Q1: Why can't we discuss certain things about Tyler Robinson (or other persons named in the article) here on the talk page?
A1: Wikipedia'sBiographies of living persons policy, which requires that articles be written "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone", and reminds editors that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives", applies to persons accused of crimes as much as to any other person. Here on the article's talk page, this means that proposals for inclusion of material on living persons should be cautiously phrased e.g.
This link gives extensive detail about what it claims are Robinson's political beliefs; should we summarize this someplace in the article?
Q2: Why is Kirk described as a "right-wing political activist" and not conservative or far-right?
This article must adhere to thebiographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced orpoorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentiallylibellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue tothis noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please seethis help page.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofconservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcrime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is part ofWikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related tocurrent events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit theproject page or contribute to thediscussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofDeath on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage offirearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join thediscussion and see a list ofopen tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofinternet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
Ashley Rindsberg (September 11, 2025)."Leftist Wikipedia editors twist facts in shameless move to smear Charlie Kirk".Fox News.Archived from the original on September 17, 2025.One way Wikipedia editors stage an attack is by cross-linking allegations across articles. [...] In a newly created article, 'Killing of Charlie Kirk,' editors wrote that Kirk 'utilized his skills in social media and campus organizing to become a highly influential figure in the "hard-right movement,"' citing an article in The New York Times.
Stephen Harrison (September 17, 2025)."Why Right-Wing Outlets Attacked Wikipedia After Charlie Kirk's Shooting".Slate.Archived from the original on September 17, 2025.Since Kirk's assassination, some conservative influencers have challenged the article's title. They ask why it's currently named 'Killing of Charlie Kirk' instead of 'murder' as in 'Murder of George Floyd.' The allegation is that editors are downplaying conservative deaths, but in reality they're following the long-standing norm not to use 'murder' until there's a conviction, which hasn't happened in Kirk's case. For reference, the article on the death of George Floyd wasn't renamed 'Murder' until Derek Chauvin's conviction nearly a year later.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in theTop 25 Report3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
"On October 6, right-wing commentator Candace Owens revealed private WhatsApp group messages where Kirk claimed to have "no choice but to leave the pro-Israel cause" due to having lost $2 million from a Jewish donor over his refusal to condemn Tucker Carlson"
This is a lie. Before he said 'leaving me no choice but to leave the pro israel cause' he said The conservative influencer complained in a WhatsApp group that his “Jewish donors” were “playing into all the stereotypes” and said they were pushing him to “leave the pro-Israel cause.” “I cannot and will not be bullied like this,”
"The outdoor event was the first stop of the Fall 2025 season for the American Comeback Tour..."
IMO, it should have (either) "The American Comeback Tour" or the "American Comeback Tour" in quotes, for readability. It's a billing, like a title, and should be offset with quotes.~2025-31868-12 (talk)01:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler Robinson should probably get his own article
I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion now. The consensus here appears to be that an article for Tyler Robinson would not necessarily be worth creating at this time. In my view, if you do think he is notable enough for his own article, you can try and write a draft article or enlist other editors for help. But if you would still like to discuss, you may revert my close.guninvalid (talk)10:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I don't know if this already has been settled, but i really think Tyler Robinson should have his own article. He's one of the most prominent murderers in recent times. So it seems strange that other people like:
I would say he is probably on the same level as the people i mentioned. I mean Thomas Crooks and Ryan Wesley Routh didn't even kill the people they attempted to murder. I've been seeing a non-stop feed of Charlie Kirk for the past 2 months. And documentaries about Tyler Robinson only weeks after the incident.KILLGOESE (talk)19:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who said he was? Was George Lincoln Rockwell, Martin Luther King Jr or Brian Thompson American presidents? Where in the wikipedia rules does it say former american presidents would be assassins automatically get their own article?KILLGOESE (talk)19:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one saying that an attempted killing of a former president is the same as this, we are saying they are not. That is the difference, they are not the same.Slatersteven (talk)19:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You listed Thomas Crook and Ryan Welsey, both famous for only targeting their respective presidents. What Robinson did was kill a far-right 'master debator'. Wikipedia feeds off sources, so if you can find some to prove notability, please provide.Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I19:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you only mentioning 2 of my 5 examples?
Charlie Kirk wasn't just a "master debator", he is one of the most popular political figures of the past decade. If you use google trends for example. He Trumps other figures like MLK, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris. Etc. You're underplaying how massive of a figure he is.KILLGOESE (talk)20:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the spike in search interest around the assassination isn't really a good indicator of whether they were "the most popular political figure of the past decade".D1551D3N7 (talk)00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well we have to resolve this. Either make another article for Tyler Robinson, or remove the articles for Luigi Mangione (especially), John Patler and probably other people like Muhammad Abdul Aziz as well.KILLGOESE (talk)20:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about a source? Im asking a question, why does Luigi Mangione (among others) have a page but Tyler Robinson doesn't? I want consistency in Wikipedia articles.KILLGOESE (talk)20:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asked to make a page. We said no. You asked why not, and we said sources. Wikipediacannot make a page on a figure such as Robinson without acquit sourcing (hell, you shouldn't make ANY page without a draft of news links ready to go)Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I20:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article doesn't exist anymore. It was merged and (iirc) is a redirect here. We don't link articles that redirect back to the page you were already atBabysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I20:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wantconsistancy; Luigi's page has 165 unique refrences. Patler has less (but not by any means a weak amount of) sources, sitting at 67.Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I20:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So if we can find 165 sources then it will be fine? Again im talking about the wider support here, not just sources. But if we did find sources, you would support it?KILLGOESE (talk)22:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In short, the current consensus is that Tyler Robinson is not notable for a standalone article at this time. As mentioned, an article for him was indeed created, but there was a discussion whether that article should remain. However, if you do think he is notable, I would encourage you to try to make a draft article and try to send it through the usualWikipedia:Articles for Creation process.guninvalid (talk)07:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^^This is pretty much all that matters, particularly when the original argument is weaker than the arguments in the AFD that decided a Merge was the correct decision.Dennis Brown -2¢01:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear, it's not the quantity of sources that matters, it's the quality. Both in depth of depth and length of coverage, as well as their status as RS. 1 100-word essay by the world's experts has more weight than 15,000 "blokes down the pub". So any coverage has to be about him, not just one one-sentence mention's in connection to his crime.Slatersteven (talk)10:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Because it’s confidential in Utah.[1] Reliable sources do not have access to confidential medical records. We summarizereliable sources.
If you find a reliable source that covers the existence of a conspiracy theory, then we can include it in the conspiracy theories section.Mikewem (talk)16:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 (Kirk) or Kirk or Charlie Kirk in "deaths" section of edit box
My 2 cents: I'm OK with either "1 (Kirk)", or "Kirk", or omitting the field entirely. I'm opposed to "Charlie Kirk" on that line, because it's repetitious of another line in the infobox. --Tryptofish (talk)22:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My immediate thought is this seems wholly repetitious in any 'Assassination of [person]" article where [person] was the only target and the only fatality. But as so many such articles do this, perhaps a centralised discussion would be more suitable if it were proposed to change from it.~2025-31589-66 (talk)~2025-31589-66 (talk)04:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my judgement, no. It's arguably misleading as it could be -- and has been -- read as insinuating that the shooterwas actually part of the "MAGA gang". But it doesn't actually make that claim. I think we give enough context that readers can make up their own mind. Assuming they didn't already.~2025-31589-66 (talk)19:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. At that point no one knew what he was, and we certainly heard folks speaking up very clearly calling the shooter a democrat or left-wing. Whether true or not, they were most certainly trying to distance themselves from the shooter. That some on the right then chose to deliberately misinterpret the words, to throw politics into the tragic shooting of a white-nationalist, doesn't make this misinformation.Nfitz (talk)03:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or just very keen to blame The Left, possibly even in the good-faith (sorta) belief that was indeed the case. So you could take exception to what he said on those grounds, without it being misinformationqua misinformation.~2025-31589-66 (talk)19:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will be calling him by his initials "H.K." to protect his privacy. I noticed that the name of the man who was initially arrested at the scene of the assassination (the man yelling "Shoot me!") is not allowed to be added on the page. However, H.K.'s name can? The man initially arrested had a series of mental illness and criminal record, and did a couple small public appearances, AND is being charged in the assassination for obstruction of justice. So, it wouldn't violate the biographies of living persons policy. H.K. was the name of the college student who just so happened to be speaking with Kirk before his assassination. I feel like THAT is a violation of the Biographies of living persons policy, not the man initially arrested. However, I wanted to mention it on the talk page because I believe it's important to discuss. Should the man's name be added, should H.K.'s name be removed, or both?PublicDomainFan08 (talk)03:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. He’s given a number of high-profile interviews, he had a public persona before the event, and there are a number of news articles that feature him as the main subject.Mikewem (talk)07:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change the title of this article to "Murder of Charlie Kirk" as Kirk had no direct ties to American politics other than being a supporter of President Trump and his administration. The reason for him being a target is also ambiguous and may not be tied to current political climate.FVRangel (talk)00:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to[2],Milo Yiannopoulos claims that Kirk's killing was a hoax staged by TPUSA, and also that Kirk was a closeted gay man. Milo is something of a has-been in right-wing politics (though way back in the mid-2010s his popularity was meteoric), so this may or may not be notable.~2025-39507-02 (talk)02:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There definitely can be speculation placed on this wiki page, if it's been repeated in reliable sources. But I personally don't think it's worth putting in the infobox unless and until the trial is concluded and Mangione is found guilty. If he's found innocent, then it definitely shouldn't be there.guninvalid (talk)20:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done as both terms basically mean the same thing.NotJamestack (talk)19:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectKirkification has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 30 § Kirkification until a consensus is reached.Thepharoah17 (talk)11:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
