This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charlie Kirk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 22 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Charlie Kirk (activist) to Charlie Kirk. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I'm no fan of Charlie Kirk, but I think Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about tone and contentious labels. A "political views" section should, if it exists, be a generalised summary of his views, aiming for as much factuality and as many "Charlie said" statements as possible. Criticism and media response should be secondary. The source linked is an WP:RSOPINION belonging to two random journalists working for the NYT. It's not even about his views, it's a character judgement. Maybe there's a place for the source in question in some kind of media response or media criticism section or something, but a "political views" section should aim to factually state the things he believes without casting judgement. BrigadierG ( talk) 20:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I understand that we can't include a mention of EVERY occasion where Kirk exaggerated, misled or outright lied, because then his page would be a mile long. However, we should mention one of his misleading tweets from August 12th, where he claimed, without citing a source, that "It is now confirmed: 'Indict Trump and make him a felon so he can’t run in 2024' This is their agenda. Has been all along." Here's the tweet: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aIaNRjSMzy4J:https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1558179681483890688%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc%255Etfw&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca.
It appears that Kirk himself originated the statement.
Arthur Corvalay ( talk) 12:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
One of the sources used in this article is Media Matters, an obviously leftist website which only criticizes those on the right wing. MM should not be used to source statements on Wikipedia, as there can be much bias (in this case it seems to exaggerate the severity and actual impact of his comment). To me, this comment is not significant, it's simply a cherry-picked statement made on one of his many podcast episodes. And yes, same would apply for right wing websites such as thegatewaypundit in terms of whether they are a reliable source or not. Anyone can find an equally "egregious" comment to one that Kirk made for a left-wing figure such as Cenk Uygur, and put that in the article to damage his character, when in reality the comment bears little significance. 24.156.179.25 ( talk) 00:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
To add to this article: the fact that, on October 31, 2022, Kirk called for an "amazing patriot" to bail out David DePape, the attacker of Paul Pelosi. Source 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 03:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. This discussion resulted in clear consensus for the proposed move. ( non-admin closure) Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 06:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Charlie Kirk (activist) →
Charlie Kirk –
Pretty sure it's safe to say that this article's Kirk is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
Knightoftheswords281 (
talk) 21:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Charlie Kirk (activist) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
{{birth date and age|1993|10|14}}
to
{{birth year and age|1993}}
and change:
(born October 14, 1993)<ref name=age/><ref>{{cite tweet|user=libertyu|author=Liberty University|author-link=Liberty University|title=Congratulations to our honorary doctorate recipients Mr. Anthony A. Nobles and Mr. Charles J. Kirk!|number=1127024997485154304|date=May 10, 2019|accessdate=January 16, 2022}}</ref>
to
(born 1993)<ref name=age/>
Someone added an unsourced birth date. It is not verified by the cited sources. The honorary doctorate tweet includes no information about his age. 157.157.113.63 ( talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
BLUDGEON. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I tried to take the word "falsely" out of this sentence to restore WP:NPOV, but was reverted: Fnordware ( talk) 09:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Article has WP:MOS issues, e.g. multiple use of the same wikilinks, single column refs section (should be double column given how many there are).
There is also redundant content. Lengthening this BLP through triple repetition of the same sentences has the effect of exaggerating the subject's importance. That's sometimes a promotional ploy. I'll try to trim some of the worst of it.-- FeralOink ( talk) 12:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Is Charlie Kirk best described as a conservative activist or right wing activist? Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 23:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Kirk has lately become the highest-profile backer of a conspiracy theory alleging that the Israeli government deliberately allowed the October 7 Hamas attack to happen. He has been criticized for saying this, both by mainstream journalists and by his fellow conservatives. Seems like this should be included in the section on his views. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2B9A ( talk) 23:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I suggest a section on Charlie Kirk and his views on Church and State. [2] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/christian-nationalists-churches-campaign-trump-charlie-kirk-1234947887/ Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 01:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Why does every article on this website discussing right winging people or topics always get obliterated by very obvious liberal bias? NH51907646 ( talk) 18:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Certain sections in this article, primarily the "Racial Issues" section seems to be a running repository of every controversial thing Kirk has muttered in a public forum, mainly on his podcast. Certain views he expresses that have proper reliable coverage merit inclusion on this page, but it is getting to the point where it is just a place people are dumping gossip without proper context which seems like editors trying to right great wrongs (We know this because the title of the section isn't "Racial Views" rather "Racial Issues"), which compromises the WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC integrity of Wikipedia."Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Certain criteria in these sections need context or need to be trimmed because they lack clarity and conciseness. Anything that has weak sourcing and lacks weight I propose removal. MaximusEditor ( talk) 21:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that Charlie Kirk has repeated some very dubious and pretentious claims about the war in Ukraine. Ukraine firing mortars / shelling the Donbas is an OBJECTIVE FACT. Backed up by thousands of news reports, human's rights watch, and the U.N.
What is the point of reverting it, when its clearly misinformation ironically in itself? Brainrot. Although I'm not someone who is politically on the right, what's the point of trying to falsely portray someone?
Sources: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/donbas-we-re-used-to-shelling/ https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2016/07/un-report-2014-16-killings-ukraine-highlights-rampant-impunity https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians Hongkongpenang ( talk) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
On his streaming daily program he announced the birth of a baby boy last week, joining an older 20-month old child. That would make “children = 2” but I am unable to edit the page. 98.97.176.111 ( talk) 00:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charlie Kirk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 22 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Charlie Kirk (activist) to Charlie Kirk. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I'm no fan of Charlie Kirk, but I think Wikipedia policy is pretty clear about tone and contentious labels. A "political views" section should, if it exists, be a generalised summary of his views, aiming for as much factuality and as many "Charlie said" statements as possible. Criticism and media response should be secondary. The source linked is an WP:RSOPINION belonging to two random journalists working for the NYT. It's not even about his views, it's a character judgement. Maybe there's a place for the source in question in some kind of media response or media criticism section or something, but a "political views" section should aim to factually state the things he believes without casting judgement. BrigadierG ( talk) 20:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I understand that we can't include a mention of EVERY occasion where Kirk exaggerated, misled or outright lied, because then his page would be a mile long. However, we should mention one of his misleading tweets from August 12th, where he claimed, without citing a source, that "It is now confirmed: 'Indict Trump and make him a felon so he can’t run in 2024' This is their agenda. Has been all along." Here's the tweet: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aIaNRjSMzy4J:https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1558179681483890688%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc%255Etfw&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca.
It appears that Kirk himself originated the statement.
Arthur Corvalay ( talk) 12:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
One of the sources used in this article is Media Matters, an obviously leftist website which only criticizes those on the right wing. MM should not be used to source statements on Wikipedia, as there can be much bias (in this case it seems to exaggerate the severity and actual impact of his comment). To me, this comment is not significant, it's simply a cherry-picked statement made on one of his many podcast episodes. And yes, same would apply for right wing websites such as thegatewaypundit in terms of whether they are a reliable source or not. Anyone can find an equally "egregious" comment to one that Kirk made for a left-wing figure such as Cenk Uygur, and put that in the article to damage his character, when in reality the comment bears little significance. 24.156.179.25 ( talk) 00:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
To add to this article: the fact that, on October 31, 2022, Kirk called for an "amazing patriot" to bail out David DePape, the attacker of Paul Pelosi. Source 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 03:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. This discussion resulted in clear consensus for the proposed move. ( non-admin closure) Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 06:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Charlie Kirk (activist) →
Charlie Kirk –
Pretty sure it's safe to say that this article's Kirk is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
Knightoftheswords281 (
talk) 21:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Charlie Kirk (activist) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change:
{{birth date and age|1993|10|14}}
to
{{birth year and age|1993}}
and change:
(born October 14, 1993)<ref name=age/><ref>{{cite tweet|user=libertyu|author=Liberty University|author-link=Liberty University|title=Congratulations to our honorary doctorate recipients Mr. Anthony A. Nobles and Mr. Charles J. Kirk!|number=1127024997485154304|date=May 10, 2019|accessdate=January 16, 2022}}</ref>
to
(born 1993)<ref name=age/>
Someone added an unsourced birth date. It is not verified by the cited sources. The honorary doctorate tweet includes no information about his age. 157.157.113.63 ( talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
BLUDGEON. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I tried to take the word "falsely" out of this sentence to restore WP:NPOV, but was reverted: Fnordware ( talk) 09:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
|
Article has WP:MOS issues, e.g. multiple use of the same wikilinks, single column refs section (should be double column given how many there are).
There is also redundant content. Lengthening this BLP through triple repetition of the same sentences has the effect of exaggerating the subject's importance. That's sometimes a promotional ploy. I'll try to trim some of the worst of it.-- FeralOink ( talk) 12:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Is Charlie Kirk best described as a conservative activist or right wing activist? Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 23:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Kirk has lately become the highest-profile backer of a conspiracy theory alleging that the Israeli government deliberately allowed the October 7 Hamas attack to happen. He has been criticized for saying this, both by mainstream journalists and by his fellow conservatives. Seems like this should be included in the section on his views. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:2B9A ( talk) 23:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I suggest a section on Charlie Kirk and his views on Church and State. [2] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/christian-nationalists-churches-campaign-trump-charlie-kirk-1234947887/ Collegemeltdown2 ( talk) 01:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Why does every article on this website discussing right winging people or topics always get obliterated by very obvious liberal bias? NH51907646 ( talk) 18:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Certain sections in this article, primarily the "Racial Issues" section seems to be a running repository of every controversial thing Kirk has muttered in a public forum, mainly on his podcast. Certain views he expresses that have proper reliable coverage merit inclusion on this page, but it is getting to the point where it is just a place people are dumping gossip without proper context which seems like editors trying to right great wrongs (We know this because the title of the section isn't "Racial Views" rather "Racial Issues"), which compromises the WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC integrity of Wikipedia."Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Certain criteria in these sections need context or need to be trimmed because they lack clarity and conciseness. Anything that has weak sourcing and lacks weight I propose removal. MaximusEditor ( talk) 21:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that Charlie Kirk has repeated some very dubious and pretentious claims about the war in Ukraine. Ukraine firing mortars / shelling the Donbas is an OBJECTIVE FACT. Backed up by thousands of news reports, human's rights watch, and the U.N.
What is the point of reverting it, when its clearly misinformation ironically in itself? Brainrot. Although I'm not someone who is politically on the right, what's the point of trying to falsely portray someone?
Sources: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/donbas-we-re-used-to-shelling/ https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2016/07/un-report-2014-16-killings-ukraine-highlights-rampant-impunity https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians Hongkongpenang ( talk) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
On his streaming daily program he announced the birth of a baby boy last week, joining an older 20-month old child. That would make “children = 2” but I am unable to edit the page. 98.97.176.111 ( talk) 00:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)