Talk:Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Pre-RFC: "the radical left are the problem" and the graph

Hours after Kirk's killing Trump blamed the "radical left" groups for the death and for rising political violence across the country, but cumulatively over decades most extremist killings in the US have been caused by right-wing perpetrators (excluding the 9/11 attacks). Despite Trump's claim that "the radicals on the left are the problem", from 2022 through 2024, all 61 political killings were committed by right-wing extremists.

Should we debunk Trump's claim that "the radical left are the problem" in wikitext, and should we use this graph to do it in this article?

A: Debunk using this graph. (status quo)

B: Debunk without using this graph, using a textual description. Please suggest wording for such a debunk.

C: Do not debunk in Wikitext at all.

Other.

guninvalid (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

References

C. There are two sources attached to the radical left quote, ABC and the Guardian, and neither of them debunk it or mention anything about political violence at large. As discussed previously, for us to debunk it in Wikitext, we would need a source debunking specifically that claim for it to not be WP:SYNTH. Heck, even today, 8.5 months later, we still haven't fully litigated whether this can truly be counted as a "left wing" attack. There's been basically no public movement on Robinson's case aside from his arrest and arraignment. guninvalid (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

As an alternative, The Guardian source attributes the comment to Trump's hyperpartisanship, so we could go with a comment such as Trump responded: "blah blah blah". He further added that "The radicals on the left are the problem", a comment described by The Guardian as inflaming hyperpartisanship. guninvalid (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Do any RS debunk it? Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't 'debunk' things. Even blatantly obvious things. It can, and should, build content around sources which debunk, if that is what the sources support, and where such debunking is due. That however requires direct debunking of the article subject from each source cited, not synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

A. Wikipedia should not be spreading false information, every time claims are made they need to be cited with correct info. The graph is not SYNTH it's directly responsive context from reliable sources.

The objection that no single source explicitly says "Trump's claim is false because right-wingers committed all recent killings" misunderstands how Wikipedia handles contradictory claims from reliable sources. We don't need a source that uses the word "debunk." We need reliable sources for each factual claim, presented neutrally.

Here, we have Trump's claim ("the radical left are the problem") reliably sourced.

Factual data on political killings (2022–2024: all 61 by right-wing extremists) reliably sourced (e.g., ADL, CSIS, etc).

Presenting them together is not original synthesis. It's standard journalistic and encyclopedic practice. State a claim, then state relevant facts from RS that bear on it. The reader can see the contradiction. We don't say "Trump is wrong." We say "Trump said X. Separately, data shows Y." That's NPOV.

The Guardian already characterizes Trump's comment as "inflaming hyperpartisanship." Adding the statistical context strengthens that sourced characterization without violating SYNTH.

Option B (textual description without graph) is weaker and Option C (no debunk) would leave a false equivalence unchallenged, violating NPOV by privileging a false claim over documented fact.

So: A, with graph, as status quo. Luka Maglc (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on synthesis (which has been arrived at by consensus discussions, going back decades) applies regardless of whether you understand it or not. 'Adding context' from sources not directly discussing the specific topic in the article is textbook synthesis, and thus a violation of policy. Wikipedia policy cannot be overridden by local talk page discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

What's a "pre-RfC" and why is it formatted like a real RfC? If you wanted to have a discussion, then the options aren't necessary. I agree with AndyTheGrump that Wikipedia doesn't "debunk" things, so I don't know what you're asking here. the radical left are the problem is a meaningless sentence, there's nothing to debunk.

The graph is WP:DUE for inclusion. It should be in the background section, providing context. We can insert it above the 2nd paragraph which starts with Kirk's assassination occurred during a period of deepening division and increasingly frequent violence in American politics. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 13:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:RFCBEFORE. I didn't yet feel this arose quite to the level of a full RfC yet, but I could tell that the prior discussion had already gotten out of hand. As such, I wanted to structure it similar to RfC so it is easier to discuss and follow. We can focus on the central point without getting bogged down in criticizing a single graph. guninvalid (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Nothing was "out of hand" as far as I could tell. You closed a section, opened specifically to discuss a chart, on the basis that it was "bogged down" by people talking about the chart? jp×g🗯️ 09:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

the media causes the division. should include that for context ~2026-48820-80 (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It is somewhat confusing to object to a bad graph, then have someone close the section, and direct all commenters to their own section asking a different and mostly unrelated question. On what grounds do you close the above section? jp×g🗯️ 09:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The statement in the text is, like, whatever. If it was said in relation to the event the article's about, then sure, it should be there, and if it is a bunch of baloney, there should be something indicating as such. This is a different thing from whether the article should contain a specific really lousy graph. jp×g🗯️ 09:41, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

That graph is inherently flawed given it excludes the largest terrorist attack on US history for seemingly no reason. HMSThunderer (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Why does this graph exist? Why is there a need to debunk a claim, let alone dedicate an entire infobox to it? Just simply say in the text that this has been disproven and given a citation. This is a waste of space. AKapkin (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

C. Graph is weird, it purposefully doesnt include the sept 11 attacks which would make islam have around 83-85 percent in the graph. His statement could also simply be referring to things like cultural institution control or ideological shifts in academia when he says the radical left is the problem. ~2026-47764-05 (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

A graph covering a 50 year time span is far too broad, and thats not even mentioning the 9/11 thing. ~2026-43195-67 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't be coming in with the goal of "debunking" a claim, only reflecting what reliable sources say. If you want it to say "Trump said [claim], this lead to criticism from [publication]" it would be better.

As an aside - the graph is also very questionable, aside from accusations of SYNTH.

It doesn't seem to include the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting which would have caused the "unknown" category to be 61 deaths higher - CATO says "Those murders that are politically motivated by unknown or other ideologies are a vanishingly small percentage". They also have their own definition of right-wing and left-wing which doesn't align with many other definitions. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

See this is what I find remarkable - yes CATO institute has definitions of right-wing and left-wing that don't line up with most of the world's. Specifically they mark the political centre far to the right of where most people would, treating conservatives as centrists and the centre left as radicals. As such, when CATO says "this is overwhelmingly something the right wing does" that's actually significant because their definition of right-wing is more restrictive. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

When I said it doesn't align with other definitions, it's broader rather than narrower. Their definition of left wing is also broader. This is mainly due to their lack of a "single issue" category which is common elsewhere. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

C. Wikipedia's role is not to respond to specific comments to debunk them. This attempts to turn an encyclopedia page into a social media page. Would accept B not in wikivoice, but as "journalists responded xyz". The timespan of the graph is also extremely broad. satkara❈talk 13:44, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

C. 'Debunking' political claims is not Wikipedia's job. (We should be neutral, for a start) It's even worse when that debunking is likely to be controversial (and trying to put it on wikipedia necessarily means arguing about politics ourselves). Put a on that pie chart. I strongly suspect it not to be true, but since I can't find the source or what it counts as a 'right wing murder', I cannot dispute it in detail. I don't really want to, but that's the kind of ugly argument that will come up if Wikipedia starts acting as an arbiter of political truth. RustyOldShip (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on synthesis cannot be overridden by local talk-page discussions. WP:SYN is policy, and since the graph is complied from sources which make no mention of Trump, let alone Kirk, it is clearly, unambiguously and without question synthesis. This is an entirely pointless attempt to legitimise a violation of core Wikipedia policy, and likely to achieve nothing beyond sanctions against anyone attempting to force it through. If you disagree with core Wikipedia policy, propose it be changed, in the appropriate place. You can't do that here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are two sources discussing amount of left-wing vs. right-wing violence in the context of Charlie Kirk.

Still, the Trump administration's claim that domestic terrorism largely comes from the left has flown in the face of data. Federal law enforcement authorities and non-governmental researchers have, for years, found the far right to be the most "lethal and persistent" domestic terrorist threat.

and

If you downplay right-wing violence against left-wing targets, it’s much easier to convince your viewers that the violence is all going in the other direction. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, more or less. jp×g🗯️ 09:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

References

I am well aware that there are sources discussing 'amount of left-wing vs. right-wing violence in the context of Charlie Kirk'. Some may well be legitimate sources for this article. The graph, however, even ignoring its absurdity (it omits deaths from the Sept 2011 attacks, and thus is a gross misrepresentation of reality) is synthesis in the context in which it is presented. And, in as much as this is supposed to be an article about Kirk's killing, and not yet another article on something the Trump administration has got wrong, it doesn't belong in the article in the first place. I realise this is a hot topic in US politics, but using an article on one topic to editorialise about another is unencyclopedic, and contrary to policy. And incidentally as a means of changing anyone's mind with regard to politics, utterly pointless. Treating readers like they are idiots who can't recognise politically motivated off-topic content when they see it is both insulting and counterproductive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you check the provenance of the graph? It's basically an editor-made copy of the graph made by the CATO institute and published by TIME: Just hours after the killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, when police were still searching for a suspect and a motive, President Donald Trump promised to crack down on the “radical left” groups that he blamed for his death, and for rising political violence across the country. ... But the data tells a different story. In the last five years, 81 people have been killed by political violence in the United States. Right-wing terrorists account for over half of those murders, some 54%, according to research by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Islamists account for 21%, and left-wingers for 22%. This means the graph is not SYNTH and is DUE for inclusion. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

It does not include 9/11, and points that out. Our does not include that caveat. It is also attributed, ours is not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Although the graph is labeled as "Murders in politically motivated terrorism", Kirk's assassination wasn't terrorism as such. And 9/11 wasn't a political assassination – and it most certainly was not leftist violence, so its omission does not change the ratio of left-wing to right-wing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Its omission doesn't change the ratio of left-wing to right-wing, but it does make the graph bad to the point where it looks like a caricature of a misleading graph rather than an encyclopedic illustration. jp×g🗯️ 09:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

C, or a minimal amount of B. Note that the article on Judeo-Bolshevism presents Hitler's claims at length and in full color, without any need to inject a little pie chart trying to tally up how many Bolsheviks were Jews or how many Jews were Bolsheviks. Sartre was right: these aren't claims that can be refuted by pie charts or any earnest analysis, because the claims are not earnest in the first place. The claims exist purely as a pretext for persecution. Article space is better spent simply presenting the claims and then detailing how they are being used to persecute, which is the task of the Kirk reprisals article and its summary here. Einsof (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• A or B, strongly opposed to C. I'm not a fan of closing the previous discussion and opening this one, but here we are. First, I want to get away from the term "debunk", which is biasing this discussion. Instead, I see this as a question of providing balanced information in accordance with WP:NPOV. I want, in particular, to object to the arguments for C. There is plenty of reliable sourcing for what Trump and his allies have claimed, and plenty of reliable sourcing that it was factually incorrect. Our content needs to reflect that. The fact that some of the sources that have been presented are weak sources is neither evidence that better sources do not exist, nor a reason to say that we should simply omit WP:DUE information. The comparison to things Hitler said is flawed, because of the time that has passed since Hitler's time, and the resulting agreement about the historical record. We cannot assume the same for events of the past year under Trump. Now as for A, I don't feel strongly about keeping the graph, but I think the objections to it are overblown. It's based on a published analysis, and the problems with the current version not pointing out what it excludes and what the attribution is, can easily be fixed through revision. They are not problems that require its removal. Indeed, providing better attribution would take it out of the realm of a claim made in Wikipedia's voice. But I think the case for B, with text based on attributed opinions, is the best solution, and it's required by NPOV. In doing that, I think we should also consider carefully how much of this is really about trends in political violence as a whole, and how much is about whatever the motives of the assassin were, as these are two different things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps a better way to word it would be "How should we balance our coverage of Trump's comments?", with options for no balance, balancing by discussing polarization (e.g. my alt proposal), balancing by debunking (currently option B), or balancing by debunking with graph (currently option A). guninvalid (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't really know why we would want to be "debunking" stuff. Aren't we just supposed to report what people said and note if it is untrue? jp×g🗯️ 09:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• B is fine, A is unacceptable: We permit some synthesis on occasion in other articles where absolutely necessary context is absent from sources that rely upon said context. In this case, if reliable sources consistently indicate that Trump's comments on this are false but do not elaborate on how they are false, it is permissible to elaborate with well-sourced contextualization. However, we should only ever do this kind of SYNTH extremely sparingly and we should resist the impulse to become factcheckers. The graph is unacceptable, and its use here would be far beyond what even the most lenient SYNTH exceptions permit. Besides being almost unreadable within the text of the article, the "except for 9/11" asterisk remains almost imperceptible even after expanding the graph. I've studied and worked in a field that dealt with domestic political violence in the US–it takes a lot of cooking the books to procure a graph so good at defending a particular and misrepresentative agenda. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  Could you please elaborate on why you think the graph is WP:SYNTH? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  The caption of the graph currently reads as directly contradicting Trump. Neither Nowrasteh's 11 September 2025 post nor his original 10 March 2025 paper make reference to Trump's comments. Alex Nowrasteh is a respect policy analyst at a major think tank whose paper is devoted largely to examining the outsized response to foreign-born terrorism in the US. In his paper, he only excluded 9/11 from the broader statistical pool a couple times: to note 2015 as being the second-deadliest year for foreign-born terrorism in the US and to exclude them for calculating "each [foreign-born] terrorist who killed at least one person in an attack killed an average of 1.8 people" (which, by the way, is not correct: it's actually 4.9 people, going by his assessment of nine such terrorists killing 44). We then have Rebecca Schneid, a then-recent English major graduate from Duke who relies primarily on Nowrasteh's 11 September post for her article that is meant to directly address Trump's comments. It does not, however, engage with the fact that Nowrasteh's analysis then shifts towards a more recent view on deadly violence since 2020, allowing for an examination of truly recent trends without the outliers of Oklahoma City and Pulse. Table 3 demonstrates a doubling in the proportion of fatal left-wing versus the 1975–2025 Table 2. So we end up with a graph that relies on modified statistics that are selectively applied to contradict Trump. Nowrasteh's analysis then continues into an explanation that deaths aren't the only form of political violence and that his statistics are only representative of a small subset of what it means to commit political violence. We can would be far better off just leaning into some extremely minor SYNTH and saying "statistics compiled by Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian think-tank CATO Institute show that right-wing violence had accounted for 44 deaths between 2020 and mid-September 2025, while left-wing violence had killed 18 people over the same period." We can leave it there safely. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Excluding 9/11 makes logical sense, as it was a massive statical anomaly. The vast majority of political violence in the US is done with guns and occasionally bombs, and almost always has under a dozen causlties. 9/11 is an outlier, this is basic statistics. ~2026-36665-93 (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

"almost always has under a dozen causlties. 9/11 is an outlier, this is basic statistics" - so would you want to also remove the Oklahoma city bombing? Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

If this isn't an RfC, why are people being asked to chose between pre-selected options? A pseudo-RfC conducted in such a manner is clearly no way to arrive at a consensus, isn't subject to the same closing requirements, and it thus not going to resolve anything. A legitimate RfC, which is what is being mimicked here, would involve the broader community in discussions, and would thus be better placed to arrive at a final resolution. Prior to that though, what we need is open discussion, not !votes for arbitrary preselected options. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• A From chart creator/uploader: Per my 22:45, 13 June post in subsection below. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Sigh. Creator/uploader's statement:

— The chart is simply not "synthesis": widely covered comments from the most powerful man in the world about the supposed "cause" of the assassination, and widespread reliable sources' recognition of their falsehood in view of various historical studies, are unquestionably relevant in the context of the /*Reactions and analysis/Domestic response*/ section of this assassination article (note existing content "Reichstag Fire Moment").

— Source's exclusion of high 9/11 death toll—which is noted in the graphic's footnote—would have merely squished the "left" and "right" wedges representing the right/left ratio that is the topic being discussed in the context of the /*Reactions...*/ section. That is: 9/11 is irrelevant to the left/right issue.

— Numerous other sources present similar data (see sources for these other charts: —File:2013- Extremist-related killings, by perpetrator affiliation (US).svg, —File:1990- Victims of ideologically motivated homicides - US.svg, —File:1990- Criminal cases, political violence, US, by ideology.svg).

— The charts' conclusion is consistent among numerous reliable sources. —22:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC) . . . +Re synthesis: the TIME article clearly bridges the gap between (synthesizes) the data and Trump's claim (numerous other sources do the same). —RCraig09 (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• If the topic is the right/left ratio, then why are Islamism and Other included in the graph at all? Mikewem (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem: 1. Those categories were dominant in the TIME source's grpahic. 2. They provide context. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Well then maybe Time isn’t the best source for this specific debunk of this specific claim?

Among the graphics that you made for this debunk, might this one be easier to defend?

Especially if we’re talking context. In my view, it’s indefensible to suggest to the reader that 9/11 had no effect on the wider context of terrorism in America. Mikewem (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see that one also excludes OK City for similar formatting/pixel/resolution reasons.

If the data that exists cannot be adequately communicated in a visual aid for whatever reason, then we should stick to text. Mikewem (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It is enough that a chart clearly demonstrates a relevant concept. It doesn't matter if the source and graphic also provide further info (provided it doesn't obscure what's relevant to the article). Including either graphic doesn't suggest "9/11 had no effect on the wider context of terrorism in America"; 9/11, or Oklahoma City, is simply not what's being discussed here by reliable sources. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best way of making these methodological issues (as used by the source material) clear to the readers is to explain them in the image caption. I think that doing this could be a good way of making whatever graph one might want to use more acceptable to editors who have objections to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

So for example, we might take Despite Trump's claim that "the radicals on the left are the problem", from 2022 through 2024, all 61 political killings were committed by right-wing extremists. out of the caption?

This stat strikes me a much more relevant metric for a visual aid debunk in this spot, but this metric is not what is shown in the chart. Mikewem (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem: Trump's statement was not limited to a particular timeframe. The broader facts are what is presented by various sources. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

A lay reader is not going to read that tiny fine print and it’s unreasonable to expect them to. The lay reader who knows that about 3,000 were killed on 9/11 would see this chart and conclude from a visual estimate that the chart is claiming that somewhere above 7,500 people have been killed by right wing terrorists in America since 1975. The visual obscures what’s relevant to the article, because it makes both right and left wing terrorism look like they have had an impact that is much bigger than in reality. It obscures the context in a way that is un-useful. Mikewem (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem: Again: the relevant context in this article, and numerous references, is left-versus-right violence in view of Trump's comments, not left-plus-right violence in the abstract. (Aside: the small-text footer is provided for completeness, per the source.) —RCraig09 (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Why are you presenting options pre-RFC? Anyway, these options don't seem to reflect the current state of the article at all. Right now it says In his nationwide address, Trump solely blamed the radical left for Kirk's and other recent deaths, and did not mention recent Democratic victims of violence.[234][233] NBC News called Trump's response "far more polarizing than many of the other messages offered by politicians and representatives of both parties".[233] Several publications, including among others The Economist,[235] The New York Times,[183] PBS (republishing The Conversation),[236] and Time,[237] noted that contrary to Trump's accusations, most perpetrators of political violence have been right-leaning,[238][239] a research finding that has been repeatedly confirmed. Is option C intended to push for the removal of the bolded text? And if so, on what grounds? Multiple people above have argued that there are no sources disputing Trump's statement, which seems to directly contradict the article text and its sources. Or is the question of whether we should promote the bolded part to the article voice? I'd support that; no sources seem to dispute it, and every other source we've found supports it, which makes it fall under uncontested facts when it comes to top-quality sourcing. I'm also a bit baffled by the framing that the two sources used for that sentence don't debunk it; they don't go into detail at all. But literally two sentences later we have a bunch of sources that do, so to avoid WP:PROFRINGE issues we should use those sources make it unambiguous that Trump's statement is false. If people think that it's actually in dispute, they should find sources of the same quality or higher disputing it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  Did you mean to post that here? It sounds like you are asking me that question, in the context of brainstorming text. But I'm pretty sure you intend it to be about the pre-RfC, above the section break. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I've moved this from the subsection below, to here. If I've misunderstood, you can move it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The graphic has been deleted from the article by the editor who initiated and joined the discussion, and whose edit comment says there seems to be a consensus. There isn't; and the 'Delete' reasoning focuses mainly on SYNTH arguments that are soundly defeated by several reliable sources that refute Trump's comment that was made immediately after Kirk's killing. (Per my 22:45, 13 June post as uploader:) This is exactly the graphic that belongs in the /*Reactions and analysis/Domestic response*/ section. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted it. This thread was framed as a pre-RFC discussion. There is no clear consensus. We restore WP:STATUSQUO and move to the RfC phase as a next step. Simonm223 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. No such consensus existed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• C per gunivalid. Connecting these claims would be WP:SYNTH because the sources connected to the quote do not debunk the quote. R. G. Checkers ^talk 21:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
• C. It is not our job to argue against Trump; I endorse guninvalid's argument. — Czello ^(music) 19:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• With no apparent community appetite for a better option after so many months, that leaves me at C. The whole thing is WP:TRUMPCRUFT. In retrospect, I regret reverting the original removal. After reviewing the discussion, I would now say that "deeply unserious" is a reasonable way to summarize the issue with the graph and it should have remained removed on those originally stated grounds. There’s 2 extended paragraphs that go on and on about Trump’s reaction and the reactions to Trump’s reaction. It all fails WP:RECENT. Even the video of the Oval Office address should go per WP:FRINGE. Mikewem (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oh, I dunno, and I'm getting kind of frustrated with this discussion. It feels like a sort-of not-yet an RfC discussion in July has sort-of turned into an RfC-lite discussion in September. My opposition to C remains unchanged since July (reasons above), and I don't think we should just throw up our hands because it appears that nobody wants to bother doing the real work of writing a thoughtful revision. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
• From uploader: what people don't seem to focus on is that: —The section is "Reactions and analysis" so Trump's 'reaction' and reliably sourced references' analysis is completely appropriate. —The chart isn't posted here to refute; numerous references do that. —"9/11" is irrelevant since the issue is right-versus-left. —The sources provide the synthesis, not Wikipedians. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

""9/11" is irrelevant since the issue is right-versus-left." - Then why list Islamic terror at all? Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Only because I was following the reference. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Option C. As a number of other editors have pointed out, the way this question was asked was wholly inappropriate: our job is not to "debunk" things, but to provide a summary of what reliable sources say on the topic. Furthermore, the chart appears to be WP:SYNTH. If reliable sources reflect that most modern political violence comes from the right, then that should be reflected in our summaries of the sources, not in wikitext or charts as "debunking".

Brainstorming for text revisions

Based on the discussion so far, it looks to me like there are sharply differing opinions, and it may be difficult to achieve a consensus based on A/B/C. Assuming that there are a lot of editors who object strongly to A, and a lot of editors who object strongly to C, I'm thinking that it might be productive to brainstorm about approaches that roughly (if not exactly) resemble B.

As of now, here is the paragraph of text on the page, that accompanies the disputed graph:

In his nationwide address, Trump solely blamed the radical left for Kirk's and other recent deaths, and did not mention recent Democratic victims of violence. NBC News called Trump's response "far more polarizing than many of the other messages offered by politicians and representatives of both parties". Several publications, including among others The Economist, The New York Times, PBS (republishing The Conversation), and Time, noted that contrary to Trump's accusations, most perpetrators of political violence have been right-leaning, a research finding that has been repeatedly confirmed. A week after the assassination, the Department of Justice deleted from its website "What NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism", a 2024 study from its National Institute of Justice that found that the majority of ideologically motivated homicides in the United States since 1990 (excluding the September 11 attacks) had been committed by right-wing extremists.

References

(A few of the cited sources are from outside the paragraph, but they can be found on the page.)

Looking at this jogged my memory, and makes me realize that we actually already do have some text that provides the NPOV-balancing perspective, but I also realize that we could provide more if we end up removing the graph. So I'd like to brainstorm: what might we add to this text? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

For the sentence starting "Several publications, including among others", I think we'd be better off instead directly referring to the experts and research that the authors from these publications refer to. To rewrite that sentence (and perhaps split it into a few sentences), a good format might read as "Research and experts on political violence contradicted Trump's claims, indicating that right-wing violence had been more frequent and deadlier than left-wing violence for several decades." Then we refer to maybe explicit examples of this, followed by what is the current end of that paragraph. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, the claim at hand is From the attack on my life in Butler, Pennsylvania last year, to the attacks on ICE agents, to the vicious murder of a healthcare executive in the streets of New York, to the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and three others, radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.

The earliest event on that list was Scalise in 2017. We have one ref that measures from 1975 and one that measures from 2001. Choosing the one that starts its count after 9/11 solves the 9/11 problem, and choosing a later start time is supported by the timeline presented in the claim.

Then it’s just a matter of deciding whether to compare left to right, or to just state the statistical facts of left wing extremism.

“Since 2001, there have been about 15 times as many deaths attributed to right wing extremism as left wing extremism.” Or: “Since 2001, left-wing extremist incidents have made up about 10% to 15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities.” Mikewem (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I've gotta say, I've been going around in circles in my mind, as to whether or not we should delete the image and replace it with more text. I can see good arguments on both sides of the discussion. Perhaps the editors who are most opposed to keeping the graph should try to finalize proposed text that could take its place, and then we can collectively see whether the trade-off would be a net positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

While I still say the chart is not WP:SYNTH it absolutely should be attributed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Allegedly shot

Proof he was shot? He was allegedly shot by a sniper on roof. ~2026-47589-29 (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by what published reliable sources say. Which is that Kirk was shot. Not that he was 'allegedly shot'. Claims that he wasn't in fact shot appear to be confined exclusively to fringe conspiracy theorists, and are no concern of ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

No he was shot, RS say so. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

??????????? what do you mean "allegedly", there is video of it LoganStylus (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be a single-edit account. Future editors: pay this no mind. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Kirkiversary

There is apparently a "kirkiversary" trend that seems notable enough for the article, but I have no idea where to put it. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 07:21, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Trivial meme. Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how a properly sourced meme can be "trivial", but I guess I'll wait for more reliable sources to report on that when the "kirkiversary" actually starts tomorrow. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 10:19, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

It's also not a holiday, or celebration or memerial, its a meme (at best). Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Obviously the text as written had to go, but there was some potentially interesting analysis from experts in the USA Today about coping with uncertainty and desensitivity to violence. Mikewem (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Context: The "text as written" refers to this content addition by Subway572. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:46, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Give it some time. As of now there's not many solid sources talking about it. We can come to a better decision based on if RS start making note of it or not. Based on the amount I've heard and seen about it, as well as the traction it gets, it feels notable enough, but it doesn't have the needed sources and a personal hunch of mine doesn't necessarily mean it should be included. I think USA Today's article is solid, but we should try to find another reliable source along with it. I think two-three citations would be an alright indicator to place it in the Reactions and analysis section. One to note its notability, USA Today's article for analysis. Possibly in the social media section?

⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

At the time I post this, the page describes the various names as being used "ironically". I feel like this wording might be confusing. It suggests (I think) that the names are being used by people who object to noting the anniversary of the shooting, but the current text is unclear about whether these memes are intended to honor or not honor Kirk. Given the sensitivity of the subject, maybe this could be made clearer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Tryptofish is this any better? Worse? Mikewem (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

And your fix to my accidental dark/light motif was spot on, thanks Mikewem (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request

"Representative Jasmine Crockett criticized Patel, claiming 'if it wasn't for [Robertsons'] parents deciding that they were going to turn in their child, it seems like y'all wouldn't've got there.'"

"Robertson" should be "Robinson's". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-46482-14 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 01:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Engraved bullet casings

Throughout the article, there are several mentions of there being engraved bullet casings, with some kind of political references on them. Nowhere throughout the article is it explained *what* was engraved in particular, nor does it really talk much about it at all.

Is this something that is not public information? I recall when reading about this last year that the actual writing on the bullets was released by the FBI? Why does the article not cover this?

I believe this to be important context to add specifically because of the misinformation related to this case that used the bullet engravings as "evidence". In fact, these misinformation claims are disputed by this very Wikipedia article. In order to actually help dispel the misinformation, shouldn't we talk about what the bullets actually were engraved with?

I could've edited first, but it felt like it might've been an intentional decision that I was overlooking, so I wanted to ask first. ShadowLancer (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

They're described in the Evidence and leads section. guninvalid (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Sports moments of silence

Hello Slatersteven, in this edit, I removed major league baseball teamS (plural) because out of the three sources, only one (yahoo sports) mentions just the Yankees, just one MLB team (singular). Plural was unsourced.

Do you have any thoughts on whether “paid tribute” is an MOS:IDIOM?

The Hindustan Times article contains multiple copyediting and factual errors and npov issues unrelated to my condensing of the sentence. The entirety of its presentation of fan reacts is in the first three sentences: The Detroit Lions and Baltimore Ravens declined to show respect to Charlie Kirk before their NFL games on Sunday, following his killing in Utah this week. Their refusal to show respect to Kirk sparked outrage on social media, with one X user commenting: “The Ravens did not honor Charlie Kirk before today’s game. Shame on you and MD.” “Another show of respect and to honor Charlie, unlike@Ravens who “opted” to not show an ounce of respect, honor or homage for Charlie. @NFL this should be noted. Shame on @Ravens, shame on Stephen Biscotti and Shame on @GovWesMoore @MayorBMScott,” another wrote.

As far as the fans stuff, I would summarize what Yahoo sports says as “some internet commenters were in favor of the Yankees moment of silence, and some internet commentors were not in favor of the Yankees moment of silence, including a Mets fan who said ‘thank god I’m a Mets fan’”. It seems trivial and only sourced to a handful of random tweets, so I removed it. Mikewem (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

So was there more than one team, or not? Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

More than one football, only one baseball, at least as reported in these 3 sources. I don’t know what the final tally of baseball teams was, but this article decided to report on just one. Mikewem (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

A quick search says 5. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes. 5 NFL (American football) teams opted to hold moments of silence in the week after Kirk’s death. 1 other NFL team hosted a league-enforced moment of silence the day after his death. The Yankees (MLB, baseball) held a moment of silence on the day of his death. Mikewem (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

The only evidence I can currently find of non-Yankee teams honoring Kirk is on Outkick, which mentions the Chicago Cubs doing it specifically. I'm a bit unsure if we should include this, given Outkick is part of the Fox News sports division. WP:FOXNEWS says they are reliable for non-science, non-politics articles, but this one is both sports and politics related. Personally I think we should find another source, but one could argue that it's solid enough to confirm that there was more than one MLB team.

⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

ArkadenBoden do you oppose summarizing this as “several professional sports teams held moments of silence” and do you have a view on whether “paid tribute” is an WP:IDIOM in this context? Mikewem (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I think that "several professional sports teams" is solid and ok as long as there are citations referencing different sports (as in as long as it's not all citations talking about the NFL or MLB). "Paid tribute" feels like an idiom on its own, as it can be thought of something as minor as a statement against political violence. I think "held moments of silence" is the most specific. ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

CBS Sports says The Packers were not the first professional sports team to remember Kirk. On Wednesday, hours after Kirk's death was announced, the New York Yankees remembered him with a moment of silence before their game against the Tigers.

Should we add this as a source for “several professional sports teams”? Mikewem (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

That works, yes. ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

There’s no support or mention in any of the three for ‘the NFL was criticized for honoring Kirk’. And our support for ‘the NFL was criticized for not honoring Kirk’ comes exclusively from those 3 sentences in Hindustan. Mikewem (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

[] [] []. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

(1) WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS; (2) The Blast appears to be a celebrity tabloid, no mention of baseball and no mention of ‘faced criticism for honoring Kirk’; (3) WP:METRO, no mention of baseball and no mention of ‘faced criticism for honoring Kirk’.

The number of NFL teams who opted not to hold a moment of silence in the week after Kirk’s death is not in dispute and is already supported by our nbc sports source. We have no source saying that more than one baseball team was involved in the discourse about Kirk moments of silence. Mikewem (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Specify sex of Robinson's partner

I was reading this article today and noticed that the gender wasn't mentioned when describing Robinson's partner, who is a witness in the investigation. Nothing huge, but seeing as it is noted that Robinson's motivations for allegedly committing the shooting involved gay/trans rights, it would make sense to specify. Could just be the way I'm looking at it, but the writing seems almost intentionally vague, and specifying would clear up some confusion. Sock1337 (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Do we know if he identifies as male? I believe he isn't a full furry as far as identification so that would probably be fine but we will need citations to back it up.

I think saying it involved gay/trans rights is no longer accurate because he admitted in court that they never discussed politics or Charlie's view on these things specifically? But I'm not sure how to cite that. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 22:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I attempted to add this information via a quote from Utah governor Cox to NBC . I was reverted by @Mikewem, citing MOS:GENDERID and a second time by @Simonm223 with the note This material is entirely irrelevant. The idea that Kirk was shot because of his specific bigotries towards Trans people is unsupported in reliable sources and is undue mention. Notably, my addition did not make this claim.

I agree with @Sock1337 concern that the writing is vague, and that specifying would clear up the confusion. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Then what is its relevance, do we usually list the gender of killers' partners? Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa you reverted with the text "not supported by cited policy". I’d actually be interested to hear your view on which specific words in MOS:GENDERID do not support my removal. Mikewem (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The addition in question was a quotation from Governor Cox. The section which deals with quotations in MOS:GENDERID reads as follows: Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc. (emphasis own). In this case, the actual meaning of the Cox quote would be significantly obscured if we were to use square brackets, elide, or paraphrase.

Even if you are right about this application of the policy, that isn't grounds for removal, but rather for rephrasing. Perhaps a paraphrase e.g. "According to NBC, Cox said that Robison's partner is a transgender woman" would be a better alternative if you still disagree on the application of MOS:GENDERID. Thoughts? Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Read wp:v and wp:undue, why is the relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Basic biographical information on Robison's partner is present in a large number of articles on the topic: PBS NBC, NBC again, BBC, New York Times, CNN, CBS and these are all just from a quick google search.

WP:V reads: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources. Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. The governor Cox quote and information contained within, is verifiable and found in many reliable sources. WP:undue reads: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. and Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. If we are to call "Robinson's roommate is a transgender woman" a viewpoint, then it is important to include, as it is prevalent in reliable sources. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

It also says "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Through the consensus process, editors may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or used instead in a different article.". This article is not about his partner or his relationships (or technically about him); it is about the assassination attempt, and this tells us sod all about that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

It appears we are in agreement that the information in question is verifiable. I argued above that the viewpoint in question is prevalent in reliable sources, and I do not think you contest this either. Let me know if I'm wrong on either of these points.

So, the appearance of implied consensus against inclusion appears to be the issue you are raising. I suggest that we start an RfC in order to address your concern. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

My removal was under the grounds of it being irrelevant to this article and thus undue. It was not that her gender could not be verified. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. From my reading of the sources, Robinson's partner has been involved in the investigation and court proceedings following the assassination. I could point to other inclusions in the article which are just as - if not more - irrelevant to the article, but I do not want to engage in WP:OTHERSTUFF.

What I will say is that basic biographical information about the partner is found in a wide variety of reliable sources and Wikipedia readers would be best served if we reflected what was in reliable sources on the topic of the assassination and the ensuing investigation and court proceedings.

I will once again recommend starting an RfC on the topic. Until that is started, I will WP:DROPTHESTICK, as I don't have much more to say. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

If a person is the partner of a main suspect in a high-profile shooting it's unsurprising for her to be interviewed by investigators and to participate at court. It is, after all, her partner who is standing trial. But she's a WP:LOWPROFILE person, only known at all for one event and, again, her being trans is just entirely irrelevant. Frankly she didn't shoot Charlie Kirk. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

On another note - reading between the lines with your comment, would it be unfair to say that quite a lot in this article is WP:UNDUE per your view? If so, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about what we should cut. I've been reading Essentialism by Greg McKeown lately and I find myself inspired. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

None of those sources report a self-identification, so no, the roommate’s gender is not verifiable per our policies. Mikewem (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

"According to NBC, Cox said that" this is too much of the telephone game. We have to consider the source of information and Spencer Cox is a partisan actor in this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I have had my say, this is wp:undue and tells us nothing about the shooting or the killer. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm also going to come down on the side of opposing inclusion as undue. For me, a significant consideration is the underlying intent behind WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E. We should be cautious about publishing non-essential information that someone might want to treat as private, when that person is not a public figure and has only gotten attention for one event (and being very peripheral to that event, as well). I realize that there are numerous news sources that address the gender of the partner, but we are not a news publication, and we don't have to include things just because they have been reported elsewhere. I would feel differently if we had reliable sourcing that Robinson was motivated by gender issues, but the sourcing is currently unclear about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Long video

does the 50 minute video in the legacy section need to be trimmed down? I've never seen anything longer than 30 seconds on Wikipedia and I can't even get the actual video to load ~2026-49655-53 (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean the 138 minute committee hearing in Domestic response? Mikewem (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Feet vs. Yards?

The first section of the article says that he was shot " approximately 142 yards (130 m) away" but in the Timeline of the assassination it says "about 430 feet (130 m)". I'm wondering if the first part should be in feet instead of yards to be more consistent with the second part or vice-versa? I feel like feet would be better in terms of metres but I'm not sure. I'm not use to U.S. customary units 'cause I'm Canadian and like metric but I feel like feet would make more sense in this context? I'm just wondering why it's like this if anyone who's more accustomed to U.S. customary units could object and explain that would be appreciated. I'm not arguing the actual distance 'cause it's certainly around 130 metres just the use of the U.S customary unit. Ieatglue321 (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Same reason Canadians wouldn’t say how many cm Toronto is from Winnipeg (I mean they easily could, because metric is easier to convert than US standard, but they wouldn’t, because it wouldn’t make sense). The scale of unit for that type of distance between cities is km because people have a general understanding of how much a km is at that scale. Intuitive scales of feet top out at about 100ft, if that (it’s probably more like 20ft). We measure football and track & field events in yards, so Americans have an intuitive sense of how much 100 yards is because it’s the length of a football field and it’s a common track distance that everyone does in gym class.

Feet does not necessarily make sense in this context at this scale, but our article includes the measure in ft because NYT gave it in feet. Mikewem (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem Yeah that makes sense. I thought feet 'cause I mostly saw feet used with smaller measures like 10 metres but It makes sense to use yards for larger measures like 200 metres 'cause otherwise it would impractical. Ieatglue321 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

"Shooting of Charlie Kirk in the neck" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Shooting of Charlie Kirk in the neck 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/2026 September 20 § Shooting of Charlie Kirk in the neck until a consensus is reached. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)