Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

This article page is not established. I assume comment should best go to Talk:Kenosha_unrest to maximize participation. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter?

I'll start the discussion. Why is Black Lives Matter linked here? I can see it would be related to the Blake shooting article, but I can't see the connection here. This case is more a Second Amendment issue and I would expect appropriate links. If there's no objection, I'll remove the link and look for something better. Also, shouldn't this be a protected page? There doesn't seem to be a rush to revise it, but as the trial heats up, that may happen. Pkeets (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a stretched connection. Perhaps it was left over from the parent article. Springee (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I'll remove it. Pkeets (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump?

Why is President Trump discussed in the article? Other than clicking "like" on a tweet about it, he seems completely uninvolved. Pkeets (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, again I see indications that this article isn't being edited neutrally by everyone. For example, if you add information on the background of the protesters that confronted Rittenhouse (all three had criminal records) that gets deleted on the basis it's unrelated. Ok, fair enough, but then Kyle's trump tweet and some other things should be left out too. I don't care either way, but consistency is important. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Same here. It's apparently an effort to suggest Rittenhouse's political views and to imply that Trump supports shooting protesters, but I can't see any real support for the implication. I'll take it out. Pkeets (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I overlooked that this is the 'response' section, so comments by the president are relevant, so should stay (I've added them back in)... However, the mentioning of Kyle's support of Trump isn't relevant in this section... that should go in to the background section, if anywhere.

BTW, I suggest when deleting that much text to add a note to your edit summary when publishing, pointing others to the talk page, or else it can easily be interpreted as vandalism and your edits get reverted and no progress made.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.183.100 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarity issue

This statement in the lede is unclear: "suggest that a possible motive for the initial confrontation with Rittenhouse was that he was mistaken by a protester for someone else who was dressed in similar clothing." What initial confrontation? What protester? Presumably this is Rosenbaum, so why not say so? This just leaves the question hanging. Pkeets (talk)

When writing that part I had to keep it short because I found that if I add more detail then someone else deletes it, even if properly referenced. Also, details are in the shooting section so avoiding duplication is good reason too. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Could I suggest we make it "suggest that a possible motive for Rosenbaum's initial confrontation with Rittenhouse was that he mistook him for someone else who was dressed in similar clothing." That's actually slightly shorter, and clarifies the situation right away. Pkeets (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good (but for an edit like that I feel you don't need to discuss, just make the change and leave an edit summary...) --218.214.183.100 (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Done. Pkeets (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Please consider leaving an edit summary after each edit so that the page history is easier to follow ... (also, point others to the talk page if your reason for the change is in there) --218.214.183.100 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Rittenhouse offering medical aid to protesters?

I wouldn't doubt it but the first time I saw it it wasn't in the sources cited for this claim, and now it is attributed to the Christian Post, which as you can see here is not ideal [1]. --Calthinus (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless a more reputable WP:RS backs this up, I can't say there are reasonable grounds for this tidbit's inclusion. Love of Corey (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I'll remove it if there isn't sufficient sourcing by midnight (GMT). --Calthinus (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll try and find a reference. He did show off a sizable med kit in the video interview before the incident. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced the source. —ADavidB 22:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times article titled "Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings", already listed as a source, also supports the words in question, as it includes: "... Mr. Rittenhouse is around this area. He also offers medical assistance to protesters." —ADavidB 23:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks.--Calthinus (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Motive (in info box)

The motive in the info box keeps getting deleted. If it is added as "self-defense" it gets deleted on the basis that his true motive cannot be known. If it is added as "stated as self-defense" it gets deleted on the basis that it should be his true motive (not the motive given by the defense team). Surely we can complete this important field in the info box given that it is a key question that people want answered when they look to the info box for a summary. I prefer "stated as self-defense" but "self-defense" is equally good. Is there any other potential motive (that can be referenced) ? --218.214.183.100 (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It keeps getting deleted because there is no consensus for inclusion. Your suggestion that it should be just "self-defense" is laughable. There are two claimed motives, why should the infobox only present one? FDW777 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. As I stated I'm open to other motives (I wrote: "... Is there any other potential motive ..."), but at this stage the only motive that is referenced in the article page is the motive by the defense. I've looked but couldn't find the motive by the prosecution... could you add a reference to the page ? For now, I've added a tentative prosecution motive ('intentional homicide'). --218.214.183.100 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not restore anything until a proper consensus is reached here. I personally, strongly do not think we should be stating anything as a motive until the trial is over and a verdict is reached. This is a really sensitive topic here, and alleging one motive or another (or both) would be to open up a can of worms. Both sides of the political aisle have good reasons to turn this into a WP:SLANT article. Love of Corey (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree - I prefer the option of simply not filling the motive field until there's something concrete to go on. Sam Walton (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Plus, it's not like completely filling out the infobox is a requirement, anyway. We can always wait. I mean, look at all the other empty fields there are! Love of Corey (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy to agree to leave motive out for now, as long as we also leave out "Attack type: shooting" (which suggests a stereotypical mass-murder motive) which was the reason I added the self-defense motive as a balancing factor to make the info box more neutral. I notice now that attack type has since been deleted at some point, which I overlooked. peace --218.214.183.100 (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm for waiting. This is going to be a long, slow legal process, but after it's done, we'll have the court rulings and jury decision to nail things down. Pkeets (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, no one's arguing that this was a shooting, so I don't see what the problem is for that field being filled out. Love of Corey (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue I see with "attack type: shooting" isn't whether the incident is labelled as a shooting but whether its implied that it was an attack. If we don't add self-defense to the info box as a stated motive then it wouldn't be neutral to label the incident as an attack. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone shot another person with a gun. Regardless of the circumstances, it's pretty much an attack. Love of Corey (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Context is important. So why wouldn't we also use the word 'attack' instead of the word 'confrontation' in regards to the actions by the protesters towards Rittenhouse? Let's turn it around: "Someone hit someone else with a skateboard. Regardless of the circumstances, it's pretty much an attack". --218.214.183.100 (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this concern. We shouldn't use the word "attack" when it's apparent that the motive is self defense. If we aren't going to say the motive is self defense then is there an alternative word for "attack"? Springee (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Surely there's another field that we could fill out for this? Love of Corey (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't find one. I tried to add a custom field ("incident type") but it didn't let me. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There are preset fields for every infobox. You can't add new ones without editing the infoboxes themselves. Love of Corey (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue then really is that the choice of info boxes is limited (and the current one 'civilian attack' is in my opinion not the right choice given that, again, it judges the incident to be an attack rather than an act of self-defense). Perhaps a new info box type, e.g. 'civilian incident', 'civilian fight', 'civilian violence', would be worth considering, for cases such as this where it is disputed whether it is an attack or self-defense (or where it is still unclear, or where more than one party to the violence is the aggressor...). Happy to create a draft of this template if others are open to it. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with having the self defense in the info box but I also don't see it as critical. The argument that this hasn't been adjudicated is reasonable but in this case the question seems to be of it was reasonable self defense. That is what the legal system will decide. However, I can see how this puts things in a gray area which is probably best left to the text of the article. On balance I favor inclusion but the arguments against are reasonable as well. Springee (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

African Diaspora?

Is there a reason "WikiProject African diaspora" is linked to this article? I know Blake is mentioned in this article, but certainly the African diaspora isn't one of the major themes of the text. Pkeets (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Since there's no reponse, I'll remove it. Pkeets (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

"Confrontation by" or "Confrontation with"

The Events sub-headings have been "confrontation by ..." but were recently changed to "confrontation with ...". I reverted the change as no reason for the edit was given and I feel that the evidence clearly shows that Rittenhouse did not seek the confrontations, hence "by" would be the most neutral word to use. Thoughts ? --218.214.183.100 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"With" does not by any means imply Rittenhouse sought out the confrontations. "By" in this context implies the victims sought out the confrontations themselves, which a court of law has yet to verify if that was the case. Reverted. Love of Corey (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the protesters that were shot didn't confront Rittenhouse before they were shot? The video clearly shows they did. The motives behind the confrontations is something that is open to discussion (and to be decided by a court of law) however the fact that confrontations were sought is very clear. I've added in the evidence that Huber's motive was to prevent shootings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.183.100 (talk • contribs)

Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should refrain from making these kinds of assumptions until a court of law decides what really happened. The politically volatile nature of this case makes this article vulnerable to all kinds of slandering and vandalism, and we should avoid taking any sort of side until the trial is finished. Love of Corey (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If we are not taking a side, then "with" is not the right word to use, because it can be interpreted to mean that Rittenhouse sought confrontations. No matter which words we use there will be a natural human inclination by the reader to seek an understanding through interpretation as to who sought or started the confrontation. Given that there is no evidence that Rittenhouse sought confrontation the word "with" is the wrong word to use. The source articles and videos clearly state/show that Rittenhouse was approached by, and engaged by, Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz, hence my opinion that the word "by" is the better word under the circumstances. And again, I ask, is there any evidence that Rosenbaum etc. didn't confront Rittenhouse ? We shouldn't shy away from facts due to political issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.183.100 (talk • contribs)

Reworded subsection headers to remove any names, and therefore any implication as to who did what. Love of Corey (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice. I removed the numbers and replaced with names (but without specifying who the actor was or the acted upon) because numbers 1-3 are misleading as there were 5 confrontations in total, two by unknown individuals. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm now confused, what was the order of the confrontations, then? Love of Corey (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There were two confrontations between Rosenbaum (1st) and Huber (4th)... the guy who knocked of Rittenhouse's cap and the guy that jumped and kicked at Rittenhouse. We could add a separate heading for confrontation 3 and 4, which was there originally, but this got edited away due to there being too many sub-headings. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Reworded again. I strongly don't think we need the victims' names in the subsection headers at all. Love of Corey (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

With what we are left we may as well take the sub-headings out. The reason I added the sub-headings in was because when I showed the article to someone who was interested in the matter they exclaimed that because the 'events' section lacked sub-headings it made it difficult to quickly identify where each of the three major confrontations started or ended. So I added sub-headings to aid quick reference to anyone who wants to research the matter so that they can find the confrontation they are looking for without having to read the entire events section. Hence I still prefer keeping the sub-headings, but in the format "Confrontation: Name". The names are already in there anyway. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The interests of one person, let alone an outsider from the Wikipedia process, shouldn't dictate how the article should be presented. That's not how consensus works. Love of Corey (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, that is why we are discussing this on the talk page. An alternative is to be more specific, and label them: "First major confrontation", etc. that way we don't have to list the minor confrontations. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Dominick Black in the article

I'm not sure Black should be mentioned in this article at all. Unlike Rittenhouse I think wp:BLPCRIME applies to his name (For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.) I propose removing Black's name from the article. Courtesy ping @Pkeets and NorthBySouthBaranof:. Springee (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, further, according to the article the crime alleged doesn't seem to have any real connection with the shooting. It would be one thing if they were saying the purchasing intent was to be used at the shooting, but it seems it was purchased before the unrest and the intention was for hunting. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to removing his name until there's a conviction. We could describe him as an "acquaintance of Rittenhouse"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Are we comfortable saying friend? Acquaintance does work but it could imply someone he knew only casually vs someone who I assume was a well established friend. Springee (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Fix date

Friday Nov 19 2020 is not a valid date.

Should read Friday Nov 20 2020 Boredenthusiast (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020 (2)

Kyle only killed 2 people and i was in selfdefence and it was the only shooting he was involved in.. The first shooting wasn't done by him which has been made perfectly clear.. Is wikipedia going to be a place for propaganda or truth?? Otto1982 (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020 (3)

change protesters to rioters 71.60.208.131 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No. WP:BLPCRIME violation regarding one living and two recently deceased people. FDW777 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Rittenhouse "walked towards police with his hands up"

Rittenhouse visibly handles his weapon at multiple points while approaching police, occasionally raising his hands as well. It seems inaccurate to mention one but not the other, especially as it appears there is no citation for the characterization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5520:90C0:A4A6:DA7B:E612:C011 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, he did not keep his hands up, and can be clearly seen touching his firearm multiple times as he approaches the police and then leave. This sentence should be removed. Carthradge (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

ADD: Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old at the time of the shooting. It was illegal for him to carry or own a firearm in WI. 21 years old is the legal age of ownership of firearms. Rshaw2019 (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not hard to find. [2] is one example (though it seems to be 18 not 21). The fact that the article does not mention this at all, despite being something explicitly illegal done by the shooter, shows the bias in it at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carthradge (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall this issue being raised previously (perhaps before this shooting article was split off), and illegality being questioned because the state law reportedly has an exception for hunters. The shooter's allegedly being a militia member may also complicate the legality. I didn't find this readily among talk archives or edit summaries, however. The gun was/is supposedly owned by someone else. —ADavidB 00:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added the phrase, "allegedly illegally" to the lede's description of him being armed. We can't say that it was *for sure* illegal for him to do so, because that's a crime - and he hasn't been convicted of the crime yet. However, it's clearly relevant that it is against the law for a 17-year-old to possess a rifle. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

Eezee89 (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect use of wording "protesters". The correct wording us "rioters".

 Not done. See above. FDW777 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Ziminski

I might be worth making mention of Joshua Ziminski, who was charged for discharging his firearm into the air immediately before the incident that has been more well known. --199.192.183.2 (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Gaige Grosskreutz appears to have handgun

Dlthewave made a good faith edit here [[3]] stating that Grosskreutz "appeared to have a gun" based on the report to the court. I think that was the proper way to handle this when the content was new but we since have reports where Grosskreutz says he had a gun. [[4]][[5]]. Any concerns with changing it back to "had a gun" based on these sources? Springee (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I wasn't aware of the newer reports and it makes sense to update. NY Post isn't reliable but the CBS source is fine. –dlthewave ☎ 03:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It should say that he has a Glock semi-automatic handgun, and pointed it at Rittenhouse. I'm not sure why that detail is not there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:949A:5900:4D14:41B0:362D:28E2 (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Kyle Rittenhouse said to his friend over the phone "I just shot somebody" not "I just killed somebody" 2601:182:4301:DCB0:1478:43C7:A13F:E0EA (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Gaige Grosskreutz had a illegal hand gun

The wiki page about the Kenosha unrest it says Kyle had and “Allegedly” illegal firearm, where it just says Grosskreutz had a handgun. When in fact he had and actual illegal handgun because he’s a felon. I’d like it to be changed. Thetruth1682 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Per Snopes, Grosskreutz had not committed a felony crime. While he had been arrested on suspicion of a felony, the charge was dismissed. —ADavidB 05:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Have reliable sources reported if the people involved in this event are illegal drug users? That's a definite prohibition (https://www.williamslawonline.com/press-room/top-ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-federal-firearms-law/). As for Grosskreutz, he's got a misdemeanor conviction (https://www.quora.com/Was-Gaige-Grosskreutz-a-convicted-felon-or-not) for "armed while intoxicated" which is a Class A Misdemeanor (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2003/statutes/statutes/941/iii/20/1) the penalty for which maxes out at 9 months (https://www.grievelaw.com/MilwaukeeCriminalDefenseAttorneyBlog/WisconsinMisdemeanorClassesPenalties), which falls below the misdemeanor federal disqualification (https://www.mystatecollegelawyer.com/criminal-defense/firearm-possession-prohibition/misdemeanor-conviction-firearm-prohibition/) Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Primary source documents

Anyone have a good link to the court filings in this case? We should be quoting primary source documents when possible. Here's the criminal complaint: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint.html Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No we shouldn't, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. FDW777 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you missed the part where I said "if possible". The caveat against court document primary sources is conditional; the relevant wiki guidance says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" (my emphasis). The key here is what are we using it for? If we are using a secondary source for language about what charges/defenses were filed in court, the actual filed documents have the full information on that point. We're not making assertions, if we do no more that quote language from the filed documents. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Except that isn't what you said. It's right there above, you said "when possible" not "if possible". They mean very different things. FDW777 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

absence of time frame causes confusion

We need to add the word "later" to this sentence: "Rittenhouse was arrested and charged with multiple counts..." As in "Rittenhouse was later arrested..." Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Factually, Kyle Rittenhouse committed murder.

It is an undeniable fact that Rittenhouse committed a heinous crime. Murder should not be covered up because of the race or age of the perpetrator. There is no reason not to list the crimes committed. This is NOT a matter of opinion, these are cold hard facts, and the facts say that Kyle Rittenhouse shot two people dead, and committed murder. A neutral position means not speaking on matters of opinion, but as a mentioned, that's not what this is. 18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder Laananas (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not murder until there's conviction. His trial is not over. Not all killing is murder, and his lawyer's have claimed self-defense. Wait until the legal case is over. —ADavidB 23:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

At this point, it's a homicide, but it may or may not be murder Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

On the flip side, FACTUALLY he was attacked several times and used the most effective means at his disposal to defend himself. FACTUALLY he was merely defending private property from a mob intent on causing, having already caused, damage with threatening behaviour. FACTUALLY at least one of the people he shot brandished a firearm and threatened him. FACTUALLY your facts are not facts.

Obvious narrative is obvious. 2600:6C5A:657F:F417:740A:7BF7:46B6:F763 (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosenbaum

According to the Washington Post, Rosenbaum was mentally ill,had multiple suicide attempts, and was released from the hospital that very day for one. More importantly, I believe it is inaccurate to refer to him as a protester given this information as there is nothing to suggest he was there in support of BLM.

Sinsoto (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

References

As a general point of agreement we should avoid referring to any of the involved parties as "protestors", "rioters", etc. Avoiding labels all together is probably best. We simply don't have solid information as to why each person was their or what their intents/actions were. I would not add the mental illness claim to the article unless some strong sourcing says it played a role in these events. It becomes a very prejudicial comment about a BLP(recently deceased) subject. Springee (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: - Nothing is wrong w/ prejudicial comments. As long as they're backed up by high quality reliable sources that is. I'm a tad surprised there's no mention in this article of Rosenbaum's fairly extensive list of run-in's w/ the law and violent incidents. I appreciate the BLP concerns here, but this stuff got cited by a whole slew of the highest quality news outlets. Why aren't we following the sources? NickCT (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

NickCT, my feeling here is similar to my feeling below. It's possible Rosenbaum's history is what caused him to decide it was a good idea, in my opinion, pick a fight with someone with a gun. However, I don't recall any sources saying that specifically. As such we need to be very careful about implying that he was an aggressor or that his history was relevant to this confrontation. Again, this is erring on the side of protecting the BLP subject. Springee (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: - I think erring on the side of protecting BLPs means that we only relay information found in multiple high quality reliable sources. Again, if sources felt this information was worth mentioning, I'm not sure why we're double guessing them. Do they really have to explicitly say "his history caused him to decide it was a good idea"? Do they have to say "X led to Y"? I don't think so. Mentioning X and Y in the same article if enough to imply the two are related.

Anyways, there's no way to really know what was going through peoples' heads at the time, right? Even is Rosenbaum's mental state was a factor, no one could know that for sure (which is probably why the sources don't explicitly say that). NickCT (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. My concern is I haven't seen a source that says Rosenbaum did what he did because of this. As such my read of BLP and DONOHARM is we should err on the side of exclusion. It may be worth asking both of these questions at BLP if nothing else to help calibrate our respective views on what should/shouldn't be in an article like this. It's possible I'm simply to restrictive (I also am very wary of contentious labels in Wiki voice at almost time). Springee (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: - Recognizing this is only an essay; if you look at Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm#An_inclusion_test, do you think content on Rosenbaum's mental issues would pass that test? NickCT (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I tend to feel the answer to the 3rd question is no. I've seen no sources that say Rosenbaum's history is why he acted this way. Given the way he acted and that information I'm not surprised but I still think this should be left out since we don't have RSs saying A->B (I have seen oped type article suggesting as much). Springee (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

re "since we don't have RSs saying A->B" - I'm struggling to understand how that causality plays into due. I can point to lots of content in lots of biographies that isn't directly linked to a subject's notability. Are you saying all that information is undue?

"Due-ness" is simply a measure of whether we give content similar weight as sources do. So for instance, if only 1 out of 4 sources mentioned Rosenbaum's mental issues, it would be inappropriate to make all the content here about his mental issues, b/c that would be undue weight. NickCT (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Remember, this isn't a BLP article, it's an article about an event. BLP restrictions apply to what we discuss with respect to the people associated with the event. In general, yes, like a court case, I'm saying this evidence shouldn't be part of the record. If you disagree it's possible that my views are the ones less aligned with policy/guidelines. Still, I think with BLP we should always err on the side of caution. We don't really know why Rosenbaum decided to act as he did that night. While we can make an educated guess based on the information at hand, I feel that is not something we should do in a Wiki article where BLP rules apply. This is is also why I'm opposed to including facts that would tend to cause the readers to speculate or lead readers to a conclusion not obviously supported by RSs. Perhaps I'm simply being overly cautious but I think that is better than the alternative. Springee (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)