Talk:Charlie Kirk

Kirkification?

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.

---

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)

It is in reference other his image which he held everyday and therefore should be addressed. Joeythebest (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven globally significant internet phenomena is in fact not "trivial" - we live in a digitial communications age. Dhantegge (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, but part of the dispute is was this significant. Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 27 October 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)

Support Kirification is an extremely prominent part of his legacy and the way it will be explored academically in the coming years will make a standalone article possible and viable. We went from people went from proclaiming that Kirk's death was the new Reichstag fire to his assassination merely being a punchline on a deliberately dumb joke. It's been argued that the ensuing mockery around the meme filled the vacuum that vindication and violence may otherwise have filled. Conversely, it's also been argued that it intensified the preexisting nihilism around the permanently unbridged gaps in American politics. Neither of these sources are ones I'd prefer to use on Wikipedia, necessarily, but, we'll have to see what research is done. Dhantegge (talk) 04:53, 27 October 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) Struckthrough info is changed, now oppose split as per @MaximusEditor. SH360! (Must edit! Must chat!) 07:32, 2 November 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)

His political opinions were his whole public presence because he was a political commentator and therefore, it should not be a separate article. Joeythebest (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

The "Political positions and activities" section of the article reads like another article, so it warrants a split. Also, say "Oppose" next time; it helps others get straight to your point, instead of looking for clues. SH360! (Must edit! Must chat!) 12:07, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per user:AstralNomad. Cheromaniii (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom and QuicoleJR. A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom CyberAlexMM (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@ RachTheBlack (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Support, it's too long for sure. RachTheBlack (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Hard Oppose -Seeing a lot of editors support "per nom"(support the split) which uses the WP:TOOBIG aka WP:SIZERULE as reasoning. This article definitely borders on "too big" currently. But splitting is not the route to take, however trimming down the section is. I have been on several previous talk page discussions at this very article calling for the trimming of the "political" views" section (among other sections) citing WP:SIZERULE as a reason to trim. A good portion of the "political views" section is "WP:Cruft" or as I like to call it "Kirkcruft", for those unfamiliar it is a variation of WP:TRUMPCRUFT, which states that "Not every single thing Trump (or, for that matter, anyone) says or does deserves an article, a subsection, a short paragraph, a sidebar, or otherwise". Some stuff Kirk said warrants inclusion on this article for sure (and it has been covered in extensive reliable sourcing), but a lot of it doesn't even pass the ten year test. If split out, we create a precedence for all commentators/influencers to get entire articles "listing" every stated view, just because they said it and a reliable source mentioned it. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Before, I asked if any editors would help me reduce the "Kirkcruft" in this article, now perhaps we have a sizable force of editors who do believe this article is too big, and that it must be trimmed. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Summary:

• Maximus notices that all of us supported the split.
• They think trimming down the section is better than splitting the article as per TRUMPCRUFT.
• People might think the article is split for the stupidest reasons.
• Also implying that others were also involved in their decision.

SH360! (Must edit! Must chat!) 05:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Trimming down would be reasonable but you could argue the section could still be too long even after being trimmed. I don't think splitting would create a precedence that every commentator should get its own article as Kirk is a specific case whose views have gained a lot of attention after being assassinated. Moon1238 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Support, it is WAY too long. BFDIEditor (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per nom MaximusEditor – Although splitting this section could arguably provide a better-refined view of Kirk's political identity, his career centers largely around it, making a split superfluous. I agree with Peter Gulutzan that it falls below the threshold of necessity; moreover, as other dissenters have mentioned, the political views section can simply be shortened. HelloIamLucas (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, prior to his death he was known for his political views and debates and following his death his assassination became the second source of notability. His assassination is already split out, it doesn't make sense to also split out his views. Additionally, he wasn't a politician in that he sought office. GreyZoneLife (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2026 (UTC)

Then why is the text incredibly long - over 500,000 characters! BFDIEditor (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Because it's too in detail, which is why it makes sense to shorten the section rather than splitting it. As GreyZoneLife stated, he wasn't a politician that sought office, no offence to him, but his political positions are not really relevant to the United States or notable enough to become its own article. Cheromaniii (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. We should shorten the article perhaps but he does not need a whole separate political ideology article CWikiedits1 (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Hard Support; He is a highly important figure in the MAGA movement, so it makes sense to have to keep all of his views detailed precisely. Because of this, however, we will need to split the article to fit all of them. Qazderfy (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. After reading through much of the "Political views" section, I agree with many of the others on trimming the article. More specifically areas such as "Foreign affairs". Multiple sections are just a single quote. Again in "Social policy", it seems unnecessary to have four separate sections with different titles that all basically discuss LGBTQ and gender. Tacotyler (talk) 19:44, 12 November 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)

This isn't relevant to anything. Cheromaniii (talk) 20:33, 25 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)

How he would describe himself is irrelevant because it is not an identity but rather a political ideology.Mr Kirk supported the 'Seven mountain Mandate' which, according to EBSCO, is an "ideology holds that God has commissioned followers to instill Christian values across seven key societal pillars: religion, family, education, government, media, arts and entertainment, and business".This is inherently Christian Nationalism. Joeythebest (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

that that is christian nationalism is an opinion, not a fact CWikiedits1 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2026 (UTC)

Did Kirk have political positions or did he have political views?

In reviewing precedent for the proposed page split, I noticed that existing header text at Category:Political views by person says This category is for articles detailing the political views of notable commentators and influencers. In the case of politicians, corresponding articles are generally named "Political positions" and should be placed in the sub-category Political positions of politicians.

Does it make sense to use the word ‘positions’ for politicians and does it make sense to use ‘views’ for commentators/influencers? Does it make sense to sort politicians separately from commentators?

Bearing in mind that he never sought or held any political or government office, and that he spent his career being a commentator/influencer, should we categorize him more as a commentator/influencer or more as a politician? Mikewem (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. I think we should conform to the existing consensus about the difference between political office seekers and commentators/influencers, and so we should use "views" here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

As a Christian nationalist, Kirk's position is inherently political. See the section directly above this one that mentions how they targeted government with the intent of pushing pseudo-Christian-centered political positions. I use the word "pseudo" on purpose, as many Christian thought leaders believe Christian nationalism is anti-Christian at its core precisely because it infuses political conservatism (aka "Supply Side Jesus" / Republican Jesus) into its belief system, an idea that directly contradicts, twists, and distorts the basic teachings of Christianity to the point that they can no longer be considered "Christian", but rather an American new religious movement that is an offshoot of right-libertarianism. There's also numerous sources talking about how Kirk was directly influenced by political forces in his early ascent towards popular leadership, with rumors indicating he was being molded for a political candidacy, possibly a future presidency, just before his death. To quote our article on the Christian right: "Christian conservatives seek to influence politics and public policy with their interpretation of the teachings of Christianity." This goes way, way beyond holding "views", and explicitly targets current political policies for change. That's the very definition of political. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it’s a question of whether we refer to them as political positions or political views Mikewem (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to bow out because I don't believe in that distinction (and I read the AfD that came to that conclusion and disagree with it). Turning Point USA is and always has been a political organization that takes political positions. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "positions" and "views" are almost synonyms here, so this is more a stylistic than a factual distinction, and if Wikipedia is going to reserve "positions" for candidates for political office, then we should follow. Lots of notable people have been very involved in political issues without actually being political candidates. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

True, but they are often activists who participate in demonstrations and other direct action, did Krk? Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, what matters is whether or not he was a candidate for elective office, and he wasn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I have a very open mind towards the larger question: If these words are the correct words and if we should distinguish between electeds/appointees and commentators/influencers in the titles of these pages.

But for now, I definitely recognize the existing consensus that they should be categorized separately, and by these words. If we agree that Kirk should be categorized in the commentators/influencers column and not in the elected politicians column, then I think changing the (for now) section title to “views” would be in keeping with standing consensus.

The good news is that there aren’t tremendously many pages in either of the two columns. I’m gonna peruse the politician positions pages just to get a feel for if there are any qualitative or demonstrable differences between them and the non-politician views pages. If there are identifiable differences between the two columns, then I expect I may feel more strongly that Kirk should not be “positions”. If there are not, then I might feel more strongly that a revisit of the existing consensus is worthwhile. Mikewem (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Its a valid point, he was not a politician, so yes maybe views is more appropriate. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a grey area, it's definitive. Kirk was not a politician or elected official in any facet. Because of this we would classify his opinions as views on Wikipedia. He spoke about those views publicly on his podcast and on social media as a commentator. This is also why splitting out (which I will address in the split discussion above) an entire article dedicated to his views is unwise. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Positions he held in lead are now views held

Now that we have removed "positions" from the article, this remains in the lead:

"His more controversial positions included criticism of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Martin Luther King Jr., as well as promotion of COVID-19 misinformation, false allegations of electoral fraud in 2020, and the white genocide conspiracy theory."

We should remove that from the lead as now those are now "views". Changing it to controversial "views' seems to not hold as much weight. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

The sentence just before that one also uses the word "positions". I'm ambivalent about whether or not we should change this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I purposely opted not to change this instance, because there was some discussion of this specific word from this sentence in a thread that I can dig up if I absolutely must. iirc, the result of that thread was an agreement that ‘views’ is not the correct word for this usage.

The issue is that “criticism” and “promotion” do not describe “views”, they describe verbs. Verbs definitionally cannot be views. If the sentence said something like “that the promotion of x,y,z conspiracy theory is a good thing”, then that sentence describes an opinion, which we can label a view. But “promotion of x,y,z conspiracy” is not an opinion, it is a verb, an activity, maybe we could say: an aspect of one’s activism.

I don’t think “position” is the correct word for these activities either. How much do we hate “aspect of activism”? Mikewem (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2026 (UTC)

I had said that I was ambivalent because, on the one hand, I like consistency, but on the other hand, something felt off to me about making this change, but I was having trouble putting my finger on it. Mikewem's explanation pinpoints it, and I'm now in favor of leaving that paragraph as-is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2026 (UTC)