Talk:Assassination of Charlie Kirk

Did the bullet match the rifle?

• The Daily Mail's Dishonesty About Charlie Kirk's Alleged Killer: This is how a conspiracy theory grows. --Reason

We, of course, don't allow The Daily Mail to be used as a source, but a bunch of people on Facebook and YouTube do, so we can expect them to come here and try to set us straight. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... We already have information about that on this page, in the Legal proceedings section, and sourced to other sources, including the fact that a law enforcement officer resigned because of the mismatch. I don't know how to reconcile that with what you link to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Link #139 "New Filing Says Fatal Bullet Didn’t Come From Tyler Robinson’s Gun" makes the same claim, that the bullet didn't come from the gun. Yes, #140 counters that, but there are articles all over the "reliable sources" talking about the fact that Robinson's defence team is claiming this. And rather than making it clear that "inconclusive" is distinct from "did not come from this gun" this page links the resignation of the sheriff to the inconclusive result in a blatant - yes, blatant, let's not play games here - attempt to promote this. ~2026-25709-34 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Lets wait till the court case is over. Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

What about actual court cases? Or do you not believe those either? ~2026-30913-60 (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Please edit “right wing”

He was a “conservative” activist. There is a big difference. No matter how you try to parse his words, he was very much about conservative ideals. ~2026-22498-62 (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Source that conservatives are not right-wing? Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Conservative and right-wing are synonyms. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

They in fact are not. You can on the right and not conservative. ~2026-16784-62 (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It's true that they're not identical, but "right-wing" is a broader term than "conservative." All conservatives are right-wing, but not all right-wingers are conservative. There is dispute about precisely characterizing Kirk's ideology (conservative/far-right/Christian nationalist), therefore using the broader term "right-wing" is a useful compromise. Jahaza (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Right-wing ideology typically includes conservatism based on the page for right-wing politics, so they aren't exactly the same. We do have the issue of how to define right- and left-wing politics so sticking to what was decided on that page seems sensible.

My (relatively limited) understanding is Kirk was primarily a conservative but endorsed some populist as well as christian nationalist ideas (explicitly mentioned in the politics part of his page). It seems limiting to just define his positions as "conservative".

There's also the issue of people who may be from countries where conservatism isn't a commonly understood term, who will probably find the article useful regardless, right-wing is probably easier to understand for such people.

It'd also differ from the main page's description of him as a "American right-wing political activist, entrepreneur, and media personality". Probably makes most sense to keep it consistent. Rxixxxxxxxx (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Don’t see how that matters. ~2026-30913-60 (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Vague

Why are you being super vague in motivation? It was leftist political violence ~2026-16784-62 (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

In the absence of a conviction, Wikipedia policies—particularly the elements of WP:BLP—crimes are not directly attributed to any living persons accused of the crime. That's why we refer to the person charged with shooting Kirk as "the accused". When reliable sources present information about potential motives, we are able to describe them, but we cannot describe them as the definite motivations. However, should a conviction occur, we will update the article accordingly. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned above, we cannot write anything direct until a conviction is received. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 19:43, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Even then, will the court find it was motivated by left wing politics? Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Add a video of the assassination, even a censored one

Similar articles like that of the Killing of Iryna Zarutska have some sort of a video. IT seems to me it's long standing policy of Wikipedia to include more media rather than less, no matter how graphic. ~2026-30760-27 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, in the talk page archives, and the consensus has been against it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it was really discussed only once, less than 24 hours after the killing. That discussion also was mixed up with concerns about fair use of one particular video, rather than focusing solely on the question of the encyclopedic value of a video in general. Subsequent discussions were just brief rehashes pointing back to that one and only discussion. Perhaps it is time to revisit, if someone has a suitable video in mind. Einsof (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Depends on how one defines "rehash". I'm not seeing any more encyclopedic value than a snuff film would have, and I doubt that a new or different video has emerged. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I was involved in a discussion of it a month or two ago. It's been discussed more than once. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I assume you mean this discussion with responses from five editors, which was closed after 11 hours with a pointer to the one and only consensus-building discussion that I mentioned already. Einsof (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

As of this most recent consensus Talk:Assassination of Charlie Kirk/Archive 8#Why not show the video?, there are no free-to-use videos of this on Commons. The Zarutska video is cctv, so it has a lower standard for inclusion.

Using someone’s cell phone video would mean we have to argue fair use instead of free use. I agree that the encyclopedic value of any cell phone video of the death would not satisfy the higher threshold for fair use. Mikewem (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

A censored video sounds like a fair compromise (assuming we can find a freely licensed one) Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:40, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the rationale for a compromise here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

We spend some 200 words describing the shooting. A video of it (censored if needed per WP:GRATUITOUS) would serve as a useful illustrative aid. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose inclusion of a video of the assassination in the article. I also believe that, should consensus favor inclusion, it should be uncensored. Should a freely licensed version be made available, there is no reason that we should seek to diminish its accuracy through censoring. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk)

I think we could add a frame of a video, the frame before the shot occurrs. Skyshiftertalk 22:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I will point out that Murder of George Floyd has a still frame of the murder plastered at the top of the article. Jack the Ripper has full gore in the article body. People, this is what we mean when we say that Wikipedia is not censored. You are currently reading the talk page for an article with the word ASSASSINATION in it. Expect that article to contain obviously topical multimedia. Einsof (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

We should not be invoking uncensorsored when discussing adding a censored video. Either it is uncensored or not added. Also it may well be copyright, is this the case or not? Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Please read carefully how the title was worded: "a video of the assassination, even a censored one". We are therefore not necessarily discussing a censored video. And then please read carefully the ensuing discussion, where people have mentioned copyright as a potential issue, but cannot discuss further unless someone specifies a particular video to examine the copyright status of. Einsof (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Washington Post’s video is clear, up close, includes closed captions, has a disclaimer for the gunshot audio, and Kirk is not in frame at the time of the shot and the frame does not come back to him after the shot. My understanding is we can’t directly use it because Washington Post owns it, but can we add it as a reference? Might that be taken as an acceptable compromise for those who prefer an illustrative aid? And from the other end, that sees no rationale for a compromise (I am more aligned with this view), the two transcript sources we have are each imperfect in different ways. As far as I know, the captions in the Post video are the only accurate transcript of the back and forth. It actually would be helpful to use that for our prose.

Does this suggestion do anything for anyone? Mikewem (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Or maybe put it in external links? Mikewem (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

We can certainly add it as an external link, although I don't think it precludes adding in a video or still directly hosted here or on Commons, should a suitable file become available. People may also be interested in reading the RfC on the lede image for the murder of George Floyd article, where, in addition to deciding the base issue of inclusion, it also decided that the non-free image cleared the bar for WP:NFCC. Einsof (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want to start an RfC for non-free inclusion of the Post video, you can. Or if you want to start an RfC for non-free use of some other video, you can do that. Mikewem (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Given the extent of disagreement among editors locally, I think having an RfC with input from the broader community would be a very good idea. I'd suggest that editors in favor of some sort of image or video decide first which one(s) to propose, and then those could subsequently be decided on via the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Wording in the article

There seems to be a slant in how the article is written, specifically noticed in this paragraph(the underlined sentence):

"The Trump administration called for a crackdown against what it called "political extremism" on the left, which was widely criticized by free speech advocates and legal experts as using the assassination as a pretext to silence political opposition. A campaign by right-wing organizations and US government agencies resulted in mass firings and disciplinary actions against people seen as celebrating Kirk's death or making critical comments about him in the aftermath of the assassination. Kirk's memorial service was held at State Farm Stadium in Arizona on September 21."

The implication seems to be that many people were fired for making opinionated comments about Charlie kirk's character, which was by and large not the case. The majority of firings were focused on people who expressed approval of the assassination/killing, and it should be clarified in the article.

In addition "free speech advocates" and "legal experts" are too broad of terms and indicate that there is a consensus among the majority of the groups("widely" also applies), which isn't true. I'm suggesting simply adding 'some' before the groups so as not to misconstrue the percentage. ~2026-31137-76 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you please identify a few sources that clearly demonstrate the issues you've identified? If you believe the sources contradict the content of the article, please explain which sources and the relevant passages that contradict the article's content. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there a census somewhere that tries to enumerate what people were fired for? Otherwise how are we to say what the majority of the firings were about? Einsof (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Charlie Kirk assassination conspiracy theories

Per WP:Notability and the persistent myriad conspiracy theories that have emerged on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, it is my best interest to propose a split request for the section which conveys the numerous spawned conspiracy theories on the consequential media coverage and investigations which are currently ensuing. Citelink (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Why do your best interests matter? It seems that we shouldn't be going pro-fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't comment if you have nothing productive to say. Citelink (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

What? what has your best interest got to do with it? Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Don't comment if you have nothing productive to say. Citelink (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Before this goes back and forth any further, I want to step in and say that this looks like some miscommunication that should not get blown out of proportion. "My best interest" sounds like someone for whom English might be a second language, and should probably be understood simply as "my best suggestion" and not as being about self-interest. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I used the wrong wording. Citelink (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: Fringe conspiracy theories around the assassination are unlike those around events like 9/11 or Kennedy's assassination in that they have not achieved mainstream consciousness and RSs at anywhere approaching the same scale. In order not to give these unsubstantiated statements too much weight, it's better to reduce this article's conspiracy section. If a person or organization is especially involved in conspiracies related to this assassination, let's discuss it on the articles for those subjects, not a content fork. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Support reducing the size of the large section Mikewem (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Is this the official split discussion?

  Oppose split. The content is not (yet?) individually notable as its own topic. Mikewem (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories article was created less than a month after the shooting occurred, despite the conspiracy theories on that particular event being just as mainstream as the ones made towards this event. Keep in mind, the shooting is quite an old event, but we're making comparisons in the hypothesis of the two and their coverage in the first few months of the aftermath. Citelink (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's also worth mentioning that this event is already listed on List of Conspiracy Theories. Citelink (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's probably receiving undue coverage there. The Sandy Hook theories had actual consequences: there was a whiplash against gun control measures, Alex Jones was found civilly liable for spreading the "crisis actor" theory, and it spawned a trend of similar theories. The Kirk theories simply haven't had the same impact (yet). Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  The Alex Jones lawsuits occurred years later. But due to how recent this event is, perhaps we'll have to propose another split WP:Split in the future, conceivably when we have a verdict for the trial and sentencing of Robinson, or if the conspiracy theories somehow become even more mainstream than they already are. Citelink (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose split. I don't think that the section is so large that a separate standalone page is needed for that reason. And I would see the split (at least at this time) as simply creating a WP:POVFORK; it's not clear to me that we are yet at the stage where the content would pass WP:NFRINGE. Keeping that content here has considerable value in providing context about where the conspiracy theories come from, as well as context for the rest of the page in terms of how the assassination has been intertwined with conspiratorial thinking. The Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, aside from being WP:OTHERSTUFF, differ from this case, because they led to extensive litigation and the downfall of Alex Jones, whereas nothing comparable has (so far) happened here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  The Alex Jones lawsuits occurred years later. But due to how recent this event is, perhaps we'll have to propose another split WP:Split in the future, conceivably when we have a verdict for the trial and sentencing of Robinson, or if the conspiracy theories somehow become even more mainstream than they already are. Citelink (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that's fair. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some topics require being presented in the context of a related or broader topic to promote reader understanding. Notability does not guarantee inclusion. “Notable” = topic is eligible for standalone-article treatment. But eligible does not mean “must receive article”. Being eligible for a visa does not mean you are guaranteed to get the visa. There are other considerations — see WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:MERGECON.—Alalch E. 20:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Bizarre 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. 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.

Someone messaged me this with the summary "wtf". I have removed it from the article. This is a poor graph, for a variety of reasons, but I will simply embed it here rather than write them all out. jp×g🗯️ 20:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

References

This has been discussed before, and gone through a lot of back-and-forth in the past: Talk:Assassination of Charlie Kirk/Archive 7#Should the pie chart in the 'Reactions and analysis' section be here?, and Talk:Assassination of Charlie Kirk/Archive 7#Left-wing versus right-wing violence. I have said, in those discussions, that I have had concerns about WP:SYNTH and about using images in an argumentative way, so to some extent, I have some sympathy for your edit, removing what had remained after those earlier discussions. On the other hand, we have reliable sourcing in those cites from the image caption, that establish that sources, not Wikipedia editors, have made the connection between what Trump said and what is shown in the graph, and I think that satisfies the earlier SYNTH concerns. Given that there has been prominent coverage of Trump and others asserting that left-wing ideology was what motivated Kirk's assassination, it also seems to me that WP:NPOV requires us to present, with comparable prominence, what the preponderance of reliable sources say – that this was wrong. I'm not convinced that someone telling you "wtf" is a strong enough reason to remove something that has been stable on the page for several months now. On balance, I'd say that you should be reverted and the image put back. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

In my view, we’ll need at least one reason (from among the variety of reasons) to be clearly (or even not-so-clearly) articulated by the remover in order to remove sourced information. Mikewem (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Came here only to find the image was removed without any reason. "wtf", indeed. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit unsure there's a compelling encyclopedic basis for this graph in this article. I'm also compelled to note that the substantial exclusion of 9/11 is incredibly bizarre from an encyclopedic standpoint. Why should certain mass casualty events be excluded rather than others? We could dramatically alter this graph by subtracting the Oklahoma City bombing. It's a poorly done graph. Leave it out, include text cited to RSs that clearly indicates Trump's comments were wrong, and leave it there. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there’s a case to be made for side-by-side versions at the graph’s home article. Mikewem (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, per policy, we don't, but sure: the graph is WP:SYNTH and given a grotesquely misleading label and data set. Left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist are the only three political ideologies? Christian whackos who blow stuff up and kill people aren't an ideology, but Islamic whackos are, unless the thing they blow up is the World Trade Center, in which case the people killed don't count at all, and they are gerrymandered out of the data completely, a fact noted in unreadably tiny text at its bottom, and not in its much larger label, or in the caption at all, for some reason. What is the basis for these specific selection criteria? Why is it paired with a gigantic editorializing caption that doesn't really relate to the subject of the article? None of this really makes sense, and the applicable policies pretty clearly indicate to me it shouldn't be done this way. Is there any benefit to doing this? jp×g🗯️ 03:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I generally think that this graph is stretching this out quite a bit. It's not directly related to Charlie. It belongs much more on Political violence in the United States, as I see it. We can document the argument and debunk the claim without using this graph, simply linking to Political violence in the United States#Current landscape is enough. guninvalid (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Now there’s an editor with a plan! We could call it something like out of scope? Mikewem (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

This graph was always a confusion of special pleading. If it's a right-wing attack it goes in the red portion, but if it's a right-wing attack committed by Muslims then it goes in the green portion. Right-wing attacks committed by Dominionists get no separate color. Also if it's an attack where Muslims have managed to kill more than a certain number of people, it's totally excluded from the chart. Attacks in the name of "foreign nationalism" are left in a gray sliver because assigning those to either a right- or left-wing category would require a knowledge of international politics, and America isn't really about that. Ultimately, the chart is more about aesthetics than anything else. Einsof (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the points that editors are making (and I'm glad not to see an edit war). As a courtesy, I want to ping RCraig09, who created the graph.

I think that an approach of replacing the image with some text (but with more than just removing the image and saying "see also") is worth discussing. I suggest that editors propose here in talk some language that we could put on the page if the image ends up being removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

As creator/uploader of this chart, I say: ● the chart is similar to several in reliable sources, and is not "bizarre". ● When the world's most powerful figure announces the assassination with specific reference to left-wing rhetoric, the claim itself, and widespread refutation of the claim, are both highly notable and specifically relevant to this assassination article. ● The chart's caption is based on source descriptions. ● Source's exclusion of high 9/11 death toll (a single attack) would have skewed results of overall left-versus-right trends that are under discussion. ● 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. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought perhaps the content of this chart could survive textually with an attributed sentence to the libertarian Cato Institute, but now clicking through to that Institute's founders, one finds that Murray Rothbard was an advocate for a conservative political alliance with KKK Grand Wizard David Duke (Rothbard was Jewish... so presumably he at least had enough sense to try to make those overtures through a mediator or something? lol). One of the other founders is Charles Koch (no comment!). I guess it's not impossible to craft some text for it, but the provenance has to be contextualized appropriately and I'm not sure how to do that. Einsof (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

RCraig09's justification for the graphic is strong evidence against its inclusion: it you have to remove the single largest event of political terrorism wholly subjectively without any consistency for removing other mass-casualty events in order to avoid skewing the graph in a particular direction, the graph serves as a vehicle towards making a point. Even the dates on the graph are carefully selected to exludes years of civil unrest during the preceding decade that saw heightened political violence from people on the American left. The majority of individual events of murderous violence in the US are almost certainly perpetrated by right-wing actors, but this graph is absolutely counterproductive to Wikipedia's mission. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Pbritti: Including the 9/11 victims would not change the ratio of right-wing to left-wing deaths, which is the purpose of the chart and numerous reliable source articles refuting Trump's claim. Including the 9/11 deaths would merely expand the green wedge of the chart, and squish the (pertinent) red and blue wedges. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but this doesn't address basically any of my objections. Why should it matter if it was made by Ronald Reagan, Vladimir Lenin or Tung Tung Tung Sahur? It is a bad chart for the reasons I listed.jp×g🗯️ 06:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

JPxG: "Okay"? ... if "it" was made by Reagan? ... You're essentially attacking the references; and I do respond to your 03:40, 13 June claims. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Please try to actually read what I wrote; I said the exact opposite of that. jp×g🗯️ 09:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I am also unsure what comment you claim to have responded to; the one where I listed the specific reasons for the chart being bad has no replies that I can see. jp×g🗯️ 09:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

References