Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse

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)

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)

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)