Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

The first paragraph intentionally obfuscates the fact that Rittenhouse acted in self defense. The only mention of self defense is within the final sentence: "He testified that he had acted in self-defense." This verbiage is uncommon and nonsensical outside of an article discussing an ongoing trial. The question of whether or not he acted in self defense has been settled in a court of law, where evidence beyond his own testimony was presented. As a result, I suggest the opening paragraph be changed to:

Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003) is an American man who shot three men, two fatally, in self defense during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, when he was aged 17. Rittenhouse was acquitted at his trial in November 2021. CodingApe (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Self-defense is already mentioned in the first paragraph. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

My request was clearly to correct the context of which it is mentioned, as the paragraph is currently (and likely intentionally) misleading. How is this an appropriate response to the issues raised in my request? I do not understand how you could respond with this if you were not purposefully ignoring the crux of my argument.

The first paragraph clearly obfuscates the fact that, from a legal standpoint, Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. How is his own testimony even relevant? CodingApe (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

By that reasoning the jury verdict in the Scopes trial forces Wikipedia to say evolution is false. -- M.boli (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is logically sound and comes off a bit as attacking a newbi. In this case the jury wasn't asked to rule on scientific fact. The view that Rittenhouse acted in self defense is very reasonable and we shouldn't treat the view that the lead underplays the self defense aspect as unreasonable. It certainly is reasonable to assume that the combination of a self defense claim and an acquittal = "acted in self defense". However, since many RSs reported in a way that doubted that claim it's best to stick to the facts we know to be true, as the current article does, that he testified that acted in self defense and that the jury, at minimum, had reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense. Springee (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

My bad! I was overly abrupt responding to a newbie.

It is frequently suggested to change this article as above: to say in wiki-voice that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. The sourcing for this being acquittal at trial. Some who propose this change go into the rules of trials and presumptions of fact and who needed to prove what and etc.

But that's all within the game-world. Within the game world O.J. Simpson didn't kill anybody. In real-world many reliable sources tell us Simpson was charged with murder and acquitted. As with Rittenhouse.

Adding to the lede that Rittenhouse testified self-defense was the result of those discussions.

But still there are frequent requests as above, to use wiki-voice to state KR acted in self-defense. Some have been rather persistent, at least one turned out to be a major sock puppet of a banned account.

@CodingApe: I apologize, my response was needlessly sarcastic. I hope the explanation makes sense to you. The substance of the request has been considered in the past. The result comports with the facts and reliable sources, without ignoring that Rittenhouse claimed self-defense.

-- M.boli (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The focus of O.J. Simpson's trial was whether or not he was the perpetrator. Simpson's defense was not that he acted in self defense, which is extremely important. From a legal standpoint, it's ridiculous for that case to even be brought up as an analogy. Also, Simpson was found liable in civil court for the deaths of Simpson and Goldman, which adds even more nuance.

Whether or not Rittenhouse shot the 3 men was not a focus of his trial, it was not even a question. There is video evidence that he was the shooter, he admitted that he was the shooter, etc. It seems the article acknowledges this as well considering it clearly states that he shot 3 men.

The entire point of Rittenhouse's trial was to determine whether or not he acted in self defense. 'Self defense' was his defense, which is very important. The jury's purpose was to determine if, under Wisconsin law, he used reasonable force to defend himself and subsequently could not be found guilty of the charges weighed against him. Even the article acknowledges this within the notes section:

"In Wisconsin, a defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of first-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that the defendant reasonably believed that the defendant was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with the defendant's person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"

When someone argues a claim of self-defense in court and is subsequently acquitted of charges, from a legal standpoint it is correct to state that they "acted in self defense". The acquittal indicates that the court found sufficient evidence to support their claim that they acted in self-defense, or at the very least found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not. CodingApe (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

My argument is that, from a legal standpoint, it is correct to state that someone 'acted in self-defense' if they were acquitted of all charges in a trial where their defense was self-defense. This is objectively true from a legal standpoint, the jury specifically deliberated over whether or not Rittenhouse used justifiable force against a threat of great bodily harm or death (otherwise referred to as 'self-defense'), and they determined that he in-fact did, or, at the very least, that there was not enough evidence to claim that he did not.

The following questions are the basis of my argument:

1. Whether or not stating that he acted in self-defense is correct from a legal standpoint
2. Whether or not it is an important fact the public should be aware of when informed that he shot 3 men

The is first is objectively true, regardless of whether or not others 'doubt his claim'. The second is generally a matter of opinion; however, I genuinely believe that most people would agree that it is very important.

As a result of this, I cannot comprehend why it would be omitted from this article, unless the purpose is to intentionally obfuscate the facts of the event/trial and subsequently mislead and misinform the public. CodingApe (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose putting "in self defense" in Wikivoice. Acquittal at trial makes the subject's not guilty status a fact but not the affirmative details of their defense. VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is your own opinion... Once again, if the argued defense was self-defense, then it is factually correct to state that they acted in self-defense following acquittal. Do you believe that if there was a guilty verdict, it'd be appropriate to use terms like 'homicide', 'murdered', etc? That seems to be the standard set on this website given those terms are frequently used on articles for convicted persons. So it's only acceptable to describe events/people based on the outcome of a trial in certain situations, primarily when the defendant was convicted? This is a contradiction, it makes no sense, and it doesn't follow basic legal standards understood by most people.

You can make an argument regarding whether or not the outcome of a self-defense trial should be accepted and respected (as you just did). You could also make an argument debating what is/isn't self-defense; however, your own options have nothing to do with whether or not Rittenhouse was defending himself in Kenosha (he was, according to a jury of his peers). Neither of these opinions should have an effect on an objective article. CodingApe (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Once again, if the argued defense was self-defense, then it is factually correct to state that they acted in self-defense following acquittal. No, we don't agree on this assertion. The jury was free to acquit for any reason, and a legal finding of not guilty establishes no facts beyond the subject not being guilty. Our coverage of convicted subjects in articles isn't relevant because the two cases are not symmetrical. VQuakr (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Self-defense is an affirmative defense, meaning the burden of proof was shifted onto Rittenhouse when he used it. If you're claiming the coverage of convicted subjects is appropriate based on the fact that the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in the majority of those cases, keep in mind this standard is inverted in affirmative defense cases, like the one we are discussing. Rittenhouse was acquitted because his defense presented clear/convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense or superior evidence to the prosecution's evidence that he did not.

How do you not see the similarity in the analogy I provided? Either you accept the jury's outcome as fact when the party with the burden of proof proves their case, or you do not. The burden of proof was not on the prosecution in Rittenhouse's trial.

There is absolutely zero indication that jury-nullification of any sort occurred. It is objectively true to state that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense as he proved this in court, in the same way it is objectively true to claim that Ted Bundy is a murderer. In both of the cases, the party with the burden of proof proved their case beyond any reasonable doubt.

As I stated above, this article even acknowledges this fact in the notes section. CodingApe (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What you're arguing is a synthesis of a position. Affirmative defense --> finding of fact is not a logical progression that follows. And no, a finding of not guilty is a finding of not guilty in all cases; your assertion below that I think the verdict is somehow lesser is not accurate. This has gone back and forth with no one convinced to make the proposed change, so I suggest moving on to something else. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is a logical progression, the article explains why it is. Why do you, and all of the opponents of this edit, keep refusing to address the fact that in order to successfully argue an affirmative claim of self-defense, you need to prove that you acted in self-defense? If you do not believe this to be the case, then I suggest you remove the 'Notes' section, because it is in contradiction to your own statements. I have mentioned this multiple times, and it seems it is being purposefully ignored:

"In Wisconsin, a defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of first-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that the defendant reasonably believed that the defendant was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with the defendant's person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"

If you think the jury acquitted for another reason, as you previously stated that 'The jury was free to acquit for any reason', then the burden of proof would be on you to provide sources/evidence supporting that. CodingApe (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from. I would suggest looking through some of the talk page archives and see the previous discussions on this topic. I think there are two aspects of this discussion. The first is if we can say "Rittenhouse acted in self defense" in Wiki voice. The second is if we can make more prominent in the article opening that he used a self defense argument as is defense and that he was acquitted. The problem with the first is "claim of self defense" + "acquittal" doesn't legally mean "acted in self defense". Using a hypothetical, what if the prosecution was found to have grossly lied and fabricated evidence? What if the prosecution was grossly incompetent and presented a case that made no sense? Legally, and logically, the prosecution could have just done a bad job making the case and the jurors ended up feeling that Rittenhouse was guilty of something but not any of the actual charges brought against him. This isn't a parallel to the OJ case but many people feel that OJ walked not because he was innocent but because the prosecution screwed up. So for this reason it's Original Research on our part if we state that as a fact. Additionally, many people feel that it's hard to decide when it's self defense vs a provoked fight (thus not subject to a self defense claim).

The second issue is if we are burying the lead by talking about the shootings etc and only eventually mentioning the self defense and acquittal. That is a legitimate question and suggestions for reworking the sentences to make the self defense claim and acquittal more prominent should be considered and can't be dismissed as original research. Personally I think putting these facts in the second sentence is OK. However, as a proposal what about this: "Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003) is an American man who was acquitted of shooting three men, two fatally, during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, when he was aged 17. At his trial testified that he had acted in self-defense." That has the acquittal is right next to the shooting so anyone who reads just the first sentence can see this wasn't a typical murder case. Springee (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the second sentence is fine. I would oppose reframing it to start with the acquittal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to push for the change but I'm curious why you oppose putting the acquittal in the first sentence. I think I can see cases both for and against. Springee (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't oppose including the acquittal in the first sentence, just starting with it. We have a very crowded first sentence, but I would be fine with something that stripped down looks like "Kyle Rittenhouse is an American man who shot three men, two fatally, in 2020 and who was acquitted at his trial in 2021." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The specific phrasing proposed of "...who was acquitted of shooting three men" leaves it ambiguous as to whether he pulled the trigger, which is not a fact in dispute in this case. So I'm opposed to that specific formulation but open to other possible phrasings that mention or allude to acquittal in the first sentence somehow. VQuakr (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003) is an American man who shot three men, two fatally, during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, when he was aged 17. Rittenhouse was acquitted at his trial in November 2021. He testified that he had acted in self-defense. I see nothing particularly wrong with the lede paragraph, except as somebody noted the first sentence is crowded. I've indicated details which I think could safely be elided. With or without those details, the lede sentence is a good one-sentence statement of what KR is known for. The next two stentences elaborate, stating to other notable aspects of his story. That he was tried and acquitted was major news, no problem to find it notable. The sentence about his claim of self-defense is there because multiple people contributing to talk-page discussion made it evident that the self-defense claim is a important part of his notability in some circles.

The only reason we are having this discussion is that people keep showing up requesting that KR shot people in self defense be the lede. And the requester did as I predicted: present a synthetic argument why courtroom in-game rules force us to give this preferred narrative as a statement of fact in wiki-voice.

I suggest we shorten the first sentence as indicated above, and just let the rest be. There has been no substantive argument to change it. -- M.boli (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

18 is the age of majority in the USA, so subject being under 18 at the time of the shooting is significant. I am not sure that part should be removed. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to move the age to later in the first few sentences? I think the age is significant as VQuarkr mentions. Springee (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If you at-least understand where I am coming from, I'd ask that you hear out one final point, as there generally seems to be a misunderstanding regarding what a self-defense defense entails.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means that the burden of proof was shifted on Rittenhouse when he used it as his defense. This seems to be a misunderstanding and/or missed point in most of the previous discussions regarding this topic, despite its importance. The prosecution was not burdened with proving he committed 1st degree intentional homicide beyond a reasonable doubt, they were tasked with disproving he acted in self-defense. Basically, in an affirmative defense case, the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the prosecution.

The standard followed on Wikipedia, and generally by people, is that using descriptors that are based on the outcome of a trial is acceptable when the party with the burden of proof prevails and proves their case.

This is why words like 'homicide', 'murder', 'thief', etc are all acceptable terms frequently used to describe people/events on this site. In those cases, the prosecution bore the burden of proof and was able to prove that the defendant committed those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rittenhouse was acquitted because he proved his affirmative claim of self-defense. His defense provided clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense. The prosecution was unable to raise substantial evidence indicating he did not act in self-defense.

It appears this article even acknowledges where the burden of proof lies in self-defense trials (in the small-print of the 'Notes' section). Despite this, nobody on the opposing side of this discussion is willing to concede that an acquittal indicates Rittenhouse proved his self-defense case, despite this being the standard interpretation of the results of affirmative-defense cases.

Entrapment is another example of an affirmative-defense. Following the logic used on this page, would it not be correct to summarize John DeLorean's cocaine trafficking case as: 'In 1982, John DeLorean conspired to sell 220 lb of cocaine to James Hoffman. He was acquitted. He testified that he was the subject of police entrapment." Obviously that is not an accurate summary of what occured, and the event and trial were both represented accurately on his article.

Simply stating "Rittenhouse was acquitted at his trial in November 2021 after his defense successfully proved he acted in self-defense.", "...acquitted at his trial on the grounds of self-defense", etc would be an improvement. Really any variation/expansion along the lines of those would be more accurate and less confusing than the current verbiage used. CodingApe (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

CodingApe, please keep it brief. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? This is a complex discussion, and I've been responding to arguments that appear to misunderstand essential legal concepts. I can't make my case without explaining those concepts. CodingApe (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Keeping replies to short yet effective is a skill I've mastered in my own mind. Others may not agree ;) . It is a good idea when possible simply because you may otherwise lose the attention of the people you are trying to convince. You do make a good point about the affirmative defense though what I found suggests it may not be "beyond a reasonable doubt". Do you have any good sources that say Rittenhouse's acquittal means the jury found her acted in self defense? That would really help the case. Absent that I think we should err on the side of not claiming a legal conclusion. Springee (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The burden of proof is lower as it requires less evidence to prove you had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm and/or death than the amount of evidence required to prove someone intentionally committed homicide. I don't believe that should be interpreted as the outcome being of lesser factual significance. The burden of proof tends to increase with the severity of the crime, yet guilty verdicts within theft and homicide trials are usually both respected as fact.

I believe the base assertion would be that the jury came to their decision based on the evidence presented, meaning the burden of proof would be on the person(s) claiming they may have come to their conclusion for a reason unrelated to the defense, as this is very uncommon. The standard appears to be an acceptance that the jury came to their decision based on the merits of the evidence presented by the party with the burden of proof when that party prevails, and to assume that party could not supply sufficient, compelling evidence when the jury decides against them.

Apologies, I genuinely attempted to be brief with this response, I do not believe I am very good at summarizing my arguments as this time. CodingApe (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Utter balderdash. So far @CodingApe has reinforced that we cannot say Rittenhouse shot those people in self-defense. Again: the argument is about the rules of the trial game. CodingApe has affirmed that.

The main point is:

• In game-world, the proof-standards for winning an affirmative claim are lower than ordinarily winning at trial. So winning a self-defense claim may have less real-world factual basis than a conviction.

So there is less reason for Wikipedia to treat Rittenhouse's game-world claim of self-defense as a real-world fact.

Notice that CodingApe indirectly tells us this, writing correctly above that a conviction needs "beyond a reasonable doubt" while a self-defense claim needs only "clear and convincing". Which legally is a lower standard. CodingApe then asserts that Wikipedia should treat the lower standard for winning self-defense equally to winning a conviction, and put the self-defense in wiki-voice. Perhaps hoping we are ignorant of legal terminology.

The current approach is correct. Rittenhouse shot people. He was tried and acquitted. At trial he claimed self-defense.

I do agree that the word "testified" in "Rittenhouse testified he acted in self-defense" is inadequate. In game-rules, Rittenhouse was able to raise other evidence besides his own testimony. So the sentence might more accurately read At trial Rittenhouse asserted a claim of self-defense. Probably there is a better way to say it.

Mostly CodingApe's repeated explanations have reinforced that the current lede paragraph is correct, we can't rewrite KR's win in trial-world into a real-world statement that he shot people in self-defense. M.boli (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be misinterpreting the concept of burden of proof, especially in reference to some arguments requiring a 'lower burden of proof'. This simply means that an assertion requires less evidence to establish it as truth. This is, once again, a core legal concept: The burden of proof typically increases with the severity of the crime (as it should). Which do you think is easier to prove? That someone reasonably believed their life was in great danger, or that someone intentionally committed homicide?

You've come to the asinine conclusion that an inherently lower burden of proof somehow indicates the verdict is of lesser quality and dubious in nature. This is a ridiculous argument to make. Following your logic, we should be less likely to believe the jury's decision as factual in say, a trial for a serious misdemeanor versus a felony offense. CodingApe (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

CodingApe, the only thing I really see you do is form lengthy arguments about some theorizing about self defense and all that; I don't see you discuss Rittenhouse and the evidence in the sources. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to prove Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, as that has already been determined to be the truth by a jury of his peers... I'm simply pointing out that this article appears to be written in a way that will misinform readers, and I imagine it may be intentional, as it doesn't align with the precedents set regarding whether or not the verdicts of criminal trials are interpreted as truth (in society as a whole and within other articles on this website). CodingApe (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You're begging the question. The only fact established by the criminal trial was the not guilty verdict. We don't analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material from legal proceedings ourselves as discussed at WP:PRIMARY. You haven't pointed out any misinformation, and your failure to assume good faith is unwelcome. You disagree with the way the information is presented, which is an editorial decision subject to consensus. Changing it requires convincing other editors of your opinion. VQuakr (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• @CodingApe: This has been explained on the talk page before, but to explain it again: I think you are misunderstood about the burden of proof. The state had to prove that Rittenhouse didn't act in self-defence, not the other way around; the defendant only has what's called a "burden of production" here. The jury did not find, nor did Rittenhouse prove, and nor was he required to prove, that he acted in self-defence. What the jury found was that the prosecution didn't prove he didn't act in self-defence. Your proposed text is incorrect. Endwise (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2024

A third man approached Rittenhouse, armed with a Glock pointed at him, but Rittenhouse shot and wounded the other person first. Should be changed to: Gaige Grosskreutz, now known as Paul Prediger also approached Rittenhouse, armed with a Glock pointed at him, but Rittenhouse shot and wounded him first Taisvater (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Two seemingly undue lead inclusions

The following two sentences are the last in the lead section:
1. Rittenhouse's likeness has been used by fans to sell products, especially T-shirts.

2. In 2022, he announced a video game, Kyle Rittenhouse's Turkey Shoot, to raise funds to sue media outlets for defamation.

I feel like neither of these are lead-worthy, particularly the second one (the project seems to have gone nowhere; no suits have been filed; no further coverage). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

In the first case, there's a ton in the article about use of his likeness. In the second, you're right it probably doesn't need quite as much detail. After seeing this, I took a pass at just starting over with the lead to make it roughly proportional to the body of the article. Curious about your thoughts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick note about the updated lead. Rittenhouse didn't travel to Kenosha with a rifle. The rifle was already in the state. The updated lead reads like he brought it from home. I'm also not sure that adding the police interest so early in the lead makes it read better but that's a style vs factual issue. Springee (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. Looks like FFF already fixed this. As for the early interest, I was just trying to include a reference to the 4 paragraph section on early life, of which 3 deal with interest in law enforcement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a problem with the treatment of “the Kenosha unrest shooting” as a proper name, when in fact that title is descriptive. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. The name is one Wiki editors agreed to. I don't know that it's an official name anywhere. Springee (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Since it’s a descriptive title for an article about an event, we should invoke it descriptively, as in the previous lead that hyperlinked the article to the text "shot three men". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems odd to suggest that an article should not be linked by its name. Perhaps the problem would be eased if the preceding "the" were changed to "a"? —ADavidB 05:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s not odd at all—it’s very typical. We call it a piped link. “a Kenosha unrest shooting” would make no sense. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The oddity is not (ever?) using the unrest article name to link to what it's about, not piping in general. The thought was that "a" would remove the problematic proper name treatment. Do you have other suggested descriptive linkage words besides "shot three men"? —ADavidB 13:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

What is wrong with "shot three men"? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Another editor removed that link when reworking the lead, as mentioned early in this talk section. If the Kenosha unrest shooting article is linked (with agreed-upon wording) in the first sentence, I see no need to link to the same article again in the next sentence for a mention of the three men shot. —ADavidB 18:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems we’re misunderstanding each other, which makes sense as we’re discussing wordings of past, current, and prospective drafts. I’ll try and edit. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the general direction is good but I think more people associate the shooting with Kenosha vs with Blake. For that reason I would put Kenosha in the first sentence vs the second. Springee (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

How about this wording:

...for shooting three men in Kenosha, Wisconsin—two fatally—in August 2020, amid protests following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse had traveled to Kenosha during the unrest, and joined a group of armed people who said they were there to protect businesses.

—ADavidB 02:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good! And good note @Springee ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I missed my chance to endorse before the change was made but I also agree with this change. Springee (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I made this change. —ADavidB 03:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Education and family straits

Springee (talk) Springee: You failed to notify me that you had reverted my and the article's most recent edits. You've posted scores of times to the article and at its Talk page. Unless you've been appointed Wikipedia's chief grammarian, I fail to see any authority or logic in why you restored a semi-colon in a sentence that clearly should be split. Ditto with the worldwide coverage of the complaints of his sister ignoring her pleas for $3,000 so that she (claiming substantial illness as the cause for the family's indebtedness and the impending eviction of herself and his mother from their home) can avoid the immediacy of homelessness. You also claim that the source for the edit I made, Raw Story, is "low quality" and the issue "undue." The source is non-deprecated, so I fail to see what authority you've employed to pan it. I suggest that you restore my edit as appropriate using one of the many solid worldwide sources that contain the same or similar information about the situation, including the Hindustan Times, Yahoo New Zealand, Newsweek, MSN, etc., etc., etc. By the way, Wendy Rittenhouse's Go Fund Me account solicited $6,000, and it was just a few hundred dollars short of receiving that as of a few hours ago. Thank you. Activist (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The reference provided is not considered reliable, see WP:RAWSTORY. A quick scan of other references seems to show that they all simply summarize and quote from Faith Rittenhouse's go fund me posting. (At least one said they tried to contact Fatih R.) Absent reliable sourcing, and absent any reason to belive this rift in the Rittenhouse family is encyclopedia-worthy, I think it was properly deleted. -- M.boli (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

protect businesses

the idea that this man travelled to kenosha is order to protect businesses is presented as a fact. Almost nobody beleives this, so "allegedly" is necessary 2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:6319:1E5E:D49F:61A6 (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The sentence in question is sourced to The New York Times and CNN articles. CNN writes that Rittenhouse "took a weapon and ammo and went to downtown Kenosha to try to protect a car dealership". The CNN article also refers to "a rise in amateur armed paramilitary groups at protests nationwide". The content here should be based on reliable sources, not what most people believe. —ADavidB 10:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Literally everybody who watched the trial knows that's exactly what he did. 2600:1700:5DB0:1040:19FC:3E23:C508:B8C1 (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)