we may agree to call it "Death of". In other cases, we can find reason to title the article "Assassination of" or, in a non-fatal incident, simply "Shooting of", "Stabbing of", or "Assault of". guninvalid (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assassination has to be a murder so it also has a criminal charge built in. And we can use "murder" if that forms a part of the common name; see Wikipedia:Choosing article titles about violence and deaths#Flowchart (text version). The common name always prevails, no matter what it is.—Alalch E. 15:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Murder is also a term in English, like assassination. All assassinations are murder (unlawful killing, malice, intent), not all murders are assassinations. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically "All assassinations are murder" is not true. State-sponsored assassinations are not necessarily unlawful and almost never defined as 'murder'. More importantly for this article, someone can be assassinated without us knowing the legal status of their killing. JeffUK 10:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
my own little update to this matter— now that the state of Utah has charged him with murder, the language of the body text of this article is already starting to reflect that in encyclopedic voice. I think there are two mentions so far. also, DOJ is treating it with the same seriousness and I don't think anyone expected otherwise.
just saying there's a lot of intentionality here from what we see circumstantially and of course presumption of innocence is important. but it's not like Mr. Kirk was killed in a stampede or by a force majeure or in a tragic elevator accident.
skak E L 01:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The charges and relevant statutes have been filed already. kencf0618 (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What RS are saying Robinson has been formally and legally charged for the murder of Charlie Kirk? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not been charged or arraigned yet. Only arrested. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to the Affidavit of Probable Cause. kencf0618 (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interpretation of a primary source, something we can't do as editors. We need to wait for a secondary source to confirm that charges have been filed. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that murder is the more appropriate term over assassination due to assassination being such a loaded term and feel that murder of Charlie Kirk would be a better title for this article. If that can't be changed until after a conviction or Wikipedia has rules about titles that I'm unaware of, I would still say that murder makes more sense for people who aren't politicians.

50.103.182.209 (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page on assassination as “ Assassination is the willful killing, by a sudden or secret attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important.” Whether TR did it or not, this is exactly what happened. 2601:281:D47F:F133:2D67:F40F:2BE2:2D1 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vigils in Canada

[edit]

There were vigils in Calgary and Edmonton, significant because Charlie had referred to both cities as the best part of Canada. Source: Charlie Kirk: Vigil held in Calgary for Christian activist Charlie Kirk remembered at Calgary Vigil as similar events held in Edmonton and Red Deer

Can someone please add "Canada" to the list of vigils? Michael Dorosh (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's in there now. While we're here, though, can we please add garnered to the list we keep somewhere of words articles generally shouldn't use because, in most contexts, it sounds strained if not outright stupid? For example: Kirk's death garnered messages of condolence from world leaders and foreign politicians; for God's sake, look it up in a dictionary. E Eng 15:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If only we had a template for that...
Look up garnered in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent until proven guilty

[edit]

This page is reporting on Tyler as if he is already found guilty. This is dangerous and a perversion of the course of justice. Tyler is owed due process and not be metaphorically publicly hung, humiliated, degraded, and his life ruined before he is convicted. He is to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Questions about evidence need to be raised, too. The evidence is not adding up. A person at Charlies 12 (straight on) cannot shot a persons 3 (left) and Charlie was actually shot 6 (right). Please also walk the campus map on google and stand in the bowl and look back at where the shooter was - that is way to sophisticated if not impossible for this kid to have done. There is a lot of counter arguments that Tyler is innocent and he should be able to sue the contributors here for liable and slander. 2405:6E00:62D:A46A:1133:6171:6508:47D5 (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What changes do you want made to the article? Trade (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORUM WP:NOR Kaotac (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of counter arguments that Tyler is innocent Uhh, did he not turn himself in? — Czello (music) 15:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He surrendered, @Czello. He didn't confess (yet). Besides, they already arrested someone else who confessed first; nothing unusual about people with health issues confessing to crimes they didn't commit. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planned designation of ANTIFA as a terror organisation

[edit]

In the wake of the shooting, Donald Trump announced plans to [| designate ANTIFA as a "major terrorist organisation"]. The article is currently protected, but I believe this should be mentioned in the "Aftermath" section as it is a direct result of the shooting. LeoWal1 (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what to make of this. Currently, it seems more like an empty threat against the general left that might not actually go anywhere. Classifying something that isn't even an organization as a terrorist organization seems like a fruitless endeavor so I'd say we wait until the admin comes up with something more concrete, whatever that may be, before including it. quidama talk 09:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Antifa", as far as I know, is not an actual organization but a label shared by a number of groups (however, to some extent the same thing could be said about al-Qaeda, at least lately) it should be interesting to see who or what the Trump administration will target, and what will be the legal framework for this. Psychloppos (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably MAGA is just gonna use it as an excuse to harass the employers of "terrorists" to get them fired. Might see similar from the federal government Trade (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency and bias in Background section

[edit]

The article states that this assassination took place in the wider context of increased political violence in the US. It then cites examples of such political violence on both sides of the political spectrum. Some of which were deadly and some of which were perpertrated by left wing minded individuals. Luigi Mangione and Elias Rodriguez for example.

Further down, the article states, while referencing the ADL, that "all of the 61 political killings in the U.S. from 2022 through 2024 were committed by right-wing extremists".

Whether the ADL should ever be considered RS is perhaps a topic for another debate, but apart from contradictory, the background section of the article seems to attempt to desperately direct blame to the right before reluctantly pointing out the facts.

To make a claim in the article regardless of how well it might be sourced, only for the article itself to disprove it is amateurish and propagandist. It comes across as cherrypicking of sources and makes the article inconsistent. 37.228.242.244 (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that killing of Kirk occurred between 2022 and 2024? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. If you read my comment you will understand the article states that "all of the 61 political killings in the U.S. from 2022 through 2024 were committed by right-wing extremists. while also giving examples of politically motivated assassinations by left wing minded individuals that took place between 2022 and 2024. 37.228.242.182 (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elias Rodriguez was 2025 and it is entirely debatable whether Luigi Mangione committed a "political" killing. LeoWal1 (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Crooks 37.228.242.182 (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a political killing? he was the only one who died. LeoWal1 (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know whether it is "debatable" that the crime Luigi Mangione was charged with was political, but it will probably be debated in court. As for Robinson, time will tell. As for Crooks, he did not commit a killing but he certainly tried to. Psychloppos (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally believe that the dropping of state terrorism charges here means there is some merit to not calling it a "political" killing (not that I necessarily agree, just that there may be valid reasoning to challenge the idea that it is a political killing). Also, the victim being a CEO with no explicit convicted political motive at least makes it arguable. Regardless, there is no evidence to prove either Crooks or Mangione are either Far-Left or Far-Right. LeoWal1 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ADL is only considered unreliable for material explicitly related to Israel / Palestine. Unless they're saying that political shootings in the United States are undertaken at the direction of Hamas we can generally consider them reliable. As for 2022-2024 please remember that we are at the mercy of secondary and tertiary sources when it comes to such data aggregation. To include 2025 data a source is required that includes 2025 data. As 2025 is not yet complete it's unlikely a good source for this will be forthcoming. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with how the ADL and CATO have categorised the politics of various people who have killed/been accused of killing people, both have public email addresses you can send your complaints to. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be removed or at least reworded. It's based on ADL data, who says:
"The main limitation of cross-movement comparisons is that extremist connections to killings are easier to determine for some movements than for others...It is likely that non-ideological murders committed by extremists other than white supremacists are underrepresented in ADL’s data...incidents of prison-based deadly violence committed by adherents of all extremist movements are likely under-represented...As with any such list, the inclusion or exclusion of certain borderline cases may be the result of judgment calls based on the best evidence available, judgments with which others may reasonably disagree..."
For the infobox to say anything about "all 61 killings" when their source says killings are underrepresented is misleading. Hi! (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is very telling of Wikipedia that it allows Kirk to be described as hard right, and upon clicking on "hard-right" you see Nazi flags. Unbelievable, and will be reported to my local governor asap. 176.95.233.142 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While admins or other users will probably want to revert this comment, I think it may have interesting implications. I honestly wonder if some overzealous American governors or public officials could target local Wikimedia chapters because they don't like the way Charlie Kirk is portrayed in Wikipedia pages. I doubt it will happen (and have any legal standing if it does), but you never know. Psychloppos (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The absurdity of justifying a shooting to silence someone by calling them Nazis, and then calling them Nazis again when they call out your actual Nazi propaganda. 88.68.167.65 (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whose "Nazi propaganda" ? Not mine, I hope. Psychloppos (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political violence statistics possibly misrepresented in image box

[edit]

Under "Reactions and analysis", there is an image box citing statistics to the ADL that "75% of extremist killings in the U.S. from 2013 through 2022 were caused by right-wing perpetrators". The meaning of this statement is unclear. Reading the source, it claims that 75% of deaths are attributable to right-wing perpetrators, not 75% of incidents. The casual reader may interpret the word "killing" to refer to an incident instead of a death, which would cause them to be misled.

It should be changed. The image itself should also be changed, since it risks the same error. Dieknon (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is, that a reader may not think a "killing" involves someone dying? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dieknon here, logged out.
A killing generally refers to an incident where someone is killed. Hence why we do not refer to a mass killing involving 30 victims as "30 mass killings". 130.43.209.66 (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note that since you are logged out your IP address is visible; I'd sugggest contacting WP:OVERSIGHT if you want it revision-deleted.
As for the table itself I'm with Cdjp; a killing is a death. EF5 16:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be interesting to also have statistics about non-lethal violence. Psychloppos (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dieknon here again, different IP.
I am quite certain that I've heard major media organisations refer to incidents involving multiple deaths as "a killing" before, but I can't be bothered to find many. Here is The Associated Press doing it.
This demonstrates that the double meaning I'm worried about exists. Clarifying would be incredibly cheap, so there is no downside to changing this. 178.48.182.76 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how "killing" is interpeted, it would be better to change it to something more clear, such as "incident" or "death". Kernelblitz (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Death", since that is what the source says. Again, including the image, not just its description. Dieknon (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned about the certainty of the phrasing. It's based on ADL data, who says:
"The main limitation of cross-movement comparisons is that extremist connections to killings are easier to determine for some movements than for others...It is likely that non-ideological murders committed by extremists other than white supremacists are underrepresented in ADL’s data...incidents of prison-based deadly violence committed by adherents of all extremist movements are likely under-represented...As with any such list, the inclusion or exclusion of certain borderline cases may be the result of judgment calls based on the best evidence available, judgments with which others may reasonably disagree..."
For the infobox to say anything about "all 61 killings" when their source says killings are underrepresented is misleading. Hi! (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
link to source: https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022 Hi! (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is also an issue. In fact, depending on what the nearby Economist source says (which I cannot access), the comparison between what Trump said and the ADL statistics could be 100% WP:SYNTH. The NYT source that is actually cited in the image box states the following:

America has seen a wave of violence across the political spectrum, targeting Democrats and Republicans.

This does not seem to support the validity of the comparison. Dieknon (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the archive link seems to work for The Economist. They cite 3 sources in comparing political violence. In order of mention:
  • The Prosecution Project – Counts criminal cases resulting in a guilty verdict. Does not count death. The Economist states that according to it, "more incidents seem to come from the hard-right". The Economist cautions that inter-ideology comparisons are difficult to make due to the lack of data regarding severity. 9/11 is cited as an example that reasonably should trump other incidents but does not show in the statistics.
  • One paper by Celinet Duran – The study was conducted from 1990 to 2020 and found more incidents and "more deadly" incidents by the far right. What constitutes an incident is not discussed; the original paper should be found. The study found that left-wing violence increased through the study period.
  • The ADL – We already know this one.
No further sources are discussed by The Economist. They generally caution that the results of such tallies depend heavily on methodology. More specific to the ADL, The Economist puts them in the same paragraph as the previous source, so it appears they consider them of lower importance.
I believe that the comparison of Trump's claim to ADL statistics may violate WP:SYNTH, as the sources cited do not support making such uncritical comparisons, and also don't just cite the ADL. Dieknon (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I'll provide evidence?

[edit]

Here is a list of articles from major media organisations that undeniably use the term "killing" with no further qualifications, acting as a noun, and in reference to incidents that involve more than one death, in varied contexts.

I'm not just being insane. The word "killing" can refer to incidents involving more than one death. The image box is potentially misleading. It would take literally zero effort to use more specific language, so I don't get why anyone would oppose this change. Dieknon (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this is correct. jp×g🗯️ 21:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough to me, just a simple wording change. LeoWal1 (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Kernelblitz(| Contribs) 08:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As uploader of the image, I've just spotted this thread, and I'm frankly not following all of the foregoing. In any event, I've replaced the chart you've been discussing with a new chart, File:1975- Ideology of political murders - US.svg which uses the Time and Cato sources' term, "murders"—which I think is unambiguous. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional article needed?

[edit]

The fallout from this incident is so abundant and so diverse that maybe an entire linked article should be developed. Let me help start the collection of content by pointing out that various employees at Linden Labs have gone completely apeshit on Second Life residents, variously enforcing rules that don't even exist, producing penalties that include forum bans, closed marketplace stores, and suspended accounts. Specific Lindens include Harley Linden and Aigis Linden. 186.154.39.13 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already got enough American politics cruft as it is... LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many such cases; I fear we are living in interesting times. I surmise that in the next few weeks we will probably find out if this is a broad and persistent enough cultural trend to populate an article. Hopefully not. jp×g🗯️ 21:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging Psychloppos (talk) with my response. Weighing in to say that I've been working on the article that is currently named Disciplinary actions related to comments on the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I think it should be renamed to Aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk and should address your concern as well as the concerns being discussed in the Talk page over there. Dflovett (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could add sourced details about this censorship to the Second Life article, which is practically a fossil (no new material added since c. 2010)? Pascalulu88 (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting all the stupid things this incident has caused is essential in explaining to readers why it's actually kind of important. Add Noodles Linden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.154.39.13 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
then make a draft Trade (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, this has already been suggested here. A page called Reactions to the assassination of Charlie Kirk (just like we have Reactions to the murder of George Floyd) would probably be useful as it would allow to condense the current Reactions section.
This does not mean, however, that we should compile every absurdity that has been uttered or written about Kirk's murder: this would make for an awful lot of work, and the result would probably be unreadable. Psychloppos (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Both are pivotal events, the Charlie Kirk assassination being the more stochastic. kencf0618 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"False claim" re: gays stoning

[edit]

I am loathe to get involved in an argument over American politics, but this article makes the claim that "Author Stephen King, hours after the killing, relayed a false claim that Kirk had said all gays should be stoned to death; he later issued an apology.", citing Snopes as a source for the claim being false. Snopes seems to make the argument that Kirk was quoting a Biblical verse to demonstrate how the Bible can be selectively applied. However, the quote provided by Snopes says the following:

She's not totally wrong. […] The first part is Deuteronomy 6:3-5. The second part is Leviticus 19. So you love God, so you must love his law. How do you love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth, not by confirming or affirming their sin. And it says, by the way, Ms. Rachel, might want to crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser reference — part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying. So, Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters. Now, so how do you best love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth. Don't be cruel […] I would love for Ms. Rachel to respond to this: Is pride a Christian value? She thinks it is. Happy Pride Month everybody! […] In fact the Scriptures tell us the opposite. "Pride goeth before the fall."

Kirk is making an argument here against supporting gay people, against what he describes as "confirming or affirming their sin". He describes Leviticus 20 (thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death) as "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters". It seems to me quite obvious that interpreting this as "Kirk endorses the stoning of gays" is not really all that far off from what he said. It seems to me to be quite a strained reading to say that he was putting forward this verse as an example of Biblical flaws when, in the midst of making a homophobic argument, he describes it as "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters".

I don't think that we should say in WikiVoice that King's claim was incorrect. Perhaps something like "Author Stephen King, hours after the killing, relayed a claim labeled false by Snopes" would be best. I also note that LGBTQ Nation and The Advocate, LGBT magazines, say that "Kirk came as close to endorsing the Biblical passage as he could" (LGBTQ Nation, Greg Owen) and "Kirk invoked a Bible verse about stoning gay people "to death" on a June 2024 episode of his podcast with Jack Posobiec, calling it "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."" (The Advocate, Ryan Adamczeski) These would seem to me to potentially warrant a mention. Or perhaps the whole thing should be removed, as a notable author's comments on Kirk's views isn't really all that relevant to his assassination. But if it is to stay, I don't think it should stay as is. LivelyRatification (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I think the stuff about King is no longer on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: It's under the popular culture reaction section from what I can see. LivelyRatification (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research
Ratgomery (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited two sources that both have similar analyses on the issue. And regardless, I'm not arguing for "Kirk said that stoning gay people was God's perfect law" to be included in the article, I am arguing that claiming that King's claim is patently false, when a good-faith reading of Kirk's words could obviously come to different conclusions (as published sources have) is not proper. LivelyRatification (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and in general the phrase "false claim" usually reads as sanctimonious and unconvincing; i.e., unsuitable for Wikivoice. If a claim is so obviously false so as to not require explanation or attribution of the falsity, then it doesn't need to be labeled as false. Conversely, if it does need explanation or attribution, insert it. Einsof (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the general assertion: often it's not necessarily obvious that a claim is false from just reading it even if it definitely is. But in view of the source conflict I think that it's inappropriate to say that here. We should only say "falsely claim" if reliable sources agree the claim was false. Snopes's interpretation is not binding on us and if other sources disagree we should per WP:NPOV represent all notable viewpoints (or, IMO, just cut the claim) rather than insisting that Snopes alone is right and the other sources must be wrong. Loki (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the whole sentence from the article, as I believe it's both irrelevant to the broader article and also problematic as it stands. I don't believe it should be readded as it was without adjustments, but it also just seems unnecessary. This isn't an archive of all the thoughts anyone had about Charlie Kirk after he died. --LivelyRatification (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that the sentence should have been removed because Stephen King is a very famous person and because at least two other notable people relayed that false claim, which proves its relevance as far as Kirk's reputation is concerned. However, as I had noted before, I was not quite sure where the mention of King's comments could fit in the article.
So we might as well keep the sentence out for now. However, if we split the article and do a separate page about the reactions to Kirk's murder, as it was suggested, that article would probably have a broader scope and King's comment could have its place in it. Psychloppos (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the removal. King is a notable person but the assertion his claim was false, sourced to Snopes, faces problems when verified against the primary source (Kirk's words). We are generally supposed to use secondary sources but, in this case the secondary source failed verification. As such the source saying King's statement was false should be excluded. However we also should not, in article space, be interpreting primary sources (King's social media and Kirk's original statement) in order to say "King correctly said Kirk called for the stoning of gays but later was compelled to delete the post" or some such thing as that would rightly be seen as WP:OR. In such a case the best course of action is just to leave the whole thing out as WP:UNDUE. Simonm223 (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that I opposed outright the removal, as I was myself unsure about what to do with that comment. There is definitely no urgency about putting this back or not.
As for Kirk's comments, whether or not he did advocate this might be open to debate. Since in other comments he apparently said that he welcomed gay people's presence among conservatives, maybe he really did not mean that and quoting the Leviticus was just an attempt on his part to sound smart.
Anyway, lately there have been many Kirk quotes circulating, some of them truncated or even falsified, as part of attempts to make him look bad (or, on the contrary, look good). One example is his famous quote about not liking "empathy": I saw a more complete version of the quote which was much more nuanced (if memory helps, he said that the word empathy had been abused, and that he preferred sympathy, and maybe courtesy).
All of which is to say that we should no be tying our brains in knots about what Kirk said or didn't say (since he made a living chattering in public, he sure said a lot of things): this is not the subject of this page and since there is a lot of confusion going on right now, we can afford to wait for the dust to settle. Psychloppos (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for everything to settle is definitely the best idea, his statements have been heavily weaponized in both directions and this page itself has already been weaponized in multiple ways. Though when that dust settles, I have to suspect that it's likely going to braid people's greymatter anyway, considering the nature of his career, his approach will change a lot depending on who to and where at he's speaking, meaning that you'll get a lot of things he's said that will seemingly conflict when viewed with the lens that it's what he identifies with specifically.
Speaking for turning point is an angle that I haven't seen ventured too much by reliable sources, it's much more preferred to them to run with the angle of how he was, including statements he's saying on the job and using them outside their context, repackaging his people work into personal opinion, an inevitable mistake because when speaking on most outlets, he's still speaking for turning point, but it's going to muddy documenting his opinion because most of his statements are made with the listener in mind rather than himself.
If Kirk's primary concern when he welcomed gays among conservatives is the advancement of the movement he advocated for, then both aforementioned statements around gay people make all the more sense. He was personally speaking to a gay conservative at one of his events at the time when he said that and after speaking to the aforementioned person he reiterates that as a christian he doesn't approve of their lifestyle/what they do in the bedroom, but they have common values such as strong borders, strong country, ect.
Condemning gays spiritually doesn't really conflict at all with praising their actions politically, it'd be nice to illustrate this fact or make a disclaimer, but for the moment that looks to be a rather disastrous amount of OR, which is a shame because it would probably be a better faith description of what he's said than just about anything else out there. Jamais Vu-WilhelmPaulaAnton (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to cite every celebrities comments on the death. Mentioning this is undue. BootsED (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, agree with removing that material. (I had removed it the day before, and had not realized that someone had added it back.) I think that, broadly, we should not be detailing every rumor that gets debunked, no matter who said it. If something false gets 15 minutes of fame on social media, then quickly gets refuted and withdrawn, that's not something that has lasting impact, unless independent secondary sources continue to comment about it. It's not encyclopedic for us to include that stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:

"Stephen King

"I apologize for saying Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays.

"What he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages.

"5:09 AM - Sep. 12, 2025 X"

--Naaman Brown (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad summary re JK Rowling

[edit]

People here are simply making weird and false summary of the source, for example this quote "which in extreme cases included incitement to violence against other right-wing commentators" using a source that mentioned poster on Bluesky asking to "get JK Rowling next", and circulation of "hit lists of potential victims including right-wing commentators Andy Ngo, Ben Shapiro and Benny Johnson". JK Rowling is not right-wing, and it's original research to suggest that she is (she is a gender critical feminist), and the source gives her as separate from "right-wing commentators". Further more, "hit list" where "Kirk’s name was struck through with a black line" does not imply just incitement to violence, but incitement to kill. What's written there is a clear misrepresentation. Hzh (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hzh, we write: which in extreme cases included incitement to commit violence against other right-wing commentators, which I actually think is confirmed by the source that says: Some users have even posted hit lists of other potential targets, including the British author and activist JK Rowling. [...] JK Rowling was mentioned on Bluesky, as well as numerous US right-wing commentators. So I think that the source does confirm our text, and mentioning Rowling in this context is redundant beyond the scope of this article. I would also like to point out that most of the time, we don't write full summaries of sources - we write text, making sure that the source confirms what we write. But we decide what part of a source we use and which part we don't use. Lova Falk (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really. You haven't addressed the "incitement to commit violence" when the intent was clearly to incite killing (a slap is an act of violence, but that is not what the hit lists want people to do). JK Rowling is clearly given as separate from right-wing commentators in the source ("as well as" does not imply she is one of them). As I've said, it is original research to suggest that she is right-wing (most things she said could be construed as leaning liberal left, in fact most gender critical feminists in the UK leant left), and describing her as a commentator is as odd as identifying Trump as a "commentator" just because he make comments on various issue, and practically everyone who ever commented on anything could be described as a commentator that way, which is a misuse of the term. You have, however, confirmed what I suspected, that many people here write what they want to write first, rather than checking what the sources says first, which is completely the wrong way round. Trying to shoehorn a source by misinterpreting what it says is not the right way to edit. Hzh (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do it all the time, but I get your point. Of course we should not just write what we think and then cherry-pick from sources. A good possible process is to get informed first, to think about what we want to write about this for Wikipedia and then to find good sources that confirm our text. For me who gets most news in Swedish and Dutch, it works well. When I previously wrote that a text in wikipedia does not have to be a full summary of the source, I meant for instance the Rowling example. Obviously, the editor who wrote the sentence did not think mentioning her was relevant, even though she is mentioned in the source. A full summary would mention her, but here we don't write full summaries of our sources, we select the parts that we think are relevant.
You are correct that I haven't addressed incitement, I will think about that one. Lova Falk (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JK Rowling is literally in the headline, and inciting people to kill her is a bigger story than the commentators mentioned. The way the sentence diminished the threat simply reflected how editors write what they want to write, rather than what is important according to the source, which makes the sentence a tainted by POV (you can find many other sentences like that in the article). They should have at least found another source that says what they want to say, rather than sticking one in there and then tried to justify the sentence by stretching what the source actually says. Hzh (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you add a sentence on Rowling? Lova Falk (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My edits got reverted, and those who reverted them appear not to understand the edits or what the source says. Hzh (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, essentially because Rowling is mentioned in the headline. I just added back a mention of her. Psychloppos (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any analogy should be explained, as most readers will not know where to put Rowling on the political spectre. In fact, she is not a rightist activist anyway. 2001:9E8:AA9A:300:C17A:F0A4:75F5:DEB6 (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That such people would wish harm on J.K. Rowling is not surprising but do we really have to explain the reason in this page, for such a passing mention ? Psychloppos (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting out and renaming.

[edit]

We currently have these two sections on Assassination of Charlie Kirk:

Assassination of Charlie Kirk#Aftermath

Assassination of Charlie Kirk#Reactions and analysis

And meanwhile, this article:

Disciplinary actions related to comments on the assassination of Charlie Kirk

The Aftermath section of Assassination of Charlie Kirk includes many of the same topics as Disciplinary actions related to comments on the assassination of Charlie Kirk

I propose that we split those sections out and merge them with Disciplinary actions related to comments on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, in a an article titled Aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

The other approach would be to merge Disciplinary actions related to comments on the assassination of Charlie Kirk into this article.

Tagging User:Psychloppos for awareness, as we've been discussing this in the Talk page for Disciplinary actions related to comments on the assassination of Charlie Kirk Dflovett (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to trim down the "Reactions" section but I probably wasn't too successful, so I support this idea.
"Reactions to the assassination..." might also be a good title, but I'm fine with "Aftermath..." However, we must keep in mind that an "Aftermath" article will also have to include Robinson's trial.
This proposal would imply writing a text that will condense here the current texts of the "Aftermath" and "Reactions" sections. Dflovett told me he could do this. Psychloppos (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that, yeah. I'm not sure the best place for that to live as of now though. Dflovett (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflovett: fine. Just let me know if you need help and think I can be useful. Psychloppos (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time attempting something of this style. Do you think I should use a draftspace? Dflovett (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could be useful. Maybe you could also make a formal proposal by using the "split" template I told you about. Psychloppos (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflovett: Well, things are going a bit faster than expected. Someone has created a separage Reactions to the assassination of Charlie Kirk page. Now I'd say the thing to do would be to propose a merger between this page and Disciplinary actions for commentary on the assassination of Charlie Kirk into a broader Aftermath... article, and transfer content from here into that new page. Psychloppos (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmel -- help on other articles

[edit]

These articles also mention the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live!:

This one needs it:

The summaries vary in quality, and the one in this article seems to have the most eyes from editors and the most sources. (After posting, now Suspension of "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" appears best.Jimmy_Kimmel_Live!#2025_suspension might be the better of the two.) It would be nice to have some consistency in the summaries and quality of sourcing. I did add this New York Times article as reference to some of them:

Unfortunately, that article doesn't cover all the statements made in the summaries. I've lost energy to keep working on those summaries and reading the other WP:RS for now, but may return to it later. So asking if anyone would like to help improve the summaries in the other articles in the meantime. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC) [revised 00:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)][reply]

Suspension of "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" has since been created. I think we should move our comprehensive coverage there while keeping brief descriptions in each of the related articles. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anne drew: Agreed. I revised the original post to add it and another place where suspension is mentioned at length. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Mamdani's reaction

[edit]

@Tryptofish: That makes sense, and I'd be fine with retaining Omar (although Bernie Sanders would IMO be a more recognizable choice if he also condemned it), but I don't think we should include Mamdani here. Omar works fine to represent that part of the Democratic Party's reaction, and Mamdani is just a city-level politician from the other side of the country, so I don't see why we should highlight his condemnation over any other politician's. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. (I'll trade you a Mamdani for an Omar. ) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. Omar is a federal politician. Czarking0 (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the pie chart in the 'Reactions and analysis' section be here?

[edit]

Is the pie chart being here not a case of WP:SYNTH? As far as I can tell, no article has commented on what Trump said by referencing the ADL's figures, so it being brought up here is a case of an editor combining two sources to come to a conclusion that neither source contains. If it does count as improper synthesis, then I think it should be removed. Drywalling (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the figure is that it is produced by a group with a certain point of view, and used to argue to for a particular viewpoint, including it would suggest that the article agrees with their analysis, which makes it non-neutral. You might also question their methodology, date range and year (the last couple of years up to and including 2025 would surely be more relevant to what Trump said, but not covered in the figure). I would therefore say using the figure is WP:SYNTH, non-neutral as well as lacking in relevance. However, I don't see any problem if someone writes in the text that ADL said that all the political killings from 2022 through 2024 were committed by right-wing extremists and one incident involving Islamist in early 2025. Hzh (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be removed or at least reworded. It's based on ADL data, who says:
"The main limitation of cross-movement comparisons is that extremist connections to killings are easier to determine for some movements than for others...It is likely that non-ideological murders committed by extremists other than white supremacists are underrepresented in ADL’s data...incidents of prison-based deadly violence committed by adherents of all extremist movements are likely under-represented...As with any such list, the inclusion or exclusion of certain borderline cases may be the result of judgment calls based on the best evidence available, judgments with which others may reasonably disagree..."
For the infobox to say anything about "all 61 killings" when their source says killings are underrepresented is misleading. Hi! (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the uploader: First, the "all 61 deaths" content is from the Associated Press source, not the ADL source. Second, Trump's claims re left wing violence have not been limited to the last few years; in fact I've just added a second chart that when joined with the first chart and the AP source covers the entire 1990-2024 timeframe, putting things in perspective—the opposite of cherry picking a narrower timeframe that you seem to argue for. Third, the ADL caution would almost certainly apply to any source and not just the ADL's data. Aside: the fact that the APNews source cites the ADL supports the ADL's reliability. I think it's clear that the issue is highly relevant and extremely important, since Trump is promising to go after funding of left wing organizations because of his lie that "the left wing is the problem with violence". —RCraig09 (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this caution would apply to any source. For that reason, the wording should be more careful for any claims like these. Hi! (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely not a case of WP:Synth, because in creating the graphic, no Wikipedia editor has joined two sources. It is irrelevant that Trump didn't mention ADL's data in particular. The caption, mentioning Trump's claim, places the graphic in context and justifies the chart's relevance to this article. —RCraig09 (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is SYNTH because you connected the pie chart with Trump comment, connecting two sources to make a point (and that is what SYNTH is about). You are using the pie chart to make a commentary on Trump's comment, and that you shouldn't do that. And AP specifically attributed ADL for the 61 deaths claim. By all means use the AP source because that is a response to Trump's comment, but you should not make your own comment. You can quote a source that says or implies that Trump is wrong, but you should not say that or imply that he is yourself. Hzh (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In minutes I will add this TIME magazine source which joins Trumps false claim re left-wing violence to the ADL data, thus overcoming any possible claim of WP:SYNTH violation. Same, re this Vox source and its reliance on the Center for Strategic and International Studies. P.S. I did not "make my own comment"; I added a textual statement in an image caption that could just as easily have been added to the narrative text, and no one would be mentioning synthesis. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, as it is, you are the one making the argument against Trump by finding the figures to support whatever you want to say or imply. You should not do that. Instead, use sources that are a response to Trump, and use whatever figures or statements (attributed) those sources used to refute Trump. Hzh (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have sources that directly use the ADL figures to disprove the misinformation that Trump has been pushing. These sources are used in the article. Presenting data as graph does not qualify as SYNTH, as has been done with the ADL data. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are different data sets. None of the sources give the ADL chart aside from the ADL site itself. Hzh (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to present the graph. Converting data to graphs is not considered SYNTH per our policies and guidelines. The cited articles do refer to the ADL's data as evidence disproving the misinformation pushed by Trump. So, we are fine to present the data (in the form of a graph created from that data) as articles directly link the data to Trump's claims. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about converting data to graph. They used different data sets. AP used data from a different time frame, which is different from that of the chart. It's not for us to assume the chart is as valid as the data they used. Hzh (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I (chart uploader) agree with Cdjp1 (as I understand their 14:52 post). I am not here "making an argument against Trump" as Hzh claims: eliable sources present both sides of the "argument" that is taking place outside Wikipedia. If you (esp. Hzh) know of a reference that shows Trump's falsehood and specifically cites exactly the data represented in the ADL-based chart, then let us know and I'll consider substituting, but that rigmarole isn't necessary given the references that permeate this subject. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just use the one in the Time article (Cato institute). Similar chart (although it explicitly excludes 9/11), but it brings up the issue how things are defined. We only report on what other people said that might disprove Trump, we shouldn't go out of the way to find information ourselves to disprove Trump. Hzh (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded 20 Sept.
Time source cites Cato Institute as source of data, and I've added both to the caption. I'm not sure if others' additional sources are needed right there in the caption, but I'm leaving them. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! I actually hadn't noticed the chart in the Time article! I now plan to make an SVG chart of that data. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about WP:SYNTH but I would question its appropriateness as to how it's been related via reliable sources to this issue. Feels very argumentative in nature, as in it is a product of editors wishing to rebut Donald Trump rather than relaying something that has been reported by RS on this issue.
Would be worth having a discussion on the appropriateness of this and whether it falls into MOS:EDITORIAL. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The chart and caption and reference present reliable sources' statements, not wiki-editorial arguments or editorialization. Time and Vox relate the fact of Trump's false claim to the content of the chart. Wikipedia can't avoid discussing topics that are the subject of argument outside Wikipedia. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More synth than the '80s. I've extensively rewritten the captions both to match the charts and to stick with the matter at hand. kencf0618 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CLAIM edits

[edit]

Hello! I noticed reading through this that there are multiple uses of "claim", "claimed" or other similar wording that do not fall in line with MOS:CLAIM.

This wording usage includes reported statements by:

  • An arrested individual:  Not done (per private edit filter)
  • Patel's social media post:  Done (diff)
  • Robinson's roommate:  Done (diffs)
  • The Trump administration (twice):
  1. First  Not done (diff, reverted per discussion below)
  2. Second  Done (diff)
  • President Trump:  Done (diff)
  • A video posted by Elon Musk:  Done (first diff, then modified per below)
  • Wall Street Journal reports on the shell casings"  Not done It was an apparently inaccurate claim, so using "claim" seems appropriate here
  • A post by an Infowars host  Done (diff)
  • Statements by Steve Bannon, Candace Owens, and Hasan Piker  Done (diff)

It's important to respect MOS:CLAIM in such a sensitive situation, especially when we are discussing statements by living persons. I understand that some of the statements may be controversial, but we should have sources, preferably generally reliable sources, providing their reporting on the accuracy of such statements and attributing such reporting in the article. WMrapids (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit to above: placed "done" and "not done" as well as diffs to edits per suggestion from David Tornheim.--WMrapids (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC))[reply]

In one instance, you changed Trump "claiming without evidence" to "saying without evidence" ([2]). In that one case, I think the change was the wrong choice. Once we say that something is without evidence, and the sourcing clearly supports it, then there's is nothing wrong with using the word "claim". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: Thank you! I wanted to be careful and went with the lighter option, but I made individual edits for others to review for this reason. Everything else looks better? WMrapids (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so gracious about it. As for the other instances, the only one where I have any concerns is the one about Elon Musk, but I don't think it's a big deal either way. Because he "said" that leftists were doing those things, he was accusing other people of something, so I guess there could be a case made that we should not use a verb that might imply that his accusation was valid. But that's a borderline case. As a general point, the "words to watch" in MOS:CLAIM are not "words that are always forbidden", just words that should be used thoughtfully and with some caution. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: Does this edit have better wording using "alleged" instead of "said"? I feel like it balances between the "claim" wording having a more negative connotation towards Musk while also recognizing that this is a strong allegation being made towards leftists in a generalized manner. WMrapids (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back to "claimed", because "alleged" seems to me to more strongly imply doubt, whereas "claimed" seems to me to be the middle choice. With this, I think it's all OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids: Good to see you back. Regarding the above, could you provide the exact quotes used in the article and your proposal for correcting them? I'm too lazy to try and find them with search. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: Thanks! Does this edit help answer your questions about the quotes? WMrapids (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WMrapids: Yes. Thx. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Also section

[edit]

This section should have a wikilink to Stochastic Terrorism 2606:A800:D37D:DB00:4CE5:433E:F77A:FC12 (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Stochastic" is not so as much as mentioned. kencf0618 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for it, then. As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body, per WP:NOTSEEALSO. Kire1975 (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best place to put it would be somewhere in the body, with an allusion such as:

XYZ News has called the assassination an example of stochastic terrorism.Newswriter, John. (Juanuary 1, 2026). "Charlie Kirk Assassination Called Stochastic Terrorism". XYZ News.

But we would need a source for this. There's not really a reason to put it in the WP:SEEALSO. guninvalid (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"September 10, 2025" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

 The redirect September 10, 2025 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 20 § September 10, 2025 until a consensus is reached. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"George Zinn (activist)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

 The redirect George Zinn (activist) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 20 § George Zinn (activist) until a consensus is reached. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Counting or not counting gang violence?" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

 The redirect Counting or not counting gang violence? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 20 § Counting or not counting gang violence? until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 06:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the English rap duo Bob Vylan 'addressed' Kirk's death"

[edit]

"the English rap duo Bob Vylan addressed Kirk's death at a concert in Amsterdam, with frontman Bobby Vylan saying, "The pronouns was/were. Because if you talk shit, you will get banged. Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk, you piece of shit."

This is not "adressing" the death, this is endorsing it. I suggest changing "adressed" to "endorsed" or "approved of" or "celebrated".

BookNotion (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they didn't say outright that the murder was praiseworthy. But at the very least, they implied that it should be considered a logical reaction to Kirk's opinions. Psychloppos (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The logic that actions have consequences is commonly expressed with phrasing such as "fuck around and find out" & "talk shit, get hit". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does one endorse something without addressing it? Einsof (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't. On the other hand, you can address something without endorsing it. Psychloppos (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can we please get the quote right? Bobby Vylan actually said "Rest in piss, Charlie Kirk, you...", as YouTube videos and even reference [251] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk#cite_note-StrauseHollywood-256 make clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ev112358 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have transcribed it both ways and we have a footnote saying so. For what it's worth, upon watching the video I hear "peace", not "piss". Einsof (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The shooter was a far left activist

[edit]
WP:BLP vio guninvalid (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

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.

Saying that the shooter is a far right activist is absolutely false & disgusting! 2603:8083:9240:9C:78AF:DFD1:A94:3DD4 (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2025 (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.

Incorrect information

[edit]

This statement “On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk, an American right-wing political activist” is 100% incorrect. He is NOT a right-wing political activist. He is very much left-sided. That is fact! 70.235.251.204 (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see FAQ #2 on this page. guninvalid (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the previous reply, but what evidence supports your conclusion that he is "left-sided"? I'd like to know what you mean. ---- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the “misinformation” section to read “Left Wing Misinformation”

[edit]

The section about misinformation in the murder of Melissa Hortman says “right wing misinformation”. So why not change the misinformation here about the assassin being a Trump supporter to “left wing misinformation” and stay consistent? 47.154.176.138 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this information. guninvalid (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of right-wing conspiracy theories around this case, some of which aren’t even covered here. Maybe it shouldn’t read “right-wing misinformation” on the Hortman article but this article definitely recounts misinformation with right-wing origins being spread with regards to the shooter’s identity Cookieo131 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk's Assassination and Cancel Culture

[edit]
 Moved to Talk:Cancel culture § Kirk's Assassination and Cancel Culture

This is a comment so this thread can be archived. guninvalid (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More firing of professors than in any other week

[edit]

[3] "The campus firings are too numerous to describe in full, but consider the case of Darren Michael, professor of theater at Austin Peay State University, who was fired because he reposted on social media a 2023 Newsweek headline: “Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth It to Keep 2nd Amendment.” " Doug Weller talk 07:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this belongs on Talk:Disciplinary actions for commentary on the Charlie Kirk assassination. guninvalid (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agreed Czarking0 (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"International responses"

[edit]

This seems to be a random list, as important countries are missing. Additionally, things should be put in a timely order and there should be some more contextual information as well, in case the whole thing doesn't get shortened anyway. 2001:9E8:AA9A:300:C17A:F0A4:75F5:DEB6 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

picture change.

[edit]

should the picture at the beginning of the "background" section be of the actual day he was assassinated? instead of a picture from February? 2A00:23C8:DB13:5701:B0F6:43C6:1F8E:96D0 (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We dont have any pictures of the actual day of the assassination Trade (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the images taken by photographers have left the chat shane (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YWK (Yes, We Know), a necessary corollary of WP:PLA: "I am astonished—astonished!—that a more timely photograph is not being used~!" kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged "miracle" of bullet stopping

[edit]

Now someone close to Kirk at the time of his death is claiming his body stopped a bullet that "should" have gone through him and killed other people: [4]. I know this is Fox News, and more reputable media sources probably would not dignify such a sensationalistic claim. Nevertheless, it is becoming an article of faith on some segments of the political right. If Kirk had been Catholic, there would likely already be a campaign to have him declared a saint on the basis of this claim. 173.27.3.111 (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That guy seems to have used the word "miracle" figuratively. To his credit, it's normal to get emotional and hyperbolic when you comment on such situations. We shall see if anything comes of it. I somewhat doubt that even Kirk's most hardcore supporters will ever promote him as an actual figure of religious worship, but you never know. Psychloppos (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that even typical hunting rounds such as hollow point or soft point in 30.06 caliber carry enough energy to penetrate two sets of ribs, muscles and soft tissue in typical game animals creating an exit wound.
However there is still no reliable information released about the ammo used by the perpetrator, nor the autopsy report.
The shooter could have used ammunition with some sort of frangible bullet, like TXRG from S&B. They're known to break upon impact, even on very soft targets like leaves or grass blades.
But this is merely a speculation, fact is, media are beginning to cover the story of "man of steel" Charlie Kirk. D13 Champion (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just Fox News advertising its own story on social media. If that "Man of steel" moniker somehow sticks (or if experts determine that Kirk's neck was indeed exceptionally beefy and that this did prevent the bullet to do further damage) that might become notable, but it's too early to know. Psychloppos (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely not unreasonable to discuss this as part of the reaction to this event, but I don't think we should really give it much attention until and unless there is more commentary about it in reliable sources. Right now, we have a single tweet from a spokesperson that is relaying the opinion of a trauma surgeon. I think we'd rather wait until somebody that is qualified to speak to this claim provides their own analysis. If we wantonly publish any claim solely because a notable person said it, this site would be a venue for misinformation. If somebody is asserting a fact that they do not have the credentials to assert, we should wait until somebody who does publishes their analysis of that assertion.
I do think it is interesting to note that it appears that there is an effort to canonize Kirk as a Christian martyr, and this story appears to be in service of that. So in that regard, I can find the relevance to this story, but that would require a larger discussion in this article which is based on reliable sources. Ovenel (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2025

[edit]

False claims made about motive remove that is based and remove about crackdown that is false! 45.49.236.6 (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Range of reactions, in lead

[edit]

I want to comment about this edit, that I just made: [5]. For a while, the lead had said that the "reactions ranged from heartfelt messages expressing anguish about the political climate to sharply partisan comments". Someone, the edit history is so long and edit summary usage is inconsistent, so I don't know who, changed the ending to "to celebrations of his death". The problem with that is that the reactions that are at the opposite end of the spectrum from "heartfelt messages expressing anguish about the political climate" are not limited to "celebrations of his death". They also include battleground commentary from the political right, so that edit comes across (at least to me) as pro-right wing POV-pushing (even if, as I suspect, it was just an attempt at more memorable writing). So I made this edit yesterday: [6], reverting it. I see today that my revert was reverted, again not sure by whom. So I've tried the current edit, which includes both. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including both seems the best idea. "Celebrations of his death" falls into the category of "sharply partisan comments", but given their consequences we might as well highlight them. Psychloppos (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Template

[edit]

Do we really need this?

I understand we have a few articles related to him, but he there seems a point of WP:RECENTISM to the material. I proposed deleting here:

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion to be had at the templates for deletion discussion page, so I think editors should post their replies there to keep everything in one place. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patel's X post

[edit]

[https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1969809385418555404?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email "We are meticulously investigating theories and questions, including the location from where the shot was taken, the possibility of accomplices, the text message confession and related conversations, Discord chats, the angle of the shot and bullet impact, how the weapon was transported, hand gestures observed as potential “signals” near Charlie at the time of his assassination, and visitors to the alleged shooter’s residence in the hours and days leading up to September 10, 2025." Doug Weller talk 07:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this looks like standard investigation procedure. Mentioning potential accomplices on X is likely to fuel speculations, though. Psychloppos (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a rather standard 'we are investigating all available avenues' statement. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Above: Bill Hicks circa 1990 talking about the worst gigs he did early on in his career. Yes, that is The Funny Firm! in Chicago, site of the "Bill Hicks Loses It" incident.

Below: No comment.




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)