Talk:Charlie Kirk

Kirkification?

In the aftermath, it may be appropriate to have a section for, or even a link about the mass kirkification phenomenon. This would be especially applicable now we are past '1 Ak' (Anno Kirk.) It has become increasingly relevant to his legacy. Franb01ser (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Trivial nonsense meme that is not about him or his life. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

just because you dont like a digital phenomenon doesnt mean its worthless, its pretty pervasive throughout the internet, it deserves some entry PraiseLordH (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I disagree as it was not all positive, and as such would have to take up far too much space. So my answer is that this will add nothing we need to know. I will now bow out for now. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

why does it need to be positive?? the charlie kirk song which is used almost exclusively to mock him post mortem is mentioned. PraiseLordH (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Anybody want to present some WP:RS that suggest its worth including? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not in support or against adding a new section, but just wanted to note that currently there's a section about kirkification on the page for his assassination. Maybe this could be linked instead of adding an entirely new section. Streetr4 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

RS (including one we use at the assassination article) report that Kirkification is something of a rick roll of the 20s. The connecting idea being that memers have endeavored to insert links in as many locations as possible in an effort to troll anyone who passes by them. Mikewem (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2026/09/10/infinite-online-afterlife-charlie-kirk/ ~2026-51677-69 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree with @Slatersteven here, keep it off the page. Doesn't serve any sort of academic information. Will not pass WP:10YT. MaximusEditor (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Sounds fine provided reliable sources actually report on that. Cortador (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Support considering it’s an Internet phenomenon that’s been going strong for over a year now (hence the “Kirkiversary” stuff on Twitter yesterday), I personally don’t believe a single paragraph on his assassination page cuts it. That being said, you should obviously find reliable sources, but perhaps you could use the RS @Mikewem mentioned as a start. Good luck. KeysofDreams (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. This would be reasonable as it pertains to how his life and work endure in the public. ~2026-49590-79 (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

You could say it’s how we carry the flame 😜 KeysofDreams (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per above. "Kirkification" is a massive internet phenomenon among left-leaning and some right-leaning spaces as well. It's been covered majorly in reliable sources following Kirk's assassination. shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:17, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Support for all the reasons all the other supporters have provided. — tbc (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. I think it would be a disservice to readers to exclude the full spectrum of notable reactions to Kirk's death. Here are some relevant articles: NYT piece on the UC Berkeley "Kirkversary" event , Deseret News: "You didn't have to agree with Charlie Kirk to mourn his murder", National Review - Gen Z's Two-Sided Response to the Anniversary of Charlie Kirk's Death. The article as is presents a lack of due weight on the well-documented apparent celebrations of his assassination. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It is an extremely widespread reaction, with a magnitude greater than the staute vandalsim Franb01ser (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

"It is an extremely widespread reaction, with a magnitude greater than the staute vandalsim" - Is this something stated in WP:RS? Or is this conjecture? MaximusEditor (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

There are some okayish articles, but they are behind paywalls, or abit flimsy. The statue is widely documented, but kirkification should get a look in, considering the scale. There are some sources. Franb01ser (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

We have a whole article on Kirks death, where such reactions can go. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Would you also support the shortening of the current reactions to assassination section in the article? It is too long, and as it stands doesn't paint an accurate picture of the full breadth of reactions. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree with SlaterSteven above, also we could shorten the "reaction to assassination" section perhaps to summarize it as best as we can, otherwise yes seems to be quite long especially considering it is covered on the aforementioned article of Kirk's death. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. As has been mentioned, there are relevant sources available and a standalone Wikipedia page about the phenomenon already. The fact that such an article exists does not mean it shouldn't be mentioned on this page; a separate article for his assassination exists, yet the event is mentioned here. I think that a short, single-paragraph (three or four sentences at most) summary of the phenomenon and a "Main article" hyperlink is warranted. DougtheDonkey (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

More statues

The one in time square wasin't the only statue unveiled yesterday. Two more were, one in Arizona and the other in Utah, can this be added to the legacy section?

Statue of Charlie Kirk unveiled on stage at Utah Valley University memorial event

Turning Point USA unveils Charlie Kirk statue outside Phoenix headquarters | FOX 10 Phoenix Godfrey Balderdash (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

They both seem temporary structures. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

That statue of Kirk at the TPUSA headquarters in Phoenix was defaced, seems to gotten a bit of coverage, I'm thinking we add that into the article along with the Time Square statue in the legacy section? Godfrey Balderdash + Slatersteven thoughts? MaximusEditor (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I would say that alongside freedom two other statues were unveiled at the first-year anniversary of his death and one at the TPUSA headquarters was quickly vandalized. I can't edit it but that would be my recommendation Godfrey Balderdash (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Why right-wing

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.

---

Why label Kirk "right-wing?" Seems to me, he was first and foremost an American political activist, radio host, author, and evangelical Christian who co-founded Turning Point USA in 2012 with his close friend and business mentor Bill Montgomery. I object to the bias of the lead sentence, but I wish to discuss before attempting to improve the article. I'm not going to get into an edit war. I don't have the time to deal with twees, only reasonable Wikipedians need reply. — tbc (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

RS call him right-wing, nor do any of the things you list preclude him from being right-wing. And what the hell are twees? Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I second this question, what are twees? shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:43, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I, too, would like to know what in the world a twee is. DougtheDonkey (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I won't pretend that I know, but I'm guessing that it isn't the thing with woots, a twunk, bwanches, and leaves. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

You mean a hefalump hiding in a tree? Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Having made a dumb joke, I'll say seriously that twee is actually a word (adjective) in the English language, meaning excessively cutesy, in a cringe sort of way. I've never heard it used as a noun, though. In context, I'm guessing that the OP meant it to mean something like "effete snobs". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

“Effete (liberal-coded) snobs” is what I assumed and is probably most likely given the context. Though, the context does allow for the less-likely possibility that it’s a typo for tweens. Mikewem (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Or tweets (as in responses), or twits, or maybe something ruder. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources do in fact call him right-wing and/or conservative. I think most reasonable people would agree with this assessment, given his career was focused on promoting the Republican party and conservative/right-wing causes. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources call him right-wing. shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

They also call him far-right. 10:18, 25 September 2026 (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 as "co-founder"

Copied over from my talk page: Mikewem (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey Mikewem, saw you reverted my edit on Charlie Kirk's article to change Kirk's title to founder from co-founder. Your edit summary was; "our TPUSA article and RS confirm that Bill Montgomery is the co-founder". I think this revert might have been done a little hastily, and I wouldn't agree that the TPUSA article or sourcing confirms his title of co-founder. My edit summary points out that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, this WP:BLOOMBERG article cited in the TPUSA article states Montgomery handled paperwork and was a mentor. That seems to be consistent throughout sources. That information seems to be definitive of Montgomery's role. However the cited Politico piece cited that is used for labeling Montgomery as "co-founder" seems to be conflating a legal paper handler and mentor to co-founder, it doesn't actually give any context/details of co-founding per say (as opposed to the Bloomberg article), it just states he "started it" in 2012 with Kirk. Calling Montgomery a "co-founder" seems to be misleading to readers. Can you understand why I invoked the "Context matters" policy? You recently even went on to TPUSA's page and edited this, which states that "Montgomery often described himself as the group's co-founder." cited by the same Politico source. This sentence directly follows the sentence that states he was a mentor and that he handled legal paperwork, yet did not label him as a co-founder. If you take that into account, that there is an article that outlines in detail the role of Montogomery vs the zero context "self-aclaimmed" label of "co-founder" from the sourced Politico article we could legitimately say the Politico article might violate WP:HEADLINE. A previous Politico article actually doesn't mention Montgomery anywhere and calls Kirk the founder. Will you consider the context and self revert Kirk back to founder? MaximusEditor (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

If you really need me to add a quote to a citation that explicitly says “Charlie Kirk was the co-founder”, I will, but as now, RS do not consider it to be a disputed point, so I would consider cluttering a cite with a quote to be unnecessary.

See this month-old article that calls him the co-founder for an example of the kind of quote that I would put in to a citation if absolutely required.

Otherwise, please keep content disputes at the Talk page for the article in question.

I’ll transfer this thread over to give interested editors the opportunity to weigh in if they wish. Mikewem (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I would say I do not think of Kirk as "co-founder", he is the face of TPUSA, the CEO and from what I can tell the main founder. I think Mikewem is acting in good faith here being "by the book" and labelling Kirk as "co-founder" because there are several articles that label him as such. However, there are an equal amount of articles that call Kirk as just "founder", why are we defaulting to the "co-founder" label if both labels are used in RS? If both are being used, we then can argue to go with the more accurate label. In this case I think just "founder" is most accurate as with the only context I can find, Montgomery was solely a mentor and legal advisor. This doesn't mean we strip the "co-founder" label from Montgomery. I just gives a more accurate portrait of Kirk. Why dilute the most accurate label for his own article? "Co-founder" should not be used as a label for Kirk, please change all instances of it to "founder". Eruditess (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Part of what makes this complicated is that most people familiar with Kirk see him as having been "the face" of TPUSA, whereas Montgomery is a comparatively obscure person. However, we have to go by what the sources say, not by what might seem apparent to editors. I think that we have to either continue to call Kirk the co-founder, or find some intermediate language between that and founder (although I don't have any good ideas as to what that would be). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

For "founder" we have TPUSA itself, NPR, Forbes, Politico, USA Today, Fox, New York Times, The Independent, and on and on. But Mikewem inserted "Co-founder" on September 13. And didn't allow MaximusEditor's change. I don't see that Mikewem sought or got consensus. I'd support reverting Mikewem's insertion . Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I added co-founder to the infobox (per the existing text of the first sentence of the lead) because we were underrepresenting his role, as merely CEO, and I thought that wasn’t a fair portrayal. Here’s a version from Sept 3, 2025 that shows “co-founded” in the first sentence of the lead (and no mention of founding in the infobox). However, looking deeper back, I do see that on May 7, 2022, that same sentence said “He founded Turning Point USA with Bill Montgomery in 2012.” I don’t know that I care enough to track down exactly when the switch happened. And I don’t know that “founded with” is materially different from “co-founded”, but if it is, then it is. Mikewem (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right. I see an earlier addition of "co-founded" on 14 April 2022 by SlaterRaptor1976. My suggestion to revert your change was valueless. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

For co-founded: Fox Business, Snopes, Newsmax, Fox News, National Review, OANN, Breitbart (not allowed to link), RedState. Just to say, it’s not exactly a liberal conspiracy. There many more mentions of co-founder in the classic green-on-RSP (sometimes criticized as liberal) sources, I can grab a dozen or so of those if helpful. Mikewem (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

All that being said, I’m seeing many articles that use both terms. They call Kirk the founder (as a title), and they simultaneously say he co-founded TPUSA (as a verb). I would not object to founder in the infobox (as a title) and co-founded in any part of the article where it’s used as a verb. I would object to noodling with the article wording and changing the parts of speech of all of the mentions of the founding in the body to the noun form if it was just for the purpose of deleting the verb ‘co-founded’ from the article. I would not object to anything in the verb form ‘Kirk founded TPUSA with Montgomery’, because I consider that to be synonymous with co-founded, though I acknowledge others may not see the terms as perfect synonyms. Mikewem (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree that saying founder rather than co-founder makes far more sense. As someone already mentioned, there are tons of reliable sources that list Kirk as the founder rather than co-founder. This seems like a very pedantic issue. Kirk was known as being the founder of TPUSA, and it appears that much of Bill Montgomery's contributions were being a supporter and sort of "mentor" to Kirk, as stated in the sources listed above. This doesn't seem out of the ordinary with many businesses or organizations who have donors or silent partners who may technically be a founder but in name only, not in practice. Leaving Montgomery on the page as a "co-founder" is completely fine, but Kirk himself should carry the title as simply "founder." AstralNomad (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I think I like the approach of Kirk as founder and Montgomery as co-founder. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, lets call Kirk the founder. Lets change it in the infobox and lead paragraphs (to "founder") and we can leave it as "co-founded" when it is used as a verb in the body per Mikewem's request. "Founder" as a title for Kirk, "co-founder" for Montgomery. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

If it says an unqualified “founded” in the first paragraph, then I think it may come as a surprise to the lay reader to see Bill Montgomery mentioned in the second paragraph. Like, ‘who is this guy and why is he being mentioned here out of nowhere?’. When it said “co-founded” in the first paragraph, it was (in my view) self-explanatory who this Bill Montgomery of the second paragraph was and why he was being mentioned there. Generally, things that sometimes don’t make sense to readers have a habit of being unstable.

But it looks like it’s me against many on this, so just do whatever you think is best. Mikewem (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I think that this was a good solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Its off because we have a lot of RS that say he was a co-founder. including politico [Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

So maybe the problem is that these appear to all be obituaries, and as such may be hagiographic. So do we have any RS from before this author's death that talk about TPUSA's founder? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Split prop, October 2026

I propose splitting the current “Political positions” section into a separate article, Political positions of Charlie Kirk (which is a redirect), and replacing the section here with a concise summary per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

The section size data very strongly warrants a split. (WP:TOOBIG) The full article is 10,264 words of readable prose, while “Political positions” alone is 6,151 words; that one section makes up about ~60% of the article’s prose. It is also 143,672 bytes out of 257,229 total. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Well we can always reduce its size. Do we really need 6 paragraphs on "Republican and pro-Trump activism", do we in fact need half if the whole section on his Political positions and activities? Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

He was known for his controversial political positions, that's what fueled his debate. The section looks well-sourced aswell. I do think splitting would be great for readers where they can read his political positions in even more depth. "Was Kirk X?", among many other questions about what he held to -- were a significant part of the discourse after his murder. It's the best target for splitting I've seen to date. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Given the amount of prior discussion about the need to shorten this page, and given the importance of his political stances to his notability, this strikes me as a very good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Was Kirk X? We can say that without having to have 6 examples of when he said it "Kirk was a gun owner and gun rights advocate. He was opposed to gun control." tells us all we need to know: his view on the matter. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I would think the way to do this is to split out his takes (political positions) and leave his political activities (there are relatively few activities in the section as compared to takes). We’d still need to leave a summary of his positions, which will be difficult to achieve. A one sentence summary of each individual subsection of takes would (I think) come across as jagged. It might be better to describe the categories or types of positions he held rather than each individual one. That might just mean expanding the line that’s already there in the first two paragraphs, His rhetoric was described as divisive, racist, xenophobic, and extreme by groups that studied hate speech, including the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Theres also some room for shortening by moving under-summarized assassination content to the assassination article. Mikewem (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Support There's certainly precedent (see Category:Political positions of American politicians). One of the main sources of Kirk's notability pre-assassination was his controversial political views, and there's enough content in that section to support an article. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 20:31, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom ReelCosmix (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. By my count (wc -w, not including refs) it's 10960 words today, a year ago it was 10252 words, i.e. 6.8% smaller. So it's in the range of WP:TOOBIG's "Probably should be divided or trimmed ..." guide, but not growing so fast that it's likely to hit >15000 "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed." anytime soon. And I'll assume the word "Probably" doesn't mean "For this case it's been verified by user experience that". And I'll assume the words "or trimmed" don't mean "divided" should get priority. And I'll take into account that the history and talk-page history can't be neatly redistributed to fit the old and new, so splitting is disruptive. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom Gauzecard (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. Hotrodguy84 (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - Don't need to split out the article, because frankly we should just trim the information under his views down to a basic summary. A summary of his views would absolutely suffice, Wikipedia isn't a place to make a list of things just because the information is out there. Agree with Slatersteven in the sense Do we really need 6 paragraphs on "Republican and pro-Trump activism". I don't think so. Eruditess (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean he was a major figure within the MAGA movement. If anything deserves a lengthy mention regarding his views, it would be the area of his politics he's most known for being an advocate for, no? Perhaps not 6 paragraphs but a lengthy section definitely seems justifiable if there is enough content and reliable sourcing. Gauze ↵ 20:17, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. SH360! (Must edit! Must chat!) 11:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose I am unsure he was a major figure untill his death, and we can have each and every one of his views here, such as "he was a supporter of gun rights", there you go, what he thought, and it did not need 3 paragraphs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

You know what they say, probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material... SH360! (Must edit! Must chat!) 12:30, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Kirk's political views do not warrant an entirely separate page, and the section as is would benefit from significant trimming. Perhaps it would make more sense if he were a politician who had a campaign/was tied to a certain platform, but he was not. He was a commentator. And it seems awfully excessive to create an entire page detailing in depth everything a political commentator who hosted a podcast said. AstralNomad (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Support considering the article is too long and this section takes up over half of it, it only makes sense to split it off into its own article. Moon1238 (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2026

In the Assassination section, please write that Andrew Pasternoster, a Starbucks barista, made Kirk's last Starbucks drink.

Sources: https://www.tiktok.com/@andrew.paternoster/video/7551650378324970807 Steelcyberangel (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

No. This would be complete trivia, even if it weren't sourced to social media, which Wikipedia doesn't cite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Did not support Christian nationalism

He said he wouldn't describe himself as such and didnt support that. Needs editing. ~2026-56134-72 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

We have sources that say otherwise. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2026 (UTC)