Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Is the lead too long?

Do editors feel the lead is too long? Personally I think the lead goes into too much play by play details regarding the events of that night. I think the four paragraph structure is good but it seems like we have too much detail in each paragraph. For example, why mention Black in the first paragraph? Is it sufficient for the intro to simply say he had the rifle? Why mention McGinnis or Ziminski in the lead at all? I don't see this as a IMPARTIAL issue since I think the current lead is generally fine in that regard. However, it goes into too much detail too quickly in my view. Springee (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead has a considerable number of issues. I do not agree with placing the aquittal in the second sentence.Cedar777 (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

We agree the lead can be better. The acquittal doesn't have to be in the second sentence but it should be in the first two to four. It is a very critical detail. Additionally, we start with a clear statement that Rittenhouse shot and killed people. In an earlier version of the lead it wasn't until near the end of a rather long lead that one actually sees that Rittenhouse was found to have acted in self defense (his claim all along). That he was found not guilty on all charges should basically immediately follow the top level summary of what he did (shot people). Springee (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If it was Rittenhouse's bio, I'd be more inclined to agree with that type of placement. Trouble is, the scope is broader & includes BLP issues for several men.Cedar777 (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

My concerns have less to do with an objection to Black's inclusion specifically, and far more to do with an enduring discomfort with how those who were the most impacted by this event are being addressed in an article about the shooting as an event. The key people of the Kenosha unrest shooting are Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz. While figures such as Black, Ziminski, and McGinnis are relevant (as they have either themselves been charged or were key to the charges brought against Rittenhouse) they are secondary to the four afore mentioned men, two of whom are dead (leaving behind grieving friends & family), and one who is maimed for the rest of his life. Who's voice and perspective is being over-amplified? and who's is being surpressed?

Of course, the two men that have died cannot speak another word. The family members from one released a statement, per The Hill, and this statement you deemed undue . . . meanwhile the opinion of Rittenhouse's mother, also per The Hill, is not deemed undue or an unnesscessary detail and was left in the article undisturbed. Something doen't add up.

Regarding trimming details from the lede, information about the secondary figures (Ziminski, McGinnis, Black) could be simplified or omitted and saved for the body.Cedar777 (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't recently read through the whole article so please don't take my removal of Huber's family statement to mean I support the inclusion of other statements. If Rittenhouse's mother is quoted I would tend to feel that is also undue. She was not a party to the shootings nor a significant player in the legal proceedings. I do agree that in general the lead doesn't need to cover Black at all or McGinnis. Probably not Ziminski either. When we get to the play by play just before the first shooting Ziminski's gun shot in the air is significant. Additionally some of the Ziminski's activities before the first shooting might be DUE. However, for the lead, no. I'm in total agreement that the lead really only needs to say Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 people, wounded a second and shot but missed a third. I think each shooting event could be described with a single sentence in the lead. The trial could be covered by a 2-4 sentence paragraph and the social reactions etc in an additional 3-4 sentence paragraph. Springee (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The "play by play" or summarized sequence of events in the lede is largely the result of a complete lack of agreement from editors on how else to mention the men involved. While it is not ideal, omitting Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz is not the answer either. Cedar777 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If I gave the impression that I wanted to remove Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz that was a failure to communicate on my part. They are too important to leave out of the lead. However, I think we can describe these things in very high level terms. First confrontation shot and killed R, second, confrontation as KR was leaving the area shot at unnamed person, shot and killed H, shot and injured G. By making this very high level we avoid debates about which details should be in the lead etc. My suggestion was only to leave out the, for lack of a better term, secondary participants/witnesses. Springee (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If this article describes a "shooting", then which shots were relevant? Were Rittenhouse's missed shots at "Jump Kick Man"? Ziminski's first shot? Just the ones that hit people, or just the ones that killed people? If this describes a broader event involving other firearms and shots, which it does, then I think including Ziminski, et al is totally warranted. The article covers the event that transpired when the "Kenosha Unrest" was taken to another level (sorry to sound like Gordon Ramsay, but it was). This is about the event that happened when tensions boiled over into violence. Yes, I'm saying the lede should not have undue focus on Rittenhouse by omitting crucial players who escalated the situation. 2600:1012:B065:F8DB:31E4:61E0:EE11:128B (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The number and qualitiy of sources that cover these various aspects of the event are key. Read all the existing sources cited in the article . . . How many mention Black? How many mention Ziminski? and how many always list Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz? The lede in its current state gives UNDUE emphasis to Black and Ziminski. Cedar777 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think the second paragraph could be removed entirely without losing much from the lead as a summary of the article. As long as we retain the names of the other active participants elsewhere in the lead; the proseline is just not appropriate for a lead at all. JeffUK (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

While the summarized sequence of events in the lede (and the details it contains) have long been a source of dispute - that doen't necessarily indicate that total erasure of the paragraph is the answer. It seems that much of the problem lies in how the deceased (Rosenbaum and Huber) and the living person (Grosskreutz) are defined. They are the men most consistenly mentioned by reliable sources when describing this event and they are the most DUE for inclusion. Some editors seek to vilify and malign the deceased men, while simultanouesly suppressing or erasing the perspective of Grosskreutz - who not only gave interviews to WaPo and CNN long before the trial but was also covered extensively during the trial. If we define RH in terms of age and geographic affiliation, we should also define these men by their age (at the time of the shooting) and geographic affilitation. Cedar777 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I didn't do a lot of research trying to dig up that info, but I did find some of the info you mentioned and some other info with some quick googling; see NPRsourceWAPOsourceNY POSTsource BLP would probably bar some of the info in there from inclusion in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think a good way to avoid vilifying or deifying is to stick to a very high level description (KR shot R, fled towards police, second confrontation occurred where he shot and missed an unnamed person, shot and killed H and shot and injured G. I would avoid putting the perspective of any of these people in the lead in large part because it avoids the issues of giving/taking weight away from the perspectives of the participants. I'm not too concerned (for or against) with mentioning the age/location of R, H or G. KR's age was a legal factor that was discussed a lot and was an issue at trial. His home town (out of state) was a factor in much of the coverage but legally shouldn't have mattered. For this reason I'm not opposed to removing his home town from the lead. I think the age part was too critical to remove but I'm open to changing my mind. Springee (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I made a bold edit to the lede to reduce the blow by blow and excessive detailing as discussed above. The content was simplified to list the name, age, geographic affiliation, satus as unarmed/armed with, and whether it was a fatality or not. Black and Ziminski are discussed in the article body. The sentence structure was shifted to more a more neutral reference point - with each man starting off as the subject of the lede sentence describing whether they were killed or injured, rather than framing everything in terms of Rittenhouse and his actions. If we include why RH said he was there, it logically follows that we would include why GK said he was there - better yet, lets keep it simple and save both for the article body. Cedar777 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that is an improvement. As a small change, I do think, if we are going to say Rosenbaum was unarmed, it should also say Rosenbaum chased (or similar) Rittenhouse to the parking lot or that Rittenhouse was running away from Rosenbaum just prior to the confrontation. That change would be only a small increase in size but a helpful increase in understanding. Regardless, the edits were clear improvements and got rid of a lot of the detail we don't need in the lead. Springee (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I made this "chased" change before seeing that you wrote about it here, so... I agree. —ADavidB 23:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That small adjustment seems fair enough. Cedar777 (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I added back a few parts of what was removed from the lead, but overall the length is still far below what it was a few weeks ago. The necessary context is that Rosenbaum lunged towards Rittenhouse and tried to take his rifle, Huber tried to take his rifle, Rittenhouse shot at jump-kick man while on the ground after tripping, and that Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with a handgun before being shot. Otherwise, it sounds like Rittenhouse shot an unarmed man solely for following him, Rittenhouse shot at a man who jumped kicked him while they were both running, Rittenhouse shot at a man who hit him once with a skateboard and did nothing else, and that Rittenhouse shot a random man with a handgun for no reason, all of which are completely inaccurate descriptions of what occurred. Bill Williams 23:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to retain the blow by blow in the lede.

All these sequence-of-events concerns and narrative details are better saved for the body as several editors above have suggested. The consensus was that blow by blow material was not appropriate and either needed to be eliminated or pared down considerably (please correct me if I am mistaken regarding advocacy for minimization of paragraph 2 and reduction of blow by blow in the lede JeffUK, Springee, and Wtmitchell). Paragraph 2 was paired down so that it no longer functions as a mini-narrative but is simply a statement of A) who (first & last name), B) how old, C) where individual was residing, D) status as either armed with skateboard/handgun/AR-15 or unarmed.

There were four men out on the streets of Kenosha after curfew on Aug. 25 that were directly involved in the shooting (as they either fired a shot into another human being or were directly hit by a bullet or bullets). The bare bones information about each of the four men is:

• A) Kyle Rittenhouse, B) then-17-year-old, C) Antioch, IL, D) armed w/ AR-15
• A) Joseph Rosenbaum, B) 36-year-old, C) Kenosha, WI, D) unarmed (carrying plastic bag)
• A) Anthony Huber, B) 26-year-old, C) Silver Lake, WI, D) armed w/ skateboard
• A) Gaige Grosskreutz, B) then-26-year-old, C) West Ailis, WI, D) armed w/ handgun

The skateboard isn't listed to tell a sequential story, rather it is included for consistency to decribe what one man was using as a weapon during the "Kenosha unrest shooting" event.

Jump kick man was also removed from the lede as he was not hit by the gunfire. Perhaps, if information about him from multiple RS expands at some future time, it will later be appropriate, but for now, he too is better suited for the nuances described in the body of the article. Cedar777 (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

My take is Cedar777's edit here [1] was a clear step forward in quality. I also think changes in here are also generally good [2]. I'm mixed on Cedar777's latest edit [3]. I appreciate the desire to cut down on the play by play but I think it may have gone too far.

Running down the list of edits:

• I think the change from not-guilty to affirmative defense is perhaps more accurate but doesn't read as well but I'm OK with either.
• I agree that we should attribute the claim that the group of armed people were their to protect vs having it in Wiki voice.
• I can see leaving out the claim that Rosenbaum lunged since that was at least disputed at trial. That said, I wouldn't be uncomfortable leaving it in either since it adds very little length to the lead.
• I'm mixed on the tripped part. That Rittenhouse was on the ground was critical to understanding why he didn't run away from the second series of assaults. On the other hand if a reader doesn't realize tripped=on the ground during the subsequent assaults then it's not an important fact.
• I think jump kick should be restored. This person clearly did assault Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse fired at him and was charged with attempted murder for doing so.
• I'm indifferent on the two descriptions of the Huber interaction. Both contain the critical parts, assault with skate board and shot. I'm not sure if grabbing for the rifle is in dispute. It adds very little length so I have no issue with it from that POV.
• As for GG, I prefer the version where it is clear he was approaching Rittenhouse, not just that he was near by with a gun.

Hopefully we can find something in the middle that will be acceptable to all. Either way, I think the intro has come a long way. Springee (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead does not need to mention that Grosskreutz pointed the gun at Rittenhouse if you do not want it to, but it cannot simply state that Rosenbaum chased him and was unarmed and shot and that Huber hit him with a skateboard and was then shot. Each of those is half of the story, with Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse for minutes before only being shot after he lunged at Rittenhouse, and Huber hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard and then trying to pull away his gun. Without the necessary context, the sentences are inaccurate, and this context barely adds to the length of the lead. Bill Williams 07:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources do not support those additions being included in wiki voice.

Regarding Rosenbaum the AP clearly attributed it to defense attorneys, while wittness Kelley did not agree that there was conclusive evidence for "lunging" On Tuesday, the jury watched drone video that was zoomed-in and slowed down to show Rosenbaum following Rittenhouse, and then Rittenhouse wheeling around and shooting Rosenbaum at close range. Kelley, the pathologist, said Rosenbaum was shot four times by someone who was within 4 feet of him. He testified that Rosenbaum was first wounded in the groin and then in the hand and thigh as he faced Rittenhouse, and then was shot in the head and in the back. Those final two shots were at a downward angle, the pathologist said. Prosecutors have said this indicates Rosenbaum was falling forward, while defense attorney Mark Richards said Rosenbaum was lunging. Kelley said both scenarios were possible.

Regarding Huber, sources only agree that Huber hit RH with a skateboard. AP News: Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, was shot in the chest after apparently trying to wrest the gun away from Rittenhouse, the complaint said. According to court records, Huber had a skateboard in his right hand and used it to “make contact” with Rittenhouse’s left shoulder as they struggled for control of the gun. and NPR: Huber eventually caught up to Rittenhouse and tried to stop him by hitting him with a skateboard. But the single blow was not enough to bring Rittenhouse down. Within seconds of the tussle, Rittenhouse fired a single fatal shot into Huber, who can be seen staggering away, then collapsing onto the ground, in video footage of the incident. Neither source said that Huber straight up "grabbed RH's rifle" only that there was a tussle, a struggle, or an attempt to stop RH. Cedar777 (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Armed Men Who Came to Kenosha

Next to the part about armed men who came to Kenosha to protect businesses, the article stated that this claim was "according to their own assertion", which I removed. FormalDude added it back, but no reliable sources state that the men are lying about coming to Kenosha to protect businesses, so having "according to their own assertion" implies that their reason for coming is disputed, but it is not. Bill Williams 04:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Various sources on the matter can be seen here[4]. Bill Williams 04:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Having "according to their own assertion" is the truth. Leaving it out lends weight to their assertion. Obviously all we know is what they claim, and we cannot take their word alone as objective fact. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Their stated reasoning for coming there is not disputed, so why should the article state "according to their own assertion"? Do we state that after every other fact in this article that is undisputed? Bill Williams 04:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of mixed on this. I agree there is no evidence or reason to assume these people's intentions aren't true to their statements but we shouldn't state their intent as fact in Wikivoice. Do we apply this sort of "according to themselves" type language to other people discussed in the article? In the case of Grosskreutz the article uses "said" and "testified" quite a bit. Perhaps a different attribution would work better? nd had joined a group of armed men in Kenosha who, said/stated they according to their own assertion, came to Kenosha to protect businesses. Springee (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with any attribution, as long as it's attributed. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I changed the attribution to "stated that they" instead of "who, according to their own assertion" since it is more neutral instead of implying that they are lying. Bill Williams 05:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I approve of the slightly more neutral wording introduced by Bill. It’s also better in terms of readable prose. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Attribution is necessary as Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources state and NYT cited in the article attributes it: By the third night of protests, Mr. Rittenhouse had joined a group of armed men who said they were there to protect businesses.[5] Best to retain the NYT wording.

Second, there are two active civil suits, already described and RS'd in the article, which refute the position that armed individuals had gathered in Kenosha solely to "protect property". NBC reported that in their lawsuit Huber's parents said that Rittenhouse was answering the "racist and violent calls to action from militia members".[6] Reuters described a seperate suit filed by Grosskreutz, "The lawsuit said the social media posts made clear that the militia members were not at the protest to protect local businesses or contracted for security by any local stores. " and that "unnamed militia members intended to kill protesters they said were rioting and looting." [7] Cedar777 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither lawsuit should be treated as a reliable source for factual claims. Springee (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to change the title from "shooting" to incident

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.

---

The word shooting could imply that the event was a form of attack or something other than an incedent of self defense Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Self-defense is irrelevant to the name of the article, since the "incidents" that occurred at two separate locations were both shootings, hence that is the most accurate term to describe the article. Bill Williams 22:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Incident is too vague, it conveys almost no information. Keep as “shooting”. WWGB (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The AP uses “shooting”[8]. We should follow suit. —В²C ☎ 08:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FormalDude, while I agree this name shouldn't be changed, I don't think this discussion should be closed. It's not a RfC and other editors may wish to weigh in. Not that I expect many would push for the change but they should have the opportunity if they wish. It's better to simply state your view (presumably against this change) to make it more clear where consensus stands. Springee (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Well if y'all think that the title should be shooting then I guess that's cool :) Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Timeline lacks inciting incident

The sequence of events in the article skips from Rittenhouse leaving the gas station to being chased by Rosenbaum. Apparently in the interval, he acquired a fire extinguisher and attempted to put out a fire in a car and/or dumpster when the initial confrontation happened with Rosenbaum and/or Ziminski. Here are some news sources about what the prosecution and defense said about this critical span of time: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Christian Tiebert ("visual investigator" at NYTimes) compiled some photos/videos in this time gap [14]. I don't know if any of it made it into official NYTimes publications. Sennalen (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I can see this being of value. Can you propose some text for editors to look at? Springee (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's a start:

After hearing that cars were being set on fire nearby, Rittenhouse obtained a fire extinguisher and ran to that location. Rittenhouse testified that before reaching the fire, he encountered Zeminski armed with a pistol, and that Zeminski told Rosenbaum to attack him. The prosecution alleged that before any other hostility took place, Rittenhouse dropped the fire extinguisher and levelled his rifle at Zeminski, thereby provoking the attack. The available video footage of these moments is grainy and difficult to interpret. Rittenhouse fled from the two men while yelling, "friendly!" in an effort to defuse the situation.

Sennalen (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Ihat's better than I would come up with, but I think the timeline there and the final sentence need nitpicking -- the cited source doesn't support "in an effort to defuse the situation". I haven't looked at the many sources out there, but I see that this source describes KR's testimony on this as follows:

Rittenhouse said the violence began when he was walking toward a Car Source lot with a fire extinguisher to put out a fire.

That's when he testified that he head someone shout "Burn in hell."

"I respond with ‘Friendly, friendly, friendly!'" Rittenhosue said.
[...]

He said Rosenbaum was running at him from one side and another protester with a gun in front of him, “and I was cornered." He said that's when he began to run.

As I read that, KR testified that he announced "Friendly" while approaching Car Source. This source says that it was "around the start of the chase". this and this say that it was as R was chasing KR. There's a timeline discrepancy here which the video wouldn't resolve unless it covers both the approach and the chase (perhaps KR announced "friendly" in both periods). I'm not sure whether I've contributed clarification or confusion with that comment, so I'll leave it there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is the most complete (composite) video I have seen.[15] The relevant part starts around 1:10. It looks like Rosenbaum and Zeminski were also on the move, arriving at the lot seconds before Rittenhouse. Someone (probably Zeminski) yells "get him" before Rittenhouse gets to the lot, and he responds "friendly, friendly, friendly". After that, Rosenbaum (who was behind cars, whether intentionally hiding or not) emerges and Rittenhouse starts to run. Zeminiski yells "get him" a second time.

I thought I had seen something in the sources about his intention in yelling friendly, but I can't find it again currently. While looking for that, I did find some more details about how he got there:

According to Black, the militiamen received a call that cars were being set on fire at another dealership. Rittenhouse, being south of the police barricade, was in a better position than the rest of the group to reach that location. Rittenhouse obtained a fire extinguisher and went to respond. Rittenhouse testified that before reaching the fire, he encountered Zeminski armed with a pistol, and that Zeminski told Rosenbaum to attack him. The prosecution alleged that before any other hostility took place, Rittenhouse dropped the fire extinguisher and levelled his rifle at Zeminski, thereby provoking the attack. The available video footage of these moments is grainy and difficult to interpret. Rittenhouse yelled "friendly, friendly, friendly!" and fled.

Sennalen (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Sennalen, thanks for the effort you are putting in here. I think this is generally good but I'm concerned about including the claim that Rittenhouse dropped the fire extinguisher and levelled his rifle at Zeminski. I think a number of the people following the trial in detail felt that was a last ditch effort to save their prosecution case. It was something that was disputed by the defense and no clear evidence of this was presented. Additionally Zeminski didn't testify to this claim (or at all). I don't think the other claims were disputed at trial so I would be less concerned about including them. If it were clear which claims were undisputed vs which were clearly challenged etc I think I would be better with this. Springee (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a problem since it's in-text attributed to the prosecution, but if someone feels better adding the claims here one or a few at a time, I don't mind. Sennalen (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's attributed but that doesn't mean the claim is in the least bit credible and we shouldn't present it on a way that suggests it was anything other than a theory of the prosecution with no meaningful evidence. This same prosecution started the trial by claiming Rittenhouse was chasing Rosenbaum but never presented evidence to support that claim. We shouldn't include the Rittenhouse chased claim in a description of what happened either. It does make sense to include the aimed rifle provocation theory in a section on things the prosecutor alleged but not as a generally accepted fact. Springee (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't object to that part being in the trial section. Sennalen (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2022

Add the following at the beginning of the section "First confrontation": (unresolved ref tags are those already used in the article. The AP source is also there but without a name on the tag.)

According to Black, the militiamen received a call that cars were being set on fire at another dealership. Rittenhouse, being south of the police barricade, was in a better position than the rest of the group to reach that location. Rittenhouse obtained a fire extinguisher and went to respond. Rittenhouse testified that before reaching the fire, he encountered Zeminski armed with a pistol, and that Zeminski told Rosenbaum to attack him. The prosecution alleged that before any other hostility took place, Rittenhouse dropped the fire extinguisher and levelled his rifle at Zeminski, thereby provoking the attack. The available video footage of these moments is grainy and difficult to interpret. Rittenhouse yelled "friendly, friendly, friendly!" before Rosenbaum began to chase him. Sennalen (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This seems like unnecessary detail, and "militiamen" is not found in any sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: What term would you favor for the armed men defending the car lot? Sennalen (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I would go with Mechwarriors, but what I favor isn't germane. We use what sources use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Given that the source I cited for the claim[16] says militiamen, what word do you think the article should use? Sennalen (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Need a login to see that source. Are there any other sources calling them militiamen? We should be going off what the weight of sources provide. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It has never required a login for me. In any case, here is an archive link.[17] If you don't have any other term to suggest based on sources, there is nothing to discuss about weight of sources. Sennalen (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Re the term, some quick googling only turned up this for me, but neither "militiamen" nor "militiaman" currently appear in the article. "militia", "militia group" and "militia members" do appear, and such use seems widespread ([18]). This NBC News opinion piece says that the legal team for Rittenhouse has called him "a member of the 'militia'" and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a story headlined Kyle Rittenhouse, charged in Kenosha protest homicides, considered himself militia. Without digging deeper I have the impression of that terminology being well established. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I still have my objections but I think they can be addressed (see topic above). I don't see an issue with militia but please don't use any of the claims of Rittenhouse's early lawyers. It's not clear Rittenhouse ever considered himself part of a militia. Anyway, I think we need to fix a few things before adding. Springee (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Despite the impression which might grow out of my occasional comments here, I'm not following this; I'm reacting to appearances on my watchlist. I've seen Rittenhouse interviewed by Tucker Carleson a few times but I have the impression that he hasn't made many statements beyond that. I don't know whether he has clearly characterized himself anywhere -- perhaps he has, but I'm not aware of it. I do see this, which says: "The legal team for 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse has called him a member of the “militia” and a “minuteman,” referring to the patriot forces that fought the British at Lexington and Concord in 1775. ". It's an opinion piece on NBC News -- for whatever that may be worth, and I don't know whether holding Rittenhouse up against the colonial minuteman comes from the Rittenhouse legal team or from the author of that piece. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to find a good summary article. I'm not certain this is it but I'll use it [19]. I think Pierce and Wood were Rittenhouse's first lawyers. From what I've read in various places they were good at fund raising and decided to claim this was a big 2nd A case as a way to drum up support. The story you linked was from before the original legal team was fired. In a post trial interview his lawyer specifically stated that he wouldn't take the case if it the legal team was going to also take on a political angle. Note: I would oppose including any of this without strong sourcing, I'm just discussing it as some background for why I would be concerned about making too strong a connection between Rittenhouse and militias. 02:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Kyle Rittenhouse needs separate article

Kyle Rittenhouse currently redirects here but at this point Kyle Rittenhouse is way beyond WP:ONEEVENT. The trial is over and he continues to be in the news. I don’t have time to write the article but just want to check on consensus about a separate article and encourage someone to write it… В²C ☎ 20:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this is unlike articles on many other criminal suspects, with Rittenhouse being extensively covered in the media for his activities outside of the shooting and the trial, especially by conservatives. Bill Williams 23:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

[20] various examples of his interviews can be seen here. He is certainly notable enough to have his own article. Bill Williams 23:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I would wait on this. I agree Rittenhouse (or his handlers) seem to want to milk his current celerity status but if this has no staying power then what? Why have an article on him? I would wait to see if he continues to be famous or leverages this temporary status into something lasting. If yes, then do a BLP about him. Springee (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter if nobody ever writes about him again. There’s already enough material about him to warrant an article. WP is replete with with articles about topics lacking “staying power”. That’s not even a factor to consider in deciding notability. —В²C ☎ 13:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

He's in the news because he's having interviews about the night and the trial. This is all still coverage about the event. We have to remember, since he was criminally prosecuted any interviews he had before the trial could be used against him during the trial. Since he can only now actually voice his own take on the events in question in interviews it is not really appropriate to claim that these are not part of the original event. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m having deja vu. The same argument was made opposing the creation of the Kim Davis article because she was in the news ostensibly about the same event. But in both cases the original event, the trial, and the aftermath are all distinct separate events. After all, the DA could have chosen not to charge Rittenhouse, and there would have been no trial. And now there are articles about his political ambitions. —В²C ☎ 15:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The notability guideline covering Rittenhouse would be WP: CRIME. For a victim or a perpatrator we need coverage significantly longer than the events in question. Most examples of significantly longer are a minimum of 6 months after the events ended. If he becomes a politician that is another story, as he would fall under the notability guidelines for politicians. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

No, "still in the news" doesn't make it preferable for us to have a stand-alone article. There's plenty of space to cover everything about him that is of encyclopedic interest here. VQuakr (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles on people commonly have a section on their early life, personal life, etc. and clearly none of that should be covered here, on an article about the shooting. That should all be covered on his own personal article. Bill Williams 18:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The ~2 sentences that we would have on him unrelated to the shooting, can be included here. VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

His early and personal life, among other parts of a biography of a living person, do not only sum to two sentences. Multiple paragraphs in his own personal article could describe aspects of his life, preceding and following the shooting and trial, including the major interviews that came afterwards. Bill Williams 19:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Anything of encyclopedic interest is related to the shooting. Give it another six months, and we can better judge what aspects of this pass the 10YT. VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I doubt his early life and personal life are publicly available, so I doubt a full-fledged biography on Kyle is possible (Aside from using whitepages). MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. If nothing else his post acquittal interviews/appearances are specifically due to his involvement in this case. I don't see much reason to cover it at all and if we do a high level comment that his acquittal has been followed by public appearances or something. Nothing about Rittenhouse outside of this event is notable. He is still a BLP1E person. Springee (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

And by that reasoning Kim Davis is also a BLP1E person. So are countless others about whom we have articles. You can cite the letter of the law all you want, but actual practice is quite different, and thankfully so. This article is very awkward since it's inescapably about Rittenhouse, but is trying to be about the event. It looks amateur. --В²C ☎ 00:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that discussion of the question of whether BLP1E makes sense be left to the WT:BLP policy talk page, that it be accepted here that BLP1E, being current policy, is a WP:RULE, and that the discussion here be about whether or not there is consensus here to exercise the WP:IAR option. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Counterexamples to Kim Davis, mentioned above, would include Nicholas Sandmann and Ashley Babbit. Other examples probably exist on both sides of the issue. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree another article is warranted as he has become substantially notable for the events, to a level similar to other individuals who are notable for 1 incidents (like George Floyd, Derek Chauvin, and George Zimmerman). He has continued to garner media coverage post trial. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's very odd that there isn't an article about Rittenhouse specifically. He'd quite obviously notable, as has been demonstrated already above. The lack of an article shows it's own editorial bias, at this point. Ohms law (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Description of Biden's reaction in intro is extremely misleading

The summary currently says: "Public sentiment of the shootings was polarized and media coverage both polarized and politicized. [...] President Joe Biden called for the jury's verdict to be respected."

This summary/introduction presents an extremely distorted picture of Biden's actual politicized opinion on the matter. If you dig waaay down in the article you find (vague and incomplete) mentions regarding:

A) Biden implying EXRTEMELY strongly that he considered Rittenhouse to be a white supremacist, and

B) 'The White House issued a written statement saying "While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included[...]"'

Therefore: it is ridiculous and manipulative to have a statement in the summary talking about political polarization that quotes only the bit from Biden urging for the jury's verdict to be respected, without mention the other editorializing things that he said. The summary is strongly implying that Biden was encouraging either political neutrality over the trial, or even support for Rittenhouse. Given his statements about white supremacy and his vocal "anger" over the verdict, this is clearly not the case.

This criticism (about the introduction being extremely misleading) is true regardless as to whether or not you believe that Biden was right to criticize and politicize the situation as he did. I am merely pointing out that the summary should be presenting facts (regarding Biden's reaction to the controversy) in a truthful and non-misleading manner.

I'm not going to actually edit the article myself...I don't have the stomach for dealing with politically motivated Wikipedia editors. But someone should fix this.

Blue Rock (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to present WP:RS that say this is misleading or wrong. Or point out the hypocrisy. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Dominick Black case update

On January 8th, 2022 Dominick Black plead guilty to "aiding the deliquency of a minor" which resulted in a non criminal citation that carried a $2000 dollar fine. The "Other Criminal Charges" section should be updated to include this information. [21]

History Man1812 (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)History_Man1812

I added some of that info, using the source you provided. I'd appreciate a review of the language I used. Firefangledfeathers 18:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Springee (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Does Joseph Rosenbaum need a separate article?

As the arguments about whether Rittenhouse should get his own article continue, I find myself wondering whether we need to have an article about Joseph Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum may never have become notable enough to merit an article if it had not been for the way he died. However, since his death , his life has been covered extensively in the media which makes him notable. (Redacted)

Much of the coverage of his life in the press and social media has been very polarized, some portraying his as a hero others as a criminal. This is notable, regardless of whether the claims are true or simply invented to bolster an agenda. A discussion of Rosenbaum's life would be a distraction from the article topic.

I am not sure what Wikipedia policy on this matter is, but I would be interested in seeing an NPOV article that helps the reader figure which of the sources about Rosenbaum's life are reliable and possibly how notable distortions about his life got promoted by mainstream and social media. Annette Maon (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd say no. He was not notable prior to his death and posthumous coverage doesn't change that. He is only notable for this one event. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

As it happens, there is currently a discussion at WT:NPOV/FAQ#Majorities and minorities re how to handling differing viewpoints between sources. See there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen substantial media coverage of Rosenbaum specifically, except basic background info and his involvement in this incident. Seems unnecessary to have a separate article per WP:ONEEVENT. However, adding a "Persons Involved" section with brief background information on the relevant parties seems appropriate (e.g., what is present in Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor#Persons_involved. DirkDouse (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, if information is going to be added to this article or as a new article regarding Rosenbaum, particularly if it is going to talk about sexual abuse, criminal history, no-contact orders, and suicide attempts, it should be verifiable and relevant (WP:BLP).

(Redacted)

Judge Schroeder may have ruled that jurors in the Rittenhouse trial could not be told about Rosenbaum's background. The details of other verifiable events in Rosenbaum's life that are documented in various WP:RS may distract the reader from the contents of this specific article. (Redacted) But this is an encyclopedia - not a trial. The relevant facts should at least be presented somewhere so an informed reader can make up their own mind and reach their own conclusions. Annette Maon (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Rosenbaum

Rosenbaum said "shoot me nigga" not "shoot me nigger" can someone fix this and change it?

I don't know what the WP-proper response here is. The "Shoot me, nigger!" assertion is supported by two cited sources; [22], which requires a subscription to access and I don't know what it says (I've just tagged it url-access=subscription), and [23], which says: "Mr DeBruin said he heard Mr Rosenbaum say: '[F**k] the police over and over again. I’m not afraid to go back to jail. Shoot me N-word. Shoot me N-word.'" Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Given this was spoken I'm not sure we can easily decide it was "a" vs "er". I'm not sure how much it matters either. I do have a question about one of our claims. There is a statement that a Kenosha Guard member aimed his rifle at Rosenbaum. That comes from this WP source [24] "When a member of the Kenosha Guard, a self-proclaimed militia, pointed his gun at him, Rosenbaum became enraged and dared the man..." However, in the rather extensive coverage of the case I don't recall any other source saying a KG member aimed a gun at Rosenbaum nor do I recall seeing it in videos. Is there another source to back this claim? The WP has been generally good here but this is the sort of fact that, if true, I would have expected to see mentioned more often and in later tellings of the events. Springee (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's another url-access=subscription source; I wasn't able to look at it. My local library might have a copy, I haven't checked. This AP story which appears in numerous places says, "Binger repeatedly showed the jury drone video that he said depicted Rittenhouse pointing the AR-style weapon at demonstrators. [...] 'This is the provocation. This is what starts this incident,' the prosecutor declared.” WP:DUE is the applicable policy, with WP:RSP as a guide to source reliability and editor consensus about applying WP:IAR as a backup. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

There was definitely the prosecution theory that Rittenhouse aimed the gun at someone but the "shoot me" quote in question occurs earlier in the evening and the source doesn't say it was Rittenhouse who aimed the gun. I don't think the prosecution even proposed that theory until the trial. As for the WP article, I was able to open it on a computer that I normally don't use for news but not on my other system. I think the link is one of those "you have X number of free articles left this month" things. The quote I included above was from the WP article so I have no doubt they reported it shortly after the event but I'm not sure if that was something that was shown in a video or was just reported to the WP but couldn't be verified later. Springee (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Gaige Grosskreutz pointing handgun at Kyle

I think a more accurate decription for the Gaige Grosskreutz shooting would be:

Gaige Grosskreutz, a then-26-year-old West Allis man pointed his handgun at Rittenhouse, then was shot once in the right arm by Rittenhouse and survived.

GigglyBits (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Contentious section on Civil litigation violates WP:BLP and gives undue weight to Fringe theories

The article contains a long section on civil litigation against various parties. I am surprised that there is no mention of litigation against those responsible for a ticking time bomb like Rosenbaum being on the street in the first place. If any litigation of the sort exists, it should be mentioned. If there is no such litigation, that fact in itself is notable. Annette Maon (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Googling quickly turned up this and this. There are probably more and better sources out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: I see the relatives of the ticking bomb suing the Authorities for being too cozy with vigilantes. Is anyone suing the the Arizona justice system for releasing Rosenbaum from jail or the hospital for releasing him after a suicide attempt? Annette Maon (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know and was unable to find the answer with a quick google search. In any case, I'm doubtful about that having much relevance in this article. Do you suggest otherwise? If so, perhaps you can locate a reliable source with supporting information. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The lack of coverage about any litigation or disciplinary action against those who released Rosenbaum allowing him to trigger the events in which he and Huber were Killed seems much more relevant (to me) than the whole existing section on civil litigation. If Rosenbaum's actions and background which led to the events described in the article are irrelevant, then so is the civil litigation. The one sided coverage only makes the article seem like a POV push. Annette Maon (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Annette Maon, section headers must be impartial. Your long section header violated BLP (which still applies to Rosenbaum) and was not impartial. If you wish to add a more descriptive/specific header that is fine but please keep it neutral. Springee (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A google search for "section headers must be impartial" did not bring up any WP policies that refer to Talk pages (as opposed to article space). (Redacted) Calling him a ticking time bomb is appropriate for the context. WP:BLP would not apply even if I were to quote these statements in article space. Even if BLP did apply in article space, is not an excuse to violate Wikipedia policies here on a Talk page. Springee's edits repeatedly and blatantly violated "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" (WP:TPO) it "obscures the original editor's intent" and deprives "replies of of their original content" (WP:TALK#REVISE) especially with regard to my later reference to the "relatives of the ticking bomb". Springee does not have my permission to change my comments on this talk page. Please revert the changes to the title of this section. Annette Maon (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space outlines that BLP applies outside of articles. BLP trumps talk page guidelines. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition to SFR's comment above, the TPO applies to the editor's comments, not the headings under which we are all replying. Springee (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I am surprised that there is so much contention about whether Rosenbaum who has been dead for more than a year is covered under BLP in this talk page while there is no mention of BLP concerns about the contentious one sided article space coverage of Rittenhouse who is still alive. Apparently referring to Rosenbaum as a "ticking time bomb" based on reliable sources like the Washington post and the New York post is considered controversial even on a talk page. Meanwhile a controversial lawsuit that "was withdrawn by the plaintiffs without comment and dismissed with prejudice" is quoted in article space even though it violates WP:BLP, makes wikipedia look like it supports conspiracy theories and is irrelevant to the shooting incident itself. Annette Maon (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Annette Maon, please note that the New York Post is considered unreliable by a consensus of Wikipedia editors per the long list of sources at the bottom of this page: WP:RSP. Also, the subject of this article, the “Kenosha unrest shooting” covers both criminal and civil litigation, some of which is active and some of which has been withdrawn. It is important to specify both which plaintiff or party initiated the filing and in which court (state, federal, etc) the litigation was filed in, as there are several players and several different filings and it can be easy to get them confused. Cedar777 (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Cedar777 Thank you for pointing out that "New York Post" is considered unreliable. Reuters which also covered the same incident is considered a reliable source by WP:RSP. I agree that "it is important to specify both which plaintiff or party initiated the filing and in which court" for lawsuits that are relevant to the shooting. What I dispute is the relevance of quoting irrelevant lawsuits in a way that makes Wikipedia look like a WP:SOAPBOX for fringe conspiracy theories.

Meanwhile there is no mention anywhere on Wikipedia of Rosenbaum's well publicized and relevant court records showing that he was (Redacted) homeless on the streets on the night of the shooting because his fiancé warned him that if he violated his no-contact order, "he could be sent back to jail". Forget actual WP:NPOV, it seems that no one here cares even about maintaining the appearance of WP:NPOV on this talk page, much less in the article itself. Annette Maon (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Section headers do have to be neutrally worded. They must also follow BLP and respect WP:TONE. Eruditess (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Vandalism

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and can't edit, but in the "Other litigation" section under the Civil litigation heading the word "boys" has been changed to the meme variant "bois". Can someone fix this? Veilure (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

minor errors

<ref name=":3"> --> <ref name=":3" />

and ran --> and run

shooting time

11:48 pm is in the article. Please change 11:49-11:59 p.m. to 11:48 p.m. - 11:59 p.m. 75.144.185.89 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be added that Rittenhouse acted in self defense, now that he was acquitted?

Since Mr. Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges shouldn't the introductory text make clear that he shot in self defense? AlphaHeartless (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The lede already says that. or at least that "self defense" was his successful legal argument, which is essentially the same thing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a big distinction between 'shot in self defense' and 'self defense was his successful legal argument'. Although I would have to see what other articles say in these kind of situations. ― TaltosKieronTalk 17:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely a difference between being found not guilty using an affirmative defense of self-defense and acting in self-defense. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If sources were clear that this was a self defense act then I don't think we would have to be so careful in choosing words. However, I think many feel this was not a legitimate case of self defense and I'm sure there are sources that reflect that view. In fact we have an after the verdict section to reflect that not everyone agreed with the verdict. However, at a minimum sources do agree that legally he was not found guilty of the crimes for which he was charged and his defense was that his actions were self defense. As I've argued in other cases, this is an encyclopedia and we should err on the side of caution when making claims. This means erring on the side of attribution when claims are subjective and not widely to universally held. It also means saying "acquitted of the charges" instead of "acted in self defense". As a thought case, imagine if Rittenhouse had died in a random car crash before trial. How would we have presented these events without the trial? We couldn't say he murdered the people even though a number of sources would argue that. We also couldn't say he acted in self defense even though some sources and expert opinions argued that. Instead we would just mention both and then say it never went to trial. Springee (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Rittenhouse was found not guilty of the crime of murder (and all charges and allegations of misconduct) after a jury of his peers were presented the evidence in public court and found the actions to be justified. 2600:6C40:6B00:7732:CF0A:FC50:E5C9:812A (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Re “a jury … found the actions to be justified”, there is no such finding. The jury just found him not guilty on criminal charges. Big difference. WWGB (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This encyclopedia used to be fact based. Now it's a series of battles over opinions. Rittenhouse was found not guilty because the Jury concluded he acted in self defense after an extensive trial with all the evidence considered. Just because some hot heads think he committed murder doesn't mean we the encyclopedia has to offer both sides etc. You can't have a not guilty virdict without a finding of fact that his self defense claims are valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.254 (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The jury didn't conclude he acted in self defense, they concluded there was at least a reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes he was charged with. There is a lot of daylight between the two. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC.

AFAICS from this, the jury simply found him "not guilty" on each count charged -- count by count. Anything beyond that is interpretation. Interpretation by cited reliable sources is allowed, in compliance with to WP:DUE. Editorial interpretation in wikivoice is not allowed, right? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@TaltosKieron I agree that there is a big difference in tone between the two and it's not immediately clear to me which version is more WP:NPOV. Some Wikipedia examples to look at of other famous (not necessarily similar) acquittals that come to mind:

• Joan Little, 1974
• O. J. Simpson murder case, 1995 (not a self-defense acquittal)
• Death of John Ward, 2006 (Ireland)
• Basil Parasiris, 2007
• Killing of Trayvon Martin, 2012
• George Zimmerman, 2013

some emphasise self-defense / acquittal, some emphasise the killing. ObsidianPotato (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

From my reading of WP:DUE, WP editors should not be making editorial judgements about the weight of outside sources based on their own opinions regarding the POVness of those sources. Also, if source A says X and, later and possibly after much discussion outside of WP, source B says Y, X and Y being in conflict, WP editors should not be making editorial judgements based on their own opinions about whether X or Y is correct. The differing judgements made, who made them, when they were made, and what influenced them may all have enough topical weight for inclusion -- or they may not. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In this case, the lede arguably contains a bit of WP:OR. The top quoted source (NYT [25]) leads with "Mr. Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges after standing trial in the shootings of three men — two of whom died — in the aftermath of demonstrations in 2020 in Kenosha, Wis.", and not with "On August 25, 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two men and wounded another". ObsidianPotato (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: The other source [26] opens with the same line as the article, so it's really only a case of whether the lede reflects WP:DUE of the sources correctly. ObsidianPotato (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the difference between those two sources is one was written before the verdict while the other was written right after. The critical information in the NYT article was the new (at the time) information that Rittenhouse was found not guilty. Thus it makes sense that an article that was presenting that bit of late breaking news might lead with it. However, if we zoom out a bit we might say, the most critical part was that people were shot and some died. The next level is that the self defense claim withstood the trial. I think it is reasonable to put the acquittal statement in the second sentence vs the first. Springee (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree - I think it would be interesting to have another article on the Rittenhouse trial itself, given that it also received enourmous amounts of attention and coverage. But since this one is about the shooting, it makes sense to present the information as is. ObsidianPotato (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Evaluating Article

Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of all charges but this does not mean he was acting in self defense. He was however, able to use this argument to his advantage to the bare minimum legal obligations to be considered self defense over the fact that he acted in pursuit of a means to an end. This article is relevant in that it evaluates not only the constitution of rights surrounding fire arms but also privilege differences among jurors. MalloryWebb17 (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Bergmanucsd (talk) 00:22,22 Apr 2022 (UTC).

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 fully agree he commited murder but the article is supposed to be neutral. What happened is that, after shooting 3 people and killing 2 of them, he argued that he acted in self defense, and the court agreed.

This does not mean he was defending himself, or that he is innocent, it just means that's what the court went with and he was cleared.

Isn't this already what the article says? No change needed. June Parker (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

"I fully agree he commited murder" Our personal views should not be reflected on the text. We must simply record whatever absurdity takes place in the American legal system. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

And see here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What is this suppose to mean? June Parker (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have not read where I go into detail to explain why the article is and should remain nuetral despite what I feel June Parker (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Many reliable sources have concluded Rittenhouse was acquitted because he acted in self defense. Anyone who watched the trial and listened to the testimony could see that. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The article already says this, it says he successfuly used the legal defense of "Self defense" to avoid punishment for killing two men and shooting the third. The article mentions controversy because there was ferverous and notable controversy. It does not and will not push conspiracy theories when it already states what occured. June Parker (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What "conspiracy theories" would those be? DarrellWinkler (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, for one, why do you feel that the article needs to change to state your opinion as fact? June Parker (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

grammar

Add a comma after 11:48 pm. 161.77.227.47 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done, in this edit. I assume this was the comma you were looking for, let me know if I was off the mark. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

date of verdict ?

Why is that date not in the article? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Should be 3 seperate articles

Kyle Rittenhouse should get his own article

The trial should get its own article

The shooting should get its own article

You have a mini-biography, his mini-political career after the trial and shooting, details of the trial, details of the shooting, I mean it's just all over the place. It's a terrible article because 80% of it has nothing to do with the actual shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5880:6D0:B997:8CD:6F0B:9D4F (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The article has many things that are not prominently about the shooting. I suggest to change the title to something like Kyle Rittenhouse homicide case Lightest (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse biography?

Just in the past few days, Rittenhouse has made headlines for his (odd) appearance at Turning Point USA's Young Women's Leadership Summit, apparently incorrect claims he made on an appearance on The Charlie Kirk Show about attending Texas A&M, and his comments about the Depp v. Heard trial "inspiring" him to pursue his own defamation litigation. It's been two years since the shootings now, and he seems to have become something of a conservative celebrity, but there's very little about all that that would make sense to include in this article. So, should Kyle Rittenhouse be its own article separate to this one? Endwise (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Worth keeping an eye on, Endwise. We probably wouldn't use the Newsweek and Rolling Stone articles in a surely-contentious BLP, but I'm guessing their existence suggests more to come in RS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Just putting my two cents in the conversation, I agree Kyle Rittenhouse should have his separate page. He's somewhat of a celebrity, and cultural figure who makes news fairly frequently. Just today he posted a on twitter that gained attention which seems to be an apparent death threat against President Joe Biden.The One I Left (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Rosenbaum was suicidal which is a relevant fact

because earlier he was clearly attempting to incite violence by screaming the n word and then he instigated violence with a person open carrying an assault rifle. Rosenbaum had no business being on the street because he had just attempted suicide. Clam chowdah (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You must provide citation that says exactly this. Else you're just opining EvergreenFir (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm just adding sourcing breadcrumbs here in case someone wants to follow up. I don't think that this usable directly here, but parts of the article it describes, which I have not seen, might be. That might be this -- it's behind a paywall and I have not looked at it. This other article also looks doubtful for use directly, but it cites other sources (including that paywalled one) which might be. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It certainly seems very odd that Rosenbaum's behavior in the hours before the shooting scarcely appears at all in this article, and what there is is relegated to the "Trial" section. A lot of media reporting focused on it, a lot of trial testimony discussed it. The legal arguments hinged on it; whether Rittenhouse "provoked" an otherwise-peaceful Rosenbaum, or if Rittenhouse was in fear of Rosenbaum based on what he had witnessed him say and do. We need to include Rosenbaum's actions in "Sequence of events > Before the shooting", not just Rittenhouse's. A reader cannot get an accurate understanding of these shootings, otherwise. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Background and Sequence of events

Hoping to make these sections a bit clearer, I made some edits (Special:Diff/1091959311/1092216981):

1. Created new "People Involved" section, moved the large Rittenhouse paragraph from "Background" into it as a sub-section, and created preliminary sub-sections for other main participants.
2. Ordered "Sequence of events > Before the shooting" chronologically (so Aug 24 events happen before Aug 25) and separated overview and Rittenhouse-specific info.
3. Deleted duplicate content and changed some phrasing.

Cedar777 reverted these edits with the edit summary: "restore content & sources from stable version describing context/sequencing/events leading up to & during the shooting per RS". But I didn't add any new content or sources, I only moved existing content and sources and deleted some duplicate content.

Cedar777, can you elaborate?FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Two days and no discussion. I'm restoring the changes. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The initial edit had the edit summary of “further edits” which did absolutely nothing to clarify intent. What was the purpose of said further edits? It seems the gist of it involves segregating information and or attaching/detaching it to Rittenhouse vs. the people he shot. It’s a dubious move to create three sections with only one sentence - no sources or new content to substantiate these sections. I see another editor collapsed the sections as they were rather odd. Cedar777 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Grosskreutz's "expired" concealed carry license

In court, Grosskreutz stated that his CCL had expired. However, Grosskreutz was convicted of a felony that was expunged, as per the Heavy article. Wisconsin does not restore gun rights automatically after expungement; would need a governor's pardon for that. So no, Grosskreutz's gun license didn't "expire" in the normal thinking of the word. Furthermore, him having the gun at all would be a class G felony. Any idea how to correct this issue in the article without too much drama? CorruptUser (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I add this? Only asking because highly political article... CorruptUser (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

CorruptUser Looking at the Heavy article, I can't see anywhere that Grosskreutz's CCL was revoked because of his felony, only that it had expired. You may be right in that if he had re-applied it would have been denied, but we can't say that for sure. Same with him committing a felony by having the gun during the event. This case shows Wisconsin law is not so clear on who may or may not carry guns. I would suggest not adding either of these things yet, until a reputable source states them explicitly. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It would've been revoked at the time of conviction, if not when he was charged. I mean it is possible it expired, then he got convicted, so technically it did expire, but the way it was done in court was to imply it was just something he forget to renew like, e.g., he forgot to do the yearly inspection on his car. So he should've known that being in possession of the gun was a Felony, and even if not, ignorance of the law and all. But that's probably one reason Rittenhouse lived; Grosskreutz hesitated to use the gun at a distance because in doing so, there's absolutely no way a court wouldn't be able to convict him on the criminal possession charge. CorruptUser (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You would need a source that specifically says that about Grosskreutz. We can't synthesize a conclusion from Wisconsin statutes. VQuakr (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that, can't just be implied. CorruptUser (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

victims

i just now changed the subheader from "victims" to 'injured and dead'. Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz were shown to be participants in the riot and to call them victims seems POV at worst but not neutral at least. .usarnamechoice (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I wondered about POV when I first saw that heading, so I checked this, this, this. However, I think the change is an improvement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Quite a few RS use the term victim. See -[27], and [28], and [29], and [30] among others. Cedar777 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Can we find better options? I agree that victim is problematic given Rittenhouse was not found guilty based on a claim of self defense. As the judge said at trial, the deceased weren't to be called victims as that was prejudicial. That sources before the verdict or even after use the term is not persuasive to me. A jury found they were not victims of a crime. That said, I also don't want to act as if those who were shot were acting out of malice. G and H certainly could have been acting in good faith that they were trying to stop someone who was shooting for a reason other than self defense. I think "Dead and injured" comes off as too abrasive/unsympathetic while the reverse is too far in the other direction. I'm not sure which term would be better. So if we have a better suggestion I would support replacing "victim" but I don't think "Dead and injured" is a good replacement. Springee (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

if Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreuts are victims, shouldn't Rittenhouse also be listed as a victim? he was assaulted with a skateboard by Huber, Rosenbaum grabbed his rifle which is attempted theft (or battery), and Grosskreutz leveled a gun at Rittenhouse's face. the subheading should be changed from 'victims' or include Rittenhouse as a victim. .usarnamechoice (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The title of the article is, Kenosha unrest shooting. Rittenhouse, the shooter, certainly wasn't a victim of the shooting and it would be confusing, at least, to say that the shooter was victimized by the persons he shot. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

he was a victim of the unrest. as i stated, Rosenbaum tried to rob him, Huber assaulted him with a skateboard, and Grosskreutz aimed a gun at him. it could be argued Rittenhouse was the only victim and the rest were perps. but i would never try something that bold on wikipedia .usarnamechoice (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Even Fox News refers to them victims, stating “Grosskreutz was one of three victims Rittenhouse shot on Aug. 25.” [31]. Which reliable sources refer to Rittenhouse as a victim? I only see some describing him as a suspect . . . Cedar777 (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

So far all the sources that say victim are from before the closing of the trial. It does become a bit of a BLP issue since saying victim implies victim of Rittenhouse which implies Rittenhouse committed a crime. The legal system says he didn't. Springee (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Heading the section Victims invites readers to infer more of a specific POVish meaning in this context than the dictionary dictionary definitions of that term give it generally (I linked a few of those definitions above), as I think is demonstrated by this discussion. As I said above, I think that the now-reverted change to the somewhat more specific and less prone to POVish reading, but now reverted, heading as Injured and dead, was an improvement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

the legal system has both criminal and civil court. Rittenhouse still faces civil court. Cedar777 (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Has he been found libel in any civil case? Springee (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I do see one source mentioning Rittenhouse was a “victim” - Politico describing the public position of Trump [32] shortly after it was reported RH had attended a Trump rally [33]. These statements along with other stances advocated by that administration [34] occurred long before the criminal trial took place. Cedar777 (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

AzureCitizen has apparently fixed the POV heading several edits ago. :^) .usarnamechoice (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Technically the legal system only said that there's reasonable doubt as to whether he committed a crime, not that he didn't. Personally, I watched the videos and believe that he was justified in shooting Rosenbaum and Grosskreutz. The shooting of Huber was a bit more iffy in that while Huber had struck Rittenhouse and was in fact grabbing Rittenhouse's gun while he was shot, he was attempting to retreat; however, panicked and disoriented after being struck in the head by several people with a lynch-mob after him, it's more than likely justified though I'm not completely certain it was necessary. Similarly, the reckless endangerment charge for "jumpkick man", in that JM had already struck him and was in the process of retreat after doing so when Rittenhouse fired at him twice, but again, lynch-mob, disoriented with no time to react, so it's understandable and most likely justified even if there's a slim chance it wasn't. Further in his defense, there's two people that were part of the mob and backed off the moment Rittenhouse had a gun pointed at them, so it didn't seem to me that Rittenhouse was looking for an excuse to kill people. I believe the strongest case the court had was the reckless endangerment charge for McGinnis, where some of the bullets apparently went through Rosenbaum and near McGinnis's legs, as everyone with a gun should know what you are shooting at, but it's again understandable why Rittenhouse wasn't focused on McGinnis, and AFAIK shooting someone accidentally is only a crime if you were doing something illegal, e.g., if I aim for person X but kill person Y instead, it's still pre-meditated murder. In all honestly McGinnis was kind of a dumbass for standing near Rosenbaum if he had not intention of tackling him (and inadvertently preventing this whole mess). The one thing that does bother me is Rittenhouse just standing there, which I know, shock and all, but then he calls his friend. Not 911. It's not illegal AFAIK, and I don't know what I would do if I thought someone tried to kill me but I killed them first. I'm not upset that Rosenbaum died considering the pedophilia and the attack, but I saw one of the other videos not shown in court, where he is in the ground semi-conscious with a bullet-wound through his skull, and it doesn't matter how vile someone was, seeing them die is, ugh. None of that would push anything "beyond reasonable doubt" that Rittenhouse committed a crime IMHO, and honestly I think Rittenhouse had a preponderance of evidence that he didn't commit a crime, but I can't say that I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed no crime, if that makes sense. CorruptUser (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

that doesn't matter because KR was acquitted. .usarnamechoice (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes and no. His acquittal means the evidence never showed beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't commit a crime, but it does not mean he probably did not commit a crime. As I said, I believe he was probably innocent of all charges, but not equally probably in every single charge. I saw the videos of Rosenbaum chasing him, that looked like self defense to me, I can't say it was self defense beyond reasonable doubt in the world of Guilty until Proven Innocent, but very probably so. The video and images of Grosskreutz were much clearer as to what happened, and if judged separately, is far more obviously self defense than Rosenbaum, ignoring that lose the right to self defense if it's done during a felony so if any other case wasn't justified then Grosskreutz was de facto unjustified. Huber was the least likely of the three to have been justified, even though I believe there was still preponderance of evidence it was. CorruptUser (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse is no longer a redirect to this article

and is now a standalone, Kyle Rittenhouse. Was the undoing of the redirect discussed somewhere? Should this be discussed first? Zaathras (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras, the appropriate place to discuss the notability of a standalone Kyle Rittenhouse article would be on that subject's talk page. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I will choose as I see fit to, thanks. Since you just recreated that article a hot minute ago, it was more likely that there were more talk page watchers here rather than there. Cheers! Zaathras (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Of course you can choose to post wherever you want; no one is telling you that you can't. I'm simply reminding you of basic WP practice. If you need a refresher, you can review the page WP:TALK, where the opening line states: "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject". This is not the talk page for the Kyle Rittenhouse article, which I linked above for your convenience.

Also, "Duplicate discussions (on a single page, or on multiple pages) are confusing and time-wasting, and may be interpreted as forum shopping." (See WP:SEETALK).

Hope this helps! --Kbabej (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe there have been a few talk page discussions here about splitting Rittenhouse off into a stand alone page. Personally I don't think he's notable outside of this event thus shouldn't have a stand alone BLP. Perhaps a AfD is appropriate. Springee (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Needs to be an expansion in the pre trial period

I read that he gets charged with the shootings bu, for example, why was he not charged with [Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968#Title_X:_Anti-Riot_Act Title X: Anti-Riot Act]? He carried a gun across state lines? The section on the pre trial period makes it clear what the obvious charges were but it does not make clear what the decisions were to make such charges? By addressing as to why only certain charges were laid against Rittenhouse, might explain other parts of this article better. I can't seem to decide whether the prosecution was just trying to get a quick win or they were not really bothered if he was convicted at all. There are a lot nuances to this story that are lost in the heavy handed acquittal section. 146.200.202.126 (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Without reconfirming this, I recall that it has been shown that R did not carry the rifle across state lines. That doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article, and perhaps it being unmentioned argues in support of the point here. OTOH, the topic is the shooting, not the trial. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Are state level prosecutors allowed to file federal civil rights violations? Anyway, I'm not sure how Rittenhouse's actions would be seen as facilitating/encouraging a riot. The gun across state lines argument was put to rest once it was reported that the gun was never taken across state lines. Either way, evidence at trial supported the claim that the rifle was kept in Wisconsin. Springee (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Connected subject RfC

Kyle Rittenhouse's short description is the subject of an RfC, which can be found here. Thank you. --Kbabej (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Jump Kick Man Identity

Jump kick man’s identity should be included in the article his name is Maurice Freeman and here are the sources https://www.theblaze.com/amp/mysterious-jump-kick-man-who-took-aim-at-kyle-rittenhouse-s-head-identified-as-maurice-freeland-a-39-year-old-with-a-lengthy-criminal-history-2655764054 https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/alternate/amp/2021-11-16-the-disturbing-story-of-the-rittenhouse-cases-mysterious-jump-kick-man/ https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-jump-kick-man-who-attacked-kyle-rittenhouse-identified-as-violent-career-criminal https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/19/jump-kick-man-identified-in-rittenhouse-case-after-closing-arguments/amp/ https://lubbil.ngontinh24.com/article/maurice-freeland-s-wife-believes-he-s-jump-kick-man-makes-white-boy-comment-claim-minnesota-right-now https://flipboard.com/topic/domesticabuse/exclusive-jump-kick-man-who-was-filmed-kicking-kyle-rittenhouse-in-the-head-b/a-zAnTkmOJT6SEQS-ITLjb1A%3Aa%3A2679760903-f3256a7e2b%2Fco.uk?format=amp http://www.innercitypress.com/courtcasecast2rittenhouse111521.html https://meaww.com/amp/maurice-freeland-identity-jump-kick-man-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-hero-who-kicked-teen-career-criminal https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/jump-kick-man-who-kicked-kyle-rittenhouse-identified-as-known-felon/ https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/11/16/maurice-freeland-jump-kick-man/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-identity-of-mysterious-jump-kick-man-revealed.amp https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10217197/amp/Jump-kick-man-filmed-kicking-Kyle-Rittenhouse-head-revealed.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:206:301:4A90:0:0:0:0/64 (talk)

See WP:RSP for a long list that includes many sources and how a consensus of wikipedia editors evaluate them. The above sources are not usable as they are all considered problematic and unreliable. Even Fox News should be attributed for politics. Cedar777 (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Re Fox News specifically, though this might apply to other sources, see also Fox News[q] (politics and science) in WP:RSP. Based on what I see there, Fox News ought to be treated not as an unreliable source but as a source with a viewpoint and handled according to what WP:DUE mandates regarding such sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

there was more than one shooting

The title of this article is misleading, it should be changed to "Kenosha unrest shootings". The Rosenbaum and Huber fatal shootings did not arise from the same single event; there was no "shooting" which encompasses those two events. Those events were distinct shootings. Huber and Grosskreutz were shot by Rittenhouse in self-defense when they jointly attacked him; but Rosenbaum was shot previously, elsewhere, when he alone attacked Rittenhouse. There were two distinct attacks, and two distinct shootings. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

i wouldn't quite call it misleading but I do think it should be plural for technicalities DarmaniLink (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should combat misinformation

Add an explicit text somewhere in the most visible part of the text, ie the summary that the victims were not black, there is also a lack of criticism of the clearly absurd criticism which includes race where the victims were not even black, and this is not a crazy thing I am advocating, there are indeed sections of wikipedia with criticism of the criticism or talking about rebuttals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:1DCC:D192:F42:194A:A033 (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Done Sennalen (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Undone... WP:RGW. We only note race when sources do (WP:DUE) EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the article and does not generally need its own citations, but there are sources that note the race of the victims individually and collectively, so we can go down that road if need be. Sennalen (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A Ctrl-F search shows no mentions of the races of the Rittenhouse victims EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the information on them has been pared down substantially since last time I looked, which is prudent per BLP1E. Rather than reverse that trend by expanding it, I could put back only the sentence in the lede but with citation. Alternatively, the coatracked mention of Jacob Blake's race could be left out of the lede. Without that tendency to mislead, there would be no need to correctively mention the actual victims' races at that point. Explaining that Blake is black is not problematic at the point it appears again in the Background section, where it doesn't risk confusion about what the topic of the article is. Sennalen (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Blake's race is central to the unrest's start, specifically the response from the BLM movement. But for his race, this awareness, response, and ultimate unrest would likely not have happened. RS near-uniformly mention Blake's race. Rittenhouse and his victims' race are not widely highlighted by sources and are not necessary for readers to understand the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that the races are relevant, but I am not sure that they are all white. Wasn't the jump kick man black? Maybe we don't know for sure who he is, but he could have been black. Roger (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No he wasn't. But regardless, we go by sources, not what we personally think EvergreenFir (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the claim with sources. It would still be better if the lede only linked Shooting of Jacob Blake and left all these details to the body. This matter has also partly inspired an essay. Sennalen (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Other than the two I used, some other sources that mention the victims' race are:

• https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/these-are-the-victims-killed-in-the-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-in-kenosha/2689489/
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59138213
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59348734
• https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-george-floyd-homicide-cbd8653c42406417c2d3d8559632e3bb
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/31/kyle-rittenhouse-shot-victims-judge
• https://spokesman-recorder.com/2021/11/16/%E2%80%8Bwhy-it-seems-like-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-black-people/
• https://abc7chicago.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-victims-video/11181698/

Sennalen (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That edit looks much better imo. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"No he wasn't. But regardless, we go by sources, not what we personally think"

What's with the lying? The videos of the incident should be part of the public record now. Although I don't know what they do with digital evidence like this after trial. But it should be preserved for us to review. He was black as seen in video shown in court.

This commentor is lying to you people. Maurice whatever his name is. "Jump kick man" is black. How that's relevant doesn't matter but this is a lie that he is not black.

"But we don't go with original sources, we go with what the media tells us the original sources say." is not a good argument against blatant lying.

It would be better to cut to the chase and justify why Wikipedia pretends to be an encyclopedia while actually being an organ of the corporate press.

The truth has nothing to hide. 71.184.94.206 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Chill. I was wrong. He is Black. But regardless, we only go by what the reliable sources say. If you don't like that or don't want to be an "organ of the corporate press", I recommend you spend you time elsewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2023

Add hyperlink to Thomas Binger in the Rittenhouse criminal trial section. 65.172.72.221 (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. .usarnamechoice (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Criminal Records of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz

I believe the article should explicitly mention their criminal records, and what each of them were charged and convicted of. This information should not be hidden.2607:F2C0:9557:2300:12E:24:CA51:76FD (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, and intended to sway the reader. How does a served rape offense have any relevance to civil disobedience? WWGB (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it should be relevant. If this information is not relevant than neither is the information regarding the background of Kyle Rittenhouse. As his being a support of the police did not influence the shootings. Keko64 (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You may agree that it should be, in your opinion, but there is very broad consensus, achieved in many similar articles, that this is not relevant, and I really don't want to rehash all the reasons here. You can find plenty such discussion in (the archives of) Talk:Killing of Daunte Wright and Talk:Murder of George Floyd. EvergreenFir, one of our administrators, answered it succinctly for one of the many requests, and you can read that here. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

i agree that it should be added (as well as more information), not to "sway the reader" but simply on the grounds of adding more information about background of the people involved.

More information is better than less. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree; the criminal histories of these three should be mentioned Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There were plural "shootings", not singular "shooting"

Per the AP https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-police-shootings-wisconsin-kenosha-5e4f6bdf938fc42baea5bc648d9829df

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Shooting can be singular or plural.[35] For example, "mass shooting" or "school shooting" can refer to multiple discharges of a firearm. WWGB (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's true in some situations, but not this one. Here, it's very evident that AP are style experts, yet they used the plural. And it's very obvious why; because there were two discrete shootings.The first, was when Rosenbaum was shot. The second, was when Huber and Grosskreutz were shot. Huber and Grosskreutz were shot in self-defense after they jointly attacked Rittenhouse. But Rosenbaum was shot earlier, by himself, after he individually attacked Rittenhouse. There were two attacks, and two shootings. The correct way to describe these events, per AP, is "shootings". Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with status quo in this case. No one is hiding the various sub-events in the article and I don't think anyone is going to confuse this event with some other shooting that happened in the town. Springee (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that using the singular here flies in the face of an accurate description of the events. Prior to the trial, a lot of people initially thought KR was a nut who shot up a protest. After the trial, it was clear that KR was a young man, full of zeal, in the wrong place at the wrong time; who was set-upon twice, by older attackers determined to do him harm. Please read the AP article I linked to at the start of this section. It's a timeline of the trial, and its title makes clear, based on the full trial information, that AP feels "shootings" is the proper descriptive term. And I too feel that same way; "shootings" is more accurate. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Prior discussion Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting/Archive 3#Shooting vs Shootings (October 2021) and Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting/Archive 5#there was more than one shooting (November 2022). I still feel the way I did in that first discussion. Sources, including the AP, appear to be mixed in their usage: here are one, two, three AP pieces that exclusively use the singular. A Google News search still suggests "shooting" is more common in the sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

So was this a shootings then? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the AP article I linked to? Now that the trial is over, the AP calls these events "The Kenosha shootings case of Kyle Rittenhouse" Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't tell people to read your single AP article when you refuse to acknowledge the three other AP articles provided to you that use "shooting". This is the third discussion you have created on the issue, with the first two showing no consensus to make a change. I recommend you stop spamming this talk page. StalkerFishy (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No, these were shootings Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No, this was a shooting. You're describing multiple events that happened to cause an incident. I (and the article) am describing an incident that contained multiple events. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

A raw google count is not probative, as most of those links are from before the ending of the trial. Now that the facts have fully come out at trial, the AP calls these events "The Kenosha shootings case of Kyle Rittenhouse". This is what the AP uses to title the event. Your sources are not titles of the event; they are narrative descriptors, which, regardless of count, are less on-point than a titled usage. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a later AP article which refers to the "Kenosha shooting". So AP still uses both terms, even after the "ending of the trial". WWGB (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There was a single shooring incident in which there were several shootings of individual persons. This article is mainly about the larger single shooting incident, but contains detail about the individual shootings. Re AP style vs. WP style, see WP:MOS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

"a" or "an" unanimous

I don't understand why my edit has been reverted. As far as I know "a" changes to "an" when the next word starts with a vowel. Can someone – best the person who reverted – explain, please? JonValkenberg (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Use "an" when the next word starts with a vowel sound, not exactly a vowel letter. "Unanimous" starts with a consonant y sound. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@JonValkenberg: I was the reverter. The choice of "a" or "an" depends on the sound of the vowel. Unanimous sounds like "you-nanimous" so it is preceded by "a". Just like one might say "a one-dollar bill" and not "an one-dollar bill"; one sounds like "won" and it too is preceded by "a". For further information, see [36]. WWGB (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Huver/Rittenhouse struggle

This edit caught my eye. The edit summary says that it is intended to tweak the description of the struggle to reflect exactly what this cited AP source says. The edit changes an assertion that Huber "grabbed Rittenhouse's gun" to say that he "attempted to wrest Rittenhouse’s gun away from him". The AP source, however, does not appear to assert that; it reports that the complaint against Rittenhous says that Huber was "apparently trying to wrest the gun away from Rittenhouse". That AP source also goes on to itself characterize what happened by saying that Huber and Rittenhouse "struggled for control of the gun."

I've WP:BOLDly changed the wording here again to use the struggle for control wording. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Misleading intro

In the intro it says " Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36-year-old unarmed Kenosha man, ran at Rittenhouse and threw a plastic bag at him, which Rittenhouse testified he believed was a chain. Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times at close range"

This makes it sound like Rosenbaum was shot for throwing an empty plastic bag. According to the main body:

"During the chase, Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag containing socks, underwear, and deodorant at Rittenhouse. Ziminski fired a shot into the air, and was later charged with disorderly conduct using a dangerous weapon. After the shot was fired, Rittenhouse turned around, to see Rosenbaum now only a few feet away from him. According to McGinniss, who was standing near Rittenhouse at the time, Rosenbaum then shouted "fuck you!" and "lunged" at Rittenhouse and grabbed the barrel of his rifle. Rittenhouse then fired four shots at Rosenbaum, killing him"

I think the intro should be changed to say "Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36-year-old unarmed Kenosha man, ran at Rittenhouse and grabbed his rifle. Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times at close range" 165.124.85.133 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree this could be improved. WWGB's edit described the bag more accurately but I think it we could zoom out a bit. At the time of the throw Rittenhouse was running from Rosenbaum. He only stopped running when his path was blocked. I think we could say something about attempted to grabbed or appeared to grab for the rifle. Perhaps start by saying he was running from Rosenbaum would help. Springee (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Calling Rosenbaum a "Kenosha man" is not obvious to me since he was a semi transient sex offender who'd been recently released from a mental hospital. I agree the article is deceptively worded to imply Rosenbaum was shot for throwing a bag. It is also highly misleading to identify a man attacking an armed man as unarmed--he is attempting to gain control of a weapon. He is not unarmed.

2600:1006:B00E:E089:18A8:C91A:9616:9A6C (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"At trial ..." as the final lead para

I added a one-sentence concluding para to the lede ("At trial, Rittenhouse claimed self-defense and was acquitted of all charges, apparently on those grounds."), supported by a cited source and linking a footnote giving a quote from the cited source ("One former federal prosecutor commented, "The not-guilty verdict appears to have rested on the definition of self-defence in Wisconsin state law and the jury’s interpretation of videos of the incident"). This was quickly tagged as a duplicate because of earlier mentions of self-defense in the lede and also tagged pov-inline (reason=Over-emphasis of one prosecutor's view, never mentioned in the body). My edit was in reaction to this previous edit which removed an assertion that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense from the lede and saying, "the self defense questions is not particularity contentions with the exception of some fringe opinions. It was the basis for his acquittal".

My thought leading to my edit were that the defense put on an affirmative defense based on self-defense and that the reason the jury found for the defense was probably largely because they bought the defense that was presented. I don't think that is particularly fringe or particularly POV. The reason I placed it the end of the lede was that I thought it appropriate to conclude the summary in the lede with info about the outcome of the trial.

I'm happy not to dispute editorial consensus. If the consensus is that it is not appropriate to conclude the lede with info about the conclusion of the trial, remove my added concluding sentence. If the consensus is that the lede over-emphasizes self-defence, editors with a better nose for style would do a better job than I in reducing the over-emphasis. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I understand your concern. We seem to burry the aquittal part well into the lead thus one who reads only the first paragraph (say in a Google search return) might assume this was a case of someone trying to commit a shooting vs responding to being attacked. Perhaps noting that Rittenhouse was attacked early in the lead might address the concern or changing the order by stating Rittenhouse was chassed then fired. Leaving the reader with the impression this was a malicious act vs a reaction is an issue. I don't like the sound of "apparently on those grounds". It sounds unconvinced etc. It's better to simply state his pleading was self defense and he was acquitted. Springee (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In case you missed it, you can see more of my thoughts in the above section. If you think the jury outcome is best placed at the end of the lead, we could try a re-arrangement, but it's hard to make it work with all the content about the reaction to the verdict. We could also try starting the paragraph about the trial with the outcome and then flash-back to the charges, which would put things out of chronological order but might be worthwhile. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Just reading this article, not an editor, but I’ve never seen a Wikipedia article use the term “apparently” threw me off quite a bit. Can this be cleaned up? It’s off of Wikipedia’s usual detached voice. 2600:1700:76F2:F310:44CB:AC8D:3C22:6B05 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Acquittal in lead

The lead currently mentions twice that Rittenhouse was acquitted. It also includes an over-emphasized point of view that Rittenhouse's acquittal was "apparently on those grounds", with the grounds being self-defense. A citation is included which states this as the view of one prosecutor. It's not enough weight to mention this in the lead, and one person's view doesn't make an opinion "apparent". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the recent addition doesn't read well regardless of where one stands on the actual legal outcome. Honestly, I've looked at the lead several times and I'm not sure about changing it. I can understand the concern with putting the acquittal later in the lead and how that looks like people are trying to burry it. However, the current lead does a decent job of laying out the fact, all of which are important, about the events that night. Yes, that ends up putting the trial and acquittal at the end of the lead rather than in the first paragraph. However, if you reverse things it tends to come across as Rittenhouse was the most important part of the whole story. Outside of the lens of defensive gun use debate, I'm not sure that is actually true. Certainly for the families of the deceased and injured the trial is secondary to the events of that night. The current lead neither buries nor promotes the outcome of the trial and presents the facts in reasonable chronological order. While it is reasonable to put the acquittal right up front in the Rittenhouse BLP, I think it's current location in this article is logical. Springee (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Springee. The "current lead", assuming you mean the one live as of this comment, mentions the acquittal at the end of paragraph 3 and at the very end in a mini-paragraph. Do you mean that you prefer this version, or the status quo ante (just the bit in para 3)? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean the stable version. I don't like the recently added last sentence. I can sympathize with the thinking but I think it reads poorly. Springee (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe the added sentence/paragraph improves the article. I consider it duplicative and not written from a neutral point of view. —ADavidB 17:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Between the comments here and in the section below, I feel there's enough consensus to remove the line. At the very least, WP:ONUS hasn't been met. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Rittenhouse was threatened before fleeing

I feel like I might be nitpicking here, but the sentence "Rittenhouse fled and was pursued by a crowd" present in the second pharagraph seems to impli Kyle was chased after fleeing, or as a result of fleeing, when in the videos it is clear he was first yelled at and threatend by the crowd before he started running

But maybe I'm just reading a tad too deep into this, especialy since I can't think of an elegant way to reword that without making it eedlessly long or drawing attention to unecessary details (like he getting yelled at) Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable but we need a reliable source to state it. We can't infer it from watching videos or from some commentators. Springee (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Say their names - Victim name treatment

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.

---

Proposal: Add victim names to first paragraph.

(Note this section was deleted at some point. I'm adding it back because I think removing it was not in keeping with Talk page guidelines. Above is concrete proposal to react to. Below is original section text)

“36 -year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, of Kenosha, and 26-year-old Anthony Huber, of Silver Lake, Wisconsin were killed by a young man from out of state.” Or similar should appear in the first paragraph.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/who-were-the-victims-killed-in-the-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-in-kenosha/2688161/

~~In my opinion this article currently fails the worst criticism of dehumanizing black lives and describing black and white victims in completely different terms.

Is there a Wikipedia policy/goal of treating white and black people equally.~~

(End previous comment)

Note: The victims were white, but I think the question still stands about the weight of victims names vs perpetrator?

Dw31415 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if addding back my section that was deleted is appropriate, but I think commends are supposed to remain and be closed. There's probably issues with my comment but I'll review the article again and respond / close the section if the original issue was addressed. Dw31415 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Modified my section text to include definitive proposal Dw31415 (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement for other editors to respond, or keep responding, to talk page comments. The section you added here previously is in Archive 4. It received comments from four editors, who pointed out that that the shooter and those shot were all white, which your comments above do not show as your understanding. The people shot are all identified in the article's second paragraph. (I believe 'who did what' is almost always described before 'to whom'.) An administrator noted an "apparent misunderstanding" of the shooting's sources and closed the former talk section's discussion. —ADavidB 17:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Adavidb, thanks for the context. I'll edit the proposal to remove the issues around race. Do you support or oppose adding the victims names in the first paragraph? Dw31415 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem with continuing to have those shot identified immediately afterward in the lead section's second paragraph. The NBC source you provided does the same. —ADavidB 18:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Adavidb, thanks for the consideration. I had trouble finding the history but I’ll go back and look at the other editor comments in the history Dw31415 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Adavidb, so I think we can close this discussion section. I think that’s the proper way (instead of deleting). I’ll do that when I get a chance. Dw31415 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Self defense" (again)

I've just rolled back an edit by IP user @92.220.250.130 which described the event as "self defence" in the lede. I see there has been discussion of this topic most recently in February, and from my read of it no consensus was reached to use such language.

I rolled this back with AGF but upon further review of the user's edit history it seems they are engaging in edit warring on this page, and other non-constructive edits pushing a political agenda elsewhere.

In any case I will provide the opportunity to debate this further here, though I don't have the energy to engage with this any further myself. I will just offer this take before stepping away: I think it would be highly unusual for any reputable media org. to describe an action that was argued in court as "self defense" with no qualifiers, regardless of the legal finding. If anyone can provide WP:RS sources where this case has been described as such please do share. I would say it is appropriate to mention the trial outcome in the first paragraph, but exactly what wording is suitable I will leave to the legal buffs. Walkersam (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

anyone with two brain cells can just watch any 100% unedited video of the incident and understand it’s self defense I’m left wing and even I think it’s self defense he tried to run away got hit twice before eventually falling to the ground he had to choice but to defend himself and he immediately surrendered to the police 2600:8801:1187:7F00:B4B4:15B4:BF7D:BB (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I agree with you in general but, as the article says, it took the jury more than 25 hours of deliberations spanning four days to reach a verdict of "Not Guilty" on the murder changes. I have not reviewed this but, as I remember it, the jury did not mention "self defense" in their verdict or supply any reason they reached that verdict (I'm guessing that Wisconsin law neither requires or allows that). That said, I'll note here that WP:DUE is an important part of WP:NPOV. Quoting from that: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.[a]" noting in the footnote, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered." It goes on to talk about minority views among RSs vs. more widely held views. I'm not sure myself which view about this are the more widely held views published by reliable sources. Maybe quantity ad prominence of viewpoints about this expressed in reliable sources (see e.g., this) indicates it has sufficient topical weight that there should be a section devoted to it in the article -- possibly a subsection under Acquittal. Just a thought. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)