Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting

Gun description in lead vs. body: type vs. full make/model

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the gun in general terms listing that the gun used in the shootings was a semi-automatic, AR-15 style rifle, it is also described by some RS as an assault rifle - and some RS state the precise make and model. The lead of the article (and the infobox) are meant to be a summary of the article and they should state what type of gun this was in general terms and later, within the article body, list the specific manufacturer and model. Many readers of the encyclopedia simply want to grasp the basic info when reading the lede . . . is it a handgun, automatic weapon, or semi-automatic weapon. The general terms should be restored to the lede.

One could easily make the case that it should be called an assault or assault-style weapon and source that to RS example 1 AP News, and example 2 GQ magazine. Instead of using the descriptions less frequently listed by sources, Wikipedia should stick to the general terms most used by reliable sources: a semi-automatic, AR-15 style rifle. Cedar777 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I think semi-automatic, AR-15 style rifle is fine. I don't see much value in putting in a specific brand since there are so many, largely interchangeable brands of riles based on that design. It's a bit like arguing that we need to be sure it is Kleenex brand tissue vs just a kleenex. Springee (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Your proposed description seems fine to me. I haven't done a skim through RS to verify that it's present in the overwhelming majority, but (anecdotally) it pops up frequently in the articles I've read. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As I write this, the lead has a Smith & Wesson M&P15 to describe the rifle, not even using the word rifle. This was recently restored from AR-15 style rifle, which had been changed from the M&P15 description earlier. Most readers will not be familiar with "Smith & Wesson M&P15", or even know it is a rifle. I would be in favor of a AR-15 style rifle, the Smith & Wesson M&P15, though I am not so sure "Smith & Wesson M&P15" is needed. Seems to me part of the overall picture of this incident is that Rittenhouse used this type of (controversial) weapon. The lead should speak to a broad audience with as much context as possible, in a succinct way; the precise model of weapon is not essential information to this story. Bdushaw (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

as an AR-15 Style Rifle is by (Wikipedia's) definition 'Semi-Automatic' I don't think we need both. JeffUK (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The term AR15 is a loaded term that anti-firearms activists use out of context to describe any semi-automatic rifle. The firearm was a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle. Just because some journalists intentionally misidentify something for political reasons, does not mean an encyclopedia article should repeat the same error.69.165.145.133 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Many readers have very limited knowledge of or interest in the specifics of firearm types and brands. Many non-US readers are also learning the basics of the Kenosha unrest shooting event via the English Wikipedia by first reading about the controversy elsewhere.[1] Furthermore, it appears much too promotional of a specific manufacturer, to list the make and model anywhere other than the body of the article. The wikilink for Smith & Wesson M&P15 leads to a page that is flagged as a problematic article relying too much on primary sources. This page (Kenosha unrest shooting) should stick to what the majority of RS use to describe the gun: a semi-automatic AR-15 style rifle. It should help a global readership to quickly understand the basics about the general type of gun and why it is the subject of controversy in the USA, without promoting and marketing a needlessly specific brand name. It makes sense to include that info if it is sourced but not for the lede or infobox. Cedar777 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

We must report what reliable sources are saying though, lest it be original research, which is forbidden. This essay is worth a read. But yes, Wikipedia reflects the biases etc. that are found in reliable sources by the very nature of how tertiary sources work. That is sadly unavoidable. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Policeman fired for supporting Rittenhouse

Lt. William Kelly, who worked in internal affairs for the Norfolk Police Department, was terminated after he expressed support for Rittenhouse and made an anonymous $25 donation to his defense fund. [2]. I think that should be mentioned in the article in the section "Responses by authorities". Barecode (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty trivial, tangential, and doesn't belong. Sucks for the cop, but this article isn't about the cop. NBC News is a news website that gains ad revenue by printing news of the day regardless of long-term significance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and not everything verifiable is warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Animalparty This article is not about the cop, just as it's not about Facebook nor Twitter nor Rittenhouse's defense funding. Why do you think the reaction of Facebook and Twitter are notable, and the amount raised for funding Rittenhouse is notable but in the same time being fired for supporting Rittenhouse is not notable? How is that trivial and tangential? The authorities consider that financially supporting a person involved in the incident is intolerable - and that's not relevant for this article? Sorry to disagree but to me this fact is very relevant for the article. Barecode (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

In a case that has drawn national and international attention, there will be lots of tangential, trivial news items. A random cop was fired for donating 25 US dollars. If you think this act warrants inclusion, you should also be championing mention that actor Ricky Schroder donated hundreds of thousands of dollars towards Rittenhouse's bail, and took several selfies with Rittenhouse, and the MyPillow Guy also donated funds, as did "a paramedic in Utah and an engineer from the famed Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco." [3][4] Do you think there should be a "response by celebrities" section including the views of George Takei, Lizzo, Josh Gad, LeVar Burton, and basically anyone with a Twitter account? [5][6] --Animalparty! (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In context this could be due. In a section related to how the public was polarized on the case or how support for Rittenhouse was treated differently vs negative information about him or those who supported him. Basically this is a supporting fact for a larger subtopic. It shouldn't be treated as DUE if it's not tied to a bigger picture point. Springee (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Springee - There is already a section named "Support for Rittenhouse". In my view this information fits there. Later, the section can have a sub-section about the polarization of the support - or a section about public view about Rittenhouse. There is also the section "Responses by authorities" and this was quite a strong response of the authorities.

Animalparty - The information is not about the cop but it's about the reaction of authorities who believe that support for Rittenhouse is intolerable and they act accordingly - swiftly and vigorously. You think it sucks for the cop but there are a lot of people who think it actually sucks for Democracy. They see it as breaking the right to privacy, an abuse of the authorities, an oppressive, authoritarian and totalitarian reflex - to quickly disable those who do not share the same views. Imagine for a minute that authorities fired a government worker for supporting Gaige Grosskreutz. I'm quite sure it would have been a huge national scandal, with authorities accused of enforcing white supremacy and oppressing those who disagree. To those many people, the response of authorities around this incident reminds them of North Korea where you are not allowed to disagree with the dear leader. You think they are wrong? That's fine. However, for some half of the voters, this incident is just another relevant piece of the puzzle, along with prosecution asking a witness to change his statement [7], providing a blurry image to the defense and presenting it to prove that the defender is guilty for starting this violent and tragic incident [8], hiding the identity of the attacker Maurice Freeland from the defense [9] and a journalist of an important liberal media outlet allegedly stalking the jury [10]. You can invent excuses for not allowing such information in the article and that would further convince that public that Wikipedia articles are written to comply with the views of the liberals. Barecode (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be more fitting in a section about the polarized reaction to the case including the way some of the tech gatekeepers were favoring one version of events vs another. What is notable isn't that an individual tried to support the group. Rather it was how he was treated by various groups when his private contribution became known. Springee (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious for me how the reaction to the case was heavily polarized - depending on political preference. Democrats hate Rittenhouse and Republicans love him. Such a section would be very welcomed. However my observation is irrelevant and I can't find reliable sources to describe the polarization. Until such sources can be found, the article can actually show - based on sources - the parts that build that picture. However, it was a strong reaction of the authorities. It was not based on evidence, but it was based on their biased view of the facts, a view based on their political preferences. For the authorities Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, for them Rittenhouse was the aggressor who killed innocent people. A view that is not supported by evidence, as the jurors observed. So it's quite a relevant reaction of the authorities, a reaction heavily connected to the incident, a reaction of suppression, oppressive - since it was not supported by evidence - and therefore, in my opinion, for the moment, this information very well fits in to the "Reaction by the authorities" section. Barecode (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

One’s place of employment can limit one’s exercise of one’s First Amendment right to “free speech” even if one’s employer is a governmental agency. What we have here is an honest disagreement as to where the line ought to be drawn, but it is tangential to the article. Pommer 03:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by politicians

In September of last year, then Democratic presidential nominee Biden criticized incumbent President Trump on Twitter for refusing to condemn anti-BLM actors as “white supremacists.” The tweet text was accompanied by a video which showed an image of Rittenhouse’s face. [11] It looks like Rittenhouse he was the face of white supremacy for a presidential candidate (who also became president), that's how much impact this incident had, therefore I think this info should be added in the article too. Barecode (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this should not be in the article. repeating that he was 'the face of white supremacy' (rightly or wrongly) would be a massive BLP issue beside not really being relevant to the shooting. The assertion that 'he looks like he was the face of white supremacy ' is not supported by the article you linked to either. JeffUK (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand how this can be a BLP issue. To me it really looks like Rittenhouse was the face (or one of the faces) of white supremacy for Biden and his team. Or else why Biden included his face in the video about white supremacy? You think Biden was showing Rittenhouse as a victim of white supremacy then? Rittenhouse's face was on Biden's tweet about an extremely hot (electoral) topic and that's not relevant? Sorry but I can't believe that. Even today, Rittenhouse is the villain for many of the Biden's supporters - and for the liberal media. How is that not relevant? Since when the biography of a person can't mention the public perception about that individual? Barecode (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I also think it's a bad idea to include this. I could be persuaded by some reliable sources that discuss it. Do you know of any? Firefangledfeathers 21:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

So the central person involved in the incident is mentioned in the hottest topic of the presidential campaign, and that's not relevant? He is the villain for some half the voters and that perception is not relevant? I just can't understand that. I don't know what you consider reliable sources and if they discuss it well enough for you but I noticed this incident was largely reported by the media [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

How is the response of authorities relevant but the response of the then-future president not relevant? Barecode (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This is relevant, notable and should be included. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The response of the future president may be appropriate, if it's neutrally worded and supported by the sources. Why don't you add this information to the article and we can see if it stands? Note that most of the sources listed above are about the defamation claims not about Rittenhouse being some 'face of white supremacy' I think more weight should be put on the refutation than the claims, basically. JeffUK (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There are dozens upon dozens of faces shown in the video, none of them are presented as "the face of white supremacy". Kyle's was and still is an obvious choice to represent the "violence we saw in Kenosha". Perhaps Kyle's presence in the future President's tweet and video bear mentioning in the article but not with such an obviously skewed take on them.--Wlerin (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the tweet should be mentioned in this article, not my conclusion about it. To me, those faces shown in that video represent, in Biden's view, faces of white supremacy. My point was that Rittenhouse obviously was seen as as villain by Biden and his team (and by his voters) and therefore the tweet deserves to be mentioned in the article. It's everyone's job to decide why Biden was showing Rittenhouse's face in that clip - as a face of white supremacy or as a violent person, or as a victim of white supremacy (it seems like an attacker called Rittenhouse the n-word), or a random face or w/e else. -- Barecode (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Then mention the tweet in the article! JeffUK (talk) 12:26, 18 November

I wasn't following this back then (Sep 2020) except, probably, to sometimes notice mentions on TV news. I've probably heard the tweet mentioned, but hadn't seen details. It seems to me that the Nov 15 Yahoo News article linked above is OK for mention in the Responses section (where there is currently mention of a tweet "liked" by Trump). The article reports that Biden criticized Trump on Twitter for refusing to condemn anti-BLM actors as “white supremacists” in a tweet accompanied by a video which showed an image of Rittenhouse’s face, It doesn't say what the text of the tweet was, but includes an embedded video ([21]) -- presumably the video tweeted by Biden. The close-captioned audio (apparently of Chris Wallace addressing candidate Trump, as moderator in a pre-election debate) is, "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities, as we saw in Kenosha, [...]", The audio is cast as a voice-over narration of the video, which shows a clear and identifiable image of Rittenhouse during the "as we saw in Kenosha" phrase. The connection with the "face of white supremacy" tag-line is easy to make, but I'm not clear on where that comes from. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)2021 (UTC)

The term "face of white supremacy" is probably strongly worded, especially if Rittenhouse is found not guilty, and therefore the phrase "face of white supremacy" can look like a virulent accusation towards Biden. My point was that, for Biden and his team, Rittenhouse was someone who represented very well the white supremacy. I never thought about adding such wording into the article. This is not math - where you are actually allowed to add your conclusion (the result) in the article. Barecode (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what change, if anything, you're proposing here, why don't you add the wording into the article that you think should be added to the article? Then we can be clearer about what you're suggesting should be added. JeffUK (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Jump Kick Man

The article currently reads "He tripped and fell to the ground after being hit in the head, then fired twice at an unidentified man who jump-kicked him." Note that someone is now being named, but so far none of the sources meet Wikipedia standards. I suspect that will change, with people trying to insert it before or after a proper source is found.Outdatedpizza (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We have a strong presumption to exclude per WP:BLPNAME. VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

[someone] apparently admitted to being "jump kick man" recently. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

According, so far, to only the Daily Mail which is definitely not reliable and `Wisconsin Right Now` (their emphasis, not mine) which doesn't appear reliable JeffUK (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Now reported by FOX. Likely not a good enough source since it is political, but it is going to come out in sources now. Deal with it how you want, but it is going to be included sooner or later. https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-identity-of-mysterious-jump-kick-man-revealed Outdatedpizza (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

By that logic, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, CBS, PBS are all not good enough.

Title Name

The acts in Kenosha are classified as a riot, not unrest. There was a police shooting, fires on trash cans and vehicles, and assault towards people. When someone has to put up a sign that says “Kids Live Here,” that’s more than unrest. Change the title to what it should be. I’m tired of people saying they were protests or unrest. It was a riot. 148.78.252.2 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope you get some rest soon. The first place to start such a discussion would be at Talk:Kenosha unrest. Firefangledfeathers 15:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Add the Weapon of Grosskreutz to Weapons

Under the point Weapons, you should add that the "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle" was used by Kyle Rittenhouse and more importantly you should add the pistol used by Mr. Grosskreutz. Sources proving that Grosskreutz had a pistol: GoIdenburg (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Was the pistol used in the shooting? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

No, I think the pistol by Mr. Grosskreutz should not be included per Template:Infobox_civilian_attack. "Weapons used in attacks (this field should not be over-used)". Mr. Grosskreutz did not shoot. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this as it is a very significant part of the reason as to why he was shot. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support As it is a very significant part of the reason why he was shot, it absolutely should be included. To not include it would be purposefully leaving out very relevant information. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not think the behavior by Mr. Grosskreutz was described in RS as an "attack". Not at all. He only wanted to disarm Mr. Rittenhouse. But perhaps one should use another template here, something like a "criminal case" rather than a "civilian attack". My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Those were Kyle's exact words, "he attacked me". You cannot utilize self-defense against a disarming that is not an attack. This has been established in the case. The only reason he was acquitted of that charge and under the plead of self-defense is because it was an attack. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The crime that was prosecuted (and acquitted) was due to people being shot with the rifle. The handguns that are part of this story, the one fired before Rittenhouse fired, and Grosskreutz weren't used in the commission of the crimes charged here. For that reason I would not put them in the info box. I think it would tend to confuse the reader rather than clarify which is the purpose of an info box. Springee (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

He was shot with the rifle because he pointed his Glock at Rittenhouse. This was established in court - combined with reaching for the rifle. The Glock's presence is quite significant in the shooting. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the infobox that's now being used. Love of Corey (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• conditional support If we are talking about just the infobox, if the ar15 is listed, the others should be as well. If the ar 15 is not listed, then the others should not be. the firing of the pistol by Ziminsky and the possession and possible pointing of the gun by Grosskreutz are discussed in many reliable sources, and were brought up repeatedly during the trial. They are important context to the events in question ResultingConstant (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - If we're going to list a weapon in the infobox we should list the weapon that was used in the shooting, not every weapon that was nearby but not used in the shooting. A rock was used as a weapon, as was a skateboard. None of that belongs in the infobox as a weapon. I'm also not convinced the weapon used needs to be in the infobox either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. the only reason Grosskreutz was shot was because he pointed a pistol at Rittenhouse. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Responses

Does it not seem unbalanced to have a 'support for Rittenhouse' section under responses but not a section about those who condemn him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.144.77 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to add. My very best wishes (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

MSNBC banned from courtroom

an employee of MSNBC apparently followed the bus carrying the jurors and was cited then banned from the courthouse. NBC alleges that this reporter did not photograph the jurors etc, but it seems to be an important detail. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be appropriate for an article about the trial but not on this one about the shooting EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO everything relevant about the trial definitely belongs in the Rittenhouse trial section, which will probably be split off eventually. QoopyQoopy (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - not including this very relevant information from the trial section is detracting from the article's status as an encyclopedic reference. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Confusion About Edit

[22] all I edited was a couple words in the lead, no citations, but for some reason my edit added 6K characters and a bunch of citations in the body? This happened to me on another article as well. Bill Williams 00:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion at WP:VPT#VisualEditor duplicating named citations about this. It looks like it's due to a bug in the VisualEditor. clpo13_(talk) 00:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did Rittenhouse get the money for the rifle?

The article said that he used a coronavirus stimulus check to buy the rifle, linking to the CARES Act (I just now altered it to be more vague and unlink it). However, it's unclear if it was a CARES Act check.

The NBC News source says Rittenhouse said he "got [his] $1,200 from the coronavirus Illinois unemployment", which is vague but implies it was an Illinois program. We could assume Rittenhouse was mistaken, but I think that needs some more evidence.

The WaPo source just says it was a "government stimulus program" (although I just looked at the original link, this might've said something different at the time of the archiving, which I didn't look at because my school blocks archive.org).

Could we get it cleared up on where the money came from?

QoopyQoopy (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Does it really matter enough to be in the article at all? JeffUK (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why it matters. If he was entitled to the money he got it goes into a general pot and he takes from that general pot to buy things. Springee (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think this needs to be in the article. Springee (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and remove that bit now that a couple people have chimed in. It doesn't need to be in the article, but if we can nail down where it came from, I think it'd be fine to put it back in. QoopyQoopy (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"We", who? Relying on what cited authority? See WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I speak loosely on talk pages. If a Wikipedian can find a reliable source that says how Rittenhouse got the money. I doubt one exists, since it would likely ultimately have to come from Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse was being vague about it. QoopyQoopy (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

NPOV and BLPCRIME

I read the whole article. It was so much biased against Rittenhouse. Abheygpt1 (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You should start a new section, this is irrelevant to the section it's under.

Regardless, if you think this violates NPOV, either point out here which parts violate it, stick a template on it, or fix it yourself. QoopyQoopy (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that Rittenhouse was acquitted I think we should consider if some of the material violates the general idea of BLPCRIME. Much of the content from the time after the shooting but before the trial should probably be removed. Springee (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: it's not immediately clear to me why that would be. BLPCRIME says we presume innocence, so in theory nothing should change from a POV standpoint. To state another way, if it's a BLP violation today, it was a BLP violation yesterday. What specifically were you thinking should be removed? VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The removal of "victim," which appeared several times, is a good example of the type of cleanup that should be done. It was likely a BLP violation before, and certainly was after the verdict. We should be on the lookout for similar language that remains in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"Victim" literally means "one who was harmed or killed". That's not in dispute and isn't a BLP problem. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think "victim" should be retained in the case where the ACLU was being paraphrased. I presume they used the term and we can use direct quotes to avoid issues with attribution. We shouldn't imply they felt the people were anything other than victims even if the legal system ultimately didn't agree. Springee (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

'Victim' would presuppose some sort of criminal or moral wrongdoing. Reflecktor (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't; that's simply not what the word means. You can be a victim of cancer, for example. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of definitions of "victim," but in this situation it's pretty clear that the jury decided it was due to their own actions that they were shot, so labeling them victims certainly seems disingenuous. I agree with Springee that if we're quoting or paraphrasing someone, the use is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

If we're talking about human interaction then that's what 'victim' refers to. Reflecktor (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

My concern is we had a lot of noise in the pretrial sections that ultimately had nothing to do with the trial. My general feeling is things related to Rittenhouse's actions on the night of the crime are generally in. The trial is clearly due but material that wasn't part of the trial (including disputes where the jury was out of the room) and didn't impact the events of that night should largely be moved out or greatly deemphasized. Incidentally I feel the same way about anyone trying to insert things about others involved in this incident. For example, if "jump kick man" has been acknowledged as identified we can say as much but I would not include his name in this article. I would not include the backgrounds of any of the 3 people who were shot unless it was specifically emphasized by a number of RSs and was part of the trial. My feeling is we really should err on the side of less controversial claims/information related to BLP subjects in basically all cases. Springee (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds more like BLPPRIVACY than BLPCRIME but potato, potahto. I suspect there is sufficient material to break the trial into a separate article, but I think we should wait for things to settle for a few months first. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You are spot on with the suggestion that we all wait and see how things how shake out! Absolutely! Springee (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021 (2)

In the beginning, the is a statement about Kyle shooting three people "On August 25, 2020, amid the unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after the police shooting of Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois, shot and killed two men and wounded another during confrontations at two locations in Kenosha."

I think that the "shot and killed two men and wounded another during confrontations" part should be changed to "shot and killed two men and wounded another in self-defense during confrontations" 91.152.200.72 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The jury verdict would stand as the consensus on it's own. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not how consensus works here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess I needed an emoji. Anyhow - the point is - this has been ruled self-defense, and is heavily referenceable. To not state that as fact now in the article is deliberate obfuscation - which detracts from the validity of the article as an encyclopedic reference. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The shootings have not been "ruled self-defense" by anyone. That may be an implication of the jury's not guilty verdicts, but it is not a stated fact. WWGB (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the shootings being considered self defense should be the defacto position on this as he was found not guilty on all charges. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

New sources

Are any of these articles considered viable sources? I believe a section describing the opinion of the trial's critics is expected given the intensity of the situation. These articles are in oppisition of the defense and chalk up to calling the trial a sham.

https://www.themarysue.com/kyle-rittenhouses-trial-is-an-absolute-sham/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/11/11/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-prosecutors-crash-and-burn-america-watches/6390215001/

https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-crying-crocodile-tears-1648297

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2021/11/5/22765491/kyle-rittenhouse-jury-self-defense

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/1049458617/kyle-rittenhouse-victims-arsonists-looters-judge-ruled

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict/

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/trial-of-far-right-poster-boy-kyle-rittenhouse-begins/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10191575/Rittenhouse-walks-does-reputation-smears-Biden-Libs.html

https://www.salon.com/2021/11/19/dont-be-shocked-if-kyle-rittenhouse-goes-free--thats-the-system-working-as-designed/

2603:8080:F605:4078:DD30:6CF3:837F:840A (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Info about criticism of the trial would most likely be added to a separate article about the trial itself. X-Editor (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Most of those are opinions, see WP:RSEDITORIAL. Significant views should be included, but per WP:NPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we need not and should not include every columnist in the peanut gallery. The Newsweek piece is lazy summary of Twitter hot takes (and see WP:NEWSWEEK). The view of Jonathan Turley in USA Today is probably a view worth including. The Daily Mail piece is from a deprecated source (see WP:DAILYMAIL). The Mary Sue piece seems to come from a non-expert and niche source. Op-eds from mainstream left-leaning outlets like The Nation and Salon.com can be considered, but should not used to drown out significant right-leaning perspectives. The best sources to use would be eventual third-party sources that comment on the reactions somewhat distanced from the fray ("conservative commentators tended to say X, while liberal pundits often claimed Y") rather than relying exclusively on the reactionary pieces ("this is X!") themselves. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Separate article for trial?

The trial is certainly notable and has been widely covered by all US news outlets. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 20:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Split The trial itself could easily outgrow this article and will probably need it's own. And there are definitely going to be enough sources in a few days time, if not already right now. ― Levi_OP^Talk 20:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wait. After reading the below comments and considering WP:NOTEVERYTHING, waiting would probably be better. Although there may be plenty of sources about the trial, as I stated, the articles will most likely be reactionary rather than facts about the trail and it's proceedings that could be used to write a good article. ― Levi_OP^Talk 20:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Split The trial section does not contain enough info and splitting it into a separate article would result in more content about the trial on Wikipedia. X-Editor (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wait per comments below. X-Editor (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wait a couple of months for things to settle down. The day/week/month of the verdict is not a good time to be trying to break this up. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. The article should probably encompass both the shooting and trial, which are directly and intimately related. A comprehensive rewrite and critical consolidation should be warranted per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROPORTION and WP:RECENTISM (see WP:10YEARTEST). However, Wikipedians collectively and in general lack the creativity and willpower required to craft a single comprehensive article, and can't resist piling on daily news drivel and "reactions" (see WP:PROSELINE) with meticulous detail solely because news outlets do it. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait While I think the current article should probably combed over once things settle down a bit my instinct is this is not too long and the article isn't likely to get significantly longer. Springee (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, and maybe if we're lucky, the trial section will be tightened up to a paragraph or two. Then we won't even have to think of splitting. Imagine a world in which the section was just The trial started on $date, and lasted for $days. After $hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all charges. That's what we're doing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Probably no, currently the trial section is WP:Proseline that could be condensed into a few sentences JeffUK (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. In my opinion, the highest value to the reader is to have all of the information in one place, at least at this time. To focus an article only on the trial would divert readers' attention from the facts of the shooting(s), in my opinion. Just wait to edit the trial down to a concise capsule version rather than all the media blather/circus/blow-by-blow/WP:NOTNEWS that is going on now. If in two months' time the trial section is still bloated, then split it out but keep a capsule version here. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split, in contrast to other folks' opinions I think the trial section will grow over time as things settle down and we can get together a coherent, detailed account of what happened. I'd absolutely be fine with waiting though. QoopyQoopy (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. Since the article doesn't exist for the person, despite meeting the criteria for WP:NOTE and WP has taken a position of not recognizing that notability - then everything about the entire event, including the trial all falls under one umbrella - soup to nuts. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not at this point. If the trial section gets too large, yes.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait - This seems like the largest subplot, for a lack of better terminology, to come out of the Kenosha unrest. We've still got the shooting of Jacob Blake as the main topic. We'll see where the aftermath takes us. IMHO, Rittenhouse himself seems primed to get an article of his own, especially if he becomes a political figure of some kind. Love of Corey (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait per comments by Softlavender above. Cedar777 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Split. Separate articles for the Blake shooting, the unrest, and the trial. Electrons are cheap. BBQboffin (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Split (?) The section is not 'that' large currently, but if content is added discussing the aftermath of the trial, etcetera, then it would seem to be sufficient content to warrant a full page. --DirkDouse (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wait for now; if in a few months there needs to be a split, if anything a new article on Kyle Rittenhouse may be needed if he stays in the spotlight. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split - Article is over 100 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• No split. There is nothing so special about the trial, only whole story is notable. But the story is highly significant. The context: [23]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Don't split it's all one event. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• No - It all goes together. Other high profile incidents are combined where the article has the event and the aftermath and/or related trials - no need for separate articles. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split. There seems to be enough coverage of the trial to write a fuller detailed article that goes into the trial itself in more depth than would be appropriate for inclusion in the article on the shooting. Since articles are written in summary style, it would be more appropriate to narrow down the listing of legal proceedings in this article and to link using a {{main article}} template to a main article for the trial. If the holdup is a neutral title, then "State v. Rittenhouse" or something along those lines could suffice temporarily until a better title could be fleshed out; I don't see this being an issue that should hold up a split. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. The proper treatment of the Kenosha killings deserves Wikipedia’s best efforts. Even the language used will be unsatisfactory to many. It’s easy to picture an edit battle. I recommend the trial and acquittal remains a section here until sufficient material is available for an independent page. Dw31415 (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What material, in your opinion, does not currently exist that is needed to justify the creation of an independent page? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until the article gets sufficiently expanded and more stable, but I agree in principle with the idea. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split I think a split at this point is appropriate since it's such a notable trial. I would say the trial itself has similar RS coverage as the Trial of Derek Chauvin. Also I agree with the notion that this will expand over time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Don't split it all goes together. Dream Focus 21:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split The trial and the unrest were two separate events and should have two separate articles. We should also have a page for Kyle Rittenhouse himself. Joe (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split the trial had numerous aspects that would be way too long to include in the article, and many of them are unrelated to the shooting, since the trial was not only about the shooting but also what occurred beforehand with Black and Rittenhouse and also what occurred afterwards with his extradition back to Kenosha etc. Bill Williams 23:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

time correction

Please change 11:49 to 11:48 p.m., according to what is written in the article. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Assuming you mean the 11:49 in the infobox, that's what it says in the in-line cited article JeffUK (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Rifles "never crossed state lines"

The Background → Kyle Rittenhouse section states that

At the time, Rittenhouse lived in Antioch, Illinois, about 20 miles from Kenosha by road. Rittenhouse and his friend Dominick David Black "armed themselves with rifles" and went to Kenosha to help defend a car dealership business

That makes it look like the rifles were brought in from Antioch, but the source provided specifically mentions that that was not the case:

So Rittenhouse and his friend armed themselves with rifles and headed to the business. Pierce added that the weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines.

Chamie (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this into the 'sequence of events' section because that's where it belongs, hopefully this also separates it from 'Kyle's house' so clears things up a little? JeffUK (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That looks much better now, thanks. Chamie (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the wording was misleading and factually incorrect. A more accurate account is: According to Rittenhouse, he drove to Kenosha on August 24, and spent the night at the house of his friend Dominick Black. On August 25, Black and Rittenhouse brought rifles to downtown Kenosha to help defend a car dealership business. The rifle Rittenhouse used had been legally purchased by Black the previous April, with funds given by Rittenhouse, and kept in Black's Kenosha home until August 24. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2021

Can You please The middle initial “H.” To Kyle Rittenhouse’s Name? His Initial was mentioned when he was acquitted 64.237.85.136 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Why? It's not like he will be confused with any other "Kyle Rittenhouse". He is no John Smith. WWGB (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity at the moment. Love of Corey (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Section for Lies and Corruption

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.

---

it's no secret now that the prosecution was not in the right during this trial, as well as a number of falsehoods pushed by the media. In light of a verdict that is supported by evidence, I believe it's necessary to make it apparent what was proven to be a lie court and which media establishments pushed it. 142.136.62.203 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Impossible, since Wikipedia relies entirely on media as a source for information. So unless the media reports on itself having lied - and only those specific media organizations Wikpedians have deemed "reliable" according to WP:RSP - this will not be included in the article. Perhaps not fair, but this is the rule of Wikipedia. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:11C1:1AB5:4E8C:E203 (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense, all one must do is link an article with the false claim (example: Rittenhouse brought a gun over state lines) and refute it with the trial itself. A section showing all of the corruption is absolutely necessary to ensure no misinformation can be gleaned from the article. 142.136.62.203 (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be considered original research or synthesis, as you would use both the media's claims and the information from the trial to produce information - that the media has lied - which is not stated in either of those sources. How sensible these rules are is dubious and an argument could be made that such strict adherence to news media claims is a flawed way of building an encyclopedia, but those are the rules. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:11C1:1AB5:4E8C:E203 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 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.

Courthouse vs courtroom

Responding to this edit by Wtmitchell for the record as I do have an NYT subscription & could check. I can confirm that NYT specifically states "Judge Bruce Schroeder called it an “extremely serious matter” and said he was banning anyone affiliated with the cable network from the courthouse.". --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

NYT article uses both "courthouse" (several times) and "courtroom" (towards the end of the article). The KenoshaNews.Com article I added has a link to the video, and Schroeder doesn't use either term. He says "this building" which presumably refers to the courthouse, but does a judge have the authority to ban media from another judge's courtroom in the same courthouse? Maybe we should quote Schroeder directly and say "this building". BBQboffin (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Murder

I've brought this up before and I will again. We need to stop classifying murder based on a failed justice system, nor what weak lawsuit-avoiding terminology the press uses. This case exemplifies this again. ɱ (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You know darn well we can't without Wikipedia opening itself to lawsuits. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Cultural change is not part of Wikipedia's remit, Ɱ; and not because of lawsuits, either, despite what the Fir says. We don't editorialize here; we use the terminology our reliable sources use. To this Wisconsinite, obviously it's murder, but that's not what the jury called it, and we are not here to Right Great Wrongs™. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This is probably a discussion that would need to happen via a broader RfC, given that this was determined via RfC last year: Special:Permalink/994658134#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Its not murder, the jury was unanimous on this. It was a justifiable homicide in self defense regardless of what any talking head on TV or Twitter says. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

What an absolutely brilliant idea to change facts because of what some guy on Wikipedia believes the facts to be. Why not let these guys edit Wikipedia to say they don't agree with the result of an election? Nothing bad at all can come of this idea. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"Unanimous Verdict"

Seems that several users in the recent edit history object to the use of the term "unanimous" verdict / mentioned that sources do not specific that the verdict was unanimous. Here are some sources that state that the verdict was unanimous:

• https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-jury-verdict-divided-20211120-qweepyvqyve7xcjyc7d2uiyici-story.html
• https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/11/19/rittenhouse-verdict-n2599154
• https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/582382-jury-finds-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty-on-all-counts
• https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/what-they-re-saying-politicians-react-to-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict/ar-AAQV0x8

However, the jury was required to reach a unanimous verdict (otherwise would be a hung jury), which means that the statement is true by definition. Not sure if really necessary to mentioned that it was or was not unanimous, but it is accurate to say that it was.

--DirkDouse (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to say it was an unanimous verdict, because it had to be. QoopyQoopy (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems strange to me, as is, even though it is technically correct. In its present form, it reads "The jury acquitted Rittenhouse, unanimously, of the remaining charges."

I suggest the following addition of deliberation length (from the "the hill" source) and removal of some commas. Proposed: "After three and one-half days of deliberation, the jury acquitted Rittenhouse unanimously of the remaining charges." Semitones (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't all verdicts presented to the judge in those courts have to be unanimous? Willondon (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, in the US and most common-law systems. QoopyQoopy (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Not all "common law systems". Australia, for example, has majority verdicts in some cases. It might be just as well to keep this one word for the sake of those unfamiliar with the American legal system (including Americans).--Jack Upland (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I vote “unanimous” be removed. In the US, by definition, reaching a verdict is a unanimous agreement. Adding “unanimous” makes it sound like it was some higher level of acquittal. Dw31415 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

3 confrontations is not correct

The article is written as if there are 3 confrontations, which I don't feel is true. The shooting of huber, at Jump Kick Man, and Grosskreutz all occured within a few seconds of each other, while Rittenhouse was on the ground and didn't move from that location. The trial described it as 2 events, and it seems most logical that way as well. To the degree that something happened in the middle, the only event was Grosskreutz talking to Rittenhouse on video for a few moments, before falling back.

The current article makes it sound as though Huber was shot, THEN grosskreutz spoke to him and was shot, which is not chronologically correct. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the second and third “confrontations” were essentially a continuum that took place at nearly the exact same location. Second and third confrontations should be combined into one chronological section for the second location to include jump kick man, Huber, & Grosskreutz. Cedar777 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

"Second and third confrontations" (sic!). But describing the exact timing is of course important. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit needed

When talking about the weapons charge being dismissed, it says Kyle’s rifle was under 16 inches but it’s supposed to say rifle barrel Calebh98 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit has been made. --DirkDouse (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP discussion on listing the criminal records of the dead

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kenosha_unrest_shooting is the place for this discussion if anyone wishes to have it. Dream Focus 18:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of superfluous information

"Blake was shot after he opened the door to an SUV and was leaning into the vehicle. As a result of the shooting, he became paralyzed from the waist down. The police shooting was followed by protests as part of the Black Lives Matter movement, which saw a resurgence in the wake of several other high-profile killings by police officers in 2020. The Kenosha protests included rallies, marches, property damage, arson, and clashes with police."

This part here while explaining the background is not needed in the article as it is already explained in detail in the main Jacob Blake article. Thus I vote for it to be removed as it detracts from the Kenosha shooting article and only serves to confuse wikipedia readers.--Thronedrei (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Undue detail for background

Cedar777, you reverted my edit which I believe was wrong. The background section is basically a summary of Shooting of Jacob Blake and Kenosha unrest which are already linked in the hatnote. That Kenosha Guard posted something on Facebook which Kyle Rittenhouse actually did not see--per the cited source--or that the post was redistributed by Infowars/Alex Jones is largely unrelated to the subject and gives WP:UNDUE impression that somehow Kyle Rittenhouse or this incident was related to Infowars/Alex Jones. Normchou ^💬 21:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Social media distributed information about several key aspects of this series of events. The shooting of Jacob Blake was caught on video by bystanders and swiftly distributed to a national audience via Facebook - intensifying the outrage. Similarly, the call to arms by civilian militia was distributed by Infowars which expanded the audience and participation by those outraged by the property destruction at night during the protests. Both of these actions are significant and arise after asking the question: how did this event in a relatively small community (100,000 residents) get so heated so quickly? to the extent that the name Kenosha is now widely known as the center point of debate between Americans?

This isn’t a biography of Rittenhouse, but rather the shootings that occurred during the Kenosha unrest. RS address the questions of: Why was there unrest in Kenosha? What made this town on this date such a volatile situation? The article reflects what these sources have pointed out. Cedar777 (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Well . . . it did until it was removed. The distribution by Infowars was noted by several RS:

• New York Times [24] Infowars, the website that traffics in conspiracy theories, amplified it, as did local right-wing radio stations.
• NPR [25] The Kenosha Guard page boasted of news coverage in the "national" media — specifically, the far-right website Infowars.
• reuters [26] Militias organized rapidly on Tuesday on Reddit and Facebook, where users shared coverage from Infowars, a right-wing conspiracy site. Infowars in turn amplified the Kenosha Guard's Facebook post and said the groups were "recruiting citizens to patrol."
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [27] The large presence of armed men Tuesday night in Kenosha has been linked to a local militia group known as the Kenosha Guard, which created a Facebook event called “Armed Citizens to Protect our Lives and Property.” The invitation was re-posted by the far-right website Infowars. and The heavy involvement of armed militia members among protesters has added an element of volatility to this week's protests in Kenosha. While small pockets of armed men have gathered at protests in Milwaukee throughout the summer, the shooting of Jacob Blake by a Kenosha police officer has drawn more people — with more guns. Combine that with lesser-prepared police in a smaller city and national attention that's drawn demonstrators from out of town and the risk of violence increases.
• The New Yorker [28] Mathewson’s post caught the attention of Kristan Harris, a streamer whose work included conspiracy content of the Pizzagate variety. All summer, he had been live-streaming protests, calling himself a “citizen journalist.” Harris wrote a blurb about the Kenosha Guard, which got picked up by Infowars. On Facebook, thousands of people indicated interest in joining Mathewson at the courthouse. Mathewson posted an open letter to Kenosha’s police chief, calling himself the “commander” of the Kenosha Guard and warning, “Do not have your officers tell us to go home under threat of arrest.” Mathewson’s “Armed Citizens” post elicited such comments as “kill looters and rioters.”

Cedar777 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with your point regarding Why was there unrest in Kenosha? What made this town on this date such a volatile situation?, but these questions are only indirect to the subject (i.e., shooting by Rittenhouse that night and its consequences) and should instead be included in the main articles of the background section, whose links are in the hatnote. These questions are WP:UNDUE for this article and border on WP:COAT no matter how many RSes you have listed. Also, disagreed that WP:BLP wouldn't apply here even if This isn't a biography of Rittenhouse per se. It is clearly marked at the top of this talk page that "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons." Normchou ^💬 00:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

How to handle the YouGov poll

@TheXuitts and JeffUK:, it would probably be helpful to discuss the YouGov pole information here since it has been added and removed a few times [29]. First, it looks like YouGov would be a primary source for the information in question. Do we have any 3rd party sources that discuss the information. I found a Politico article that seemed to touch on some of the information [30]. This content might work well integrated into material talking about the media framing of the topic. Most people probably have not looked at this topic carefully and much of the media reporting has proven to be inaccurate. This is an Op-Ed (thus not likely to make it into the wiki entry) that notes areas where what was conveyed in media reporting and facts at trial diverged [31]. Anyway, I think the paragraph simply reiterating what YouGov has said probably should be removed and replaced with 3rd party RSs that discuss the data in context. Springee (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I was waiting to see whether the editor saw fit to discuss it here or re-added it. It's just not relevant to the actual shooting, nor the outcome to the trial, and it's not a 'response' to the trial as it was from a survey conducted while the trial was ongoing; before much of the evidence was known. It's basically indiscriminate data. I think 'Despite a plurality of Americans personally believing that Rittenhouse is guilty of homicide' is also synthesis (That is not stated in the source, and the data says they think he should be found guilty, not that they thought he WAS guilty.) It's basically unfounded defamation, and needs to be much, much better sourced. "A plurality of Americans think he should have been found guilty' is WP:ORSYNTH as it's not mentioned in the source. There's also a bias here as there's no mention of the fact that 'A plurality of Americans thought that Kyle would be found not guilty' nor that a simple majority of people who heard a lot about the trial thought he would be. As a BLP I'm removing it boldly, again. JeffUK (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I will add that to the lead where it says "the coverage was polarized". Citing partisan divide is germane here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a better fit, I've changed it slightly to more closely reflect the wording in the poll. JeffUK (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

JeffUK: I actually specifically mentioned that most Americans thought he wouldn’t be found guilty. You just didn’t read what I wrote. And it IS mentioned in the source that a plurality think he should've been found guilty… that was literally the question in the poll. You just want specific narrative pushed here and it’s clear that’s your intent. TheXuitts (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheXuitts: please refrain from making such accusations, absent evidence.

@JeffUK: the edit Springee mentions is all right and I do not share any of your concerns, being basically stretched in my humble opinion. To explain why:

It's just not relevant to the actual shooting, nor the outcome to the trial, and it's not a 'response' to the trial as it was from a survey conducted while the trial was ongoing; before much of the evidence was known. -> well, the evidence was known for quite a long time because most of it was already published on the Internet. And even that is irrelevant because we don't restrict polls to those that assume that a respondent has profound knowledge of the situation. What matters for us is to give public perception thereof. If you know a better poll, suggest one.

Despite a plurality of Americans personally believing that Rittenhouse is guilty of homicide' is also synthesis (That is not stated in the source, and the data says they think he should be found guilty, not that they thought he WAS guilty.) It's basically unfounded defamation, and needs to be much, much better sourced -> I wonder how many people you've met who would say "yeah, he hasn't committed the crime but let's convict him anyway" (it's semantics, really); plus the opinion is attributed to "the plurality of Americans" - we aren't saying he was guilty.

"A plurality of Americans think he should have been found guilty' is WP:ORSYNTH as it's not mentioned in the source. It is: 45%-32% ratio for all people, 50%-42% for those who've heard a lot of the trial.

There's also a bias here as there's no mention of the fact that 'A plurality of Americans thought that Kyle would be found not guilty' nor that a simple majority of people who heard a lot about the trial thought he would be. Per WP:PRESERVE, add relevant info that you believe was not mentioned but should be there instead of deleting other valid info and ask others to add this fragment too (in fact, that's the only piece I don't believe should be there, because this does not show the public's attitude to Rittenhouse but rather to the justice system in general, which some, particularly progressives, see as biased against racial minorities).

I don't see what the poll has to do with BLP, because we are only citing opinions of the public, which does not influence the facts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the BLP issue is this is basically still hints at guilt, that most people think he should have been found guilty I think is bordering on suggesting he did something wrong 'despite' being found innocent in court. As I believe it is a negative implication against Rittenhouse, I'm holding it to a very high standard. Using 'A plurality think he should have been found guilty' is slight synthesis of data because none of the sources report on it, you can split results of a poll until the cows come home, unless people report that this particular element of the results are significant then I don't think it belongs. You could just as easily say "Most Americans do not strongly believe he should have been found guilty" by aggregating 'No' and 'Don't know' (or the opposite, etc.)... all of this interpretation of the polling results is inappropriate; we should leave it to reliable secondary sources. Per WP:Preserve, I do not believe an opinion poll has enough weight to be included in the way that it was, let alone giving it even more space; it's a criminal trial not an election. JeffUK (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the BLP issue is this is basically still hints at guilt, that most people think he should have been found guilty I think is bordering on suggesting he did something wrong 'despite' being found innocent in court. I believe that's an overinterpretation. If we say, suppose, that "75% believe 9/11 response was right, according to poll X" doesn't mean that Wikipedia somehow endorses the 9/11 response. It's true that Wikipedia endorses majority opinions in some cases, but only if these opinions are voiced by respectable researchers and scholars, not some random people as in this poll. We do not imply that the people's will as reflected in one poll should be the verdict. If someone reads between the lines and comes to that conclusion, instead of reading the text plainly as written, it has to do with the reader and not Wikipedia. Our job is not guessing how readers may perceive the fragment but simply appropriately present it.

Using 'A plurality think he should have been found guilty' is slight synthesis of data because none of the sources report on it The YouGov source does, I've even indicated where. The poll itself doesn't make the distinction of strongly/rather/weakly, but simply reports Yes/No/IDK results. The overall result is 45-32-23 and 50-42-8 for those who've heard the trial. We don't need secondary sources to define "majority" (50%+) or "plurality" (<50%, but most chosen), and neither do we need them to simply state: option A garnered X percent of support. WP:PRIMARY may be used for that purpose.

The suggestion that the poll is WP:UNDUE for whatever reason is also beyond me, because it shows clearly the polarization along political and racial lines (which analyses are already present in RS, and which the numbers simply confirm). That is the best context to put the survey into. Again, you may move it somewhere in the text but please do not delete it. For comparison, a similar survey is included in the Trial_of_Derek_Chauvin#Opinion_polling article, made by CBS News. The Economist is also an RS, and YouGov is a respected pollster. Why not doing it here? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this content should be largely removed from the leed. A mention in the leed is due but not the extensive coverage. As for the pole in the body, remember the pole is a primary source. We need a secondary source to talk about it for us. Springee (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do we? The foremost criteria are reliability and balance. Primary and secondary distinction in this case only serve as an additional warning against WP:OR but is otherwise a perfectly valid source. (Though I agree the place for the poll is in the body, while the poll merits one sentence at most in the lede). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The fundamental difference in the Chauvin article, is that Chauvin was found guilty in a court, and the poll was in agreement with this verdict. I don't think it's particularly weighty there either but it's a totally different situation. BLP requires us to take particular care when adding information about someone that is negative, saying that most people think he should have been found guilty is negative. JeffUK (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

is that Chauvin was found guilty in a court, and the poll was in agreement with this verdict That's not really a difference. US Supreme Court accepted some rulings that polled badly. That's not a reason to exclude a poll. It should be obvious for a reader that the judiciary and not polls decide guilt or constitutional matters (if it isn't for some reason, either this article is trash or the person would rather remind their civic education classes).

BLP requires us to take particular care when adding information about someone that is negative Yes and no. What matters in these cases is not whether the information is negative (it can be), but that it's not libellous (that's what BLP was created for in the first place) and not covered disproportionately. The fact that a plurality of people believe Rittenhouse should be in jail is not disputed, and is not libellous, either. The question is thus only if the inclusion of info makes the negative balance skewed against someone and is thus unwarranted. The thing is, it simply reflects the opinion of the society, which does not, however, override the verdict. If anything, the poll would, in the light of the recent ruling, mean that Rittenhouse's acquittal is not popular, not that he's guilty. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, WP:NPOV says we cover aspects based on how they appear in secondary sources. The survey is a primary source. Going into such detail without a secondary source violates NPOV. Strictly speaking, if no secondary sources cover it we shouldn't include it. Springee (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't see the formulation you quote. In fact, the text says Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject (emphasis original). It says nothing about being secondary. The only mention of WP:SECONDARY is in WP:BALANCE, but this provision only applies if when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence. It's hard to guess how this could possibly be the case when we have only one poll. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. I suspect we can find sources that talk about this pole. Also if we are going to mention poles we should see if more than one discussed the matter. Finally, we shouldn't give too much emphasis to poles because they are not reliable for deciding the facts of the matter. Citing this pole to show that people were divided on the matter is fine but the level of detail as well as inclusion in the lead gives this pole more weight then it should have. If this pole is that important then we should be able to find secondary sources discussing it's results. Springee (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2021 (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.

---

“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. Does the word victim apply? The first definition I found includes people harmed by crime, “event, or action” Dw31415 (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There is probably a better article for the disparity. This is the first one I found but applies to female victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome Dw31415 (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The victims are named in the lead. We cannot put everything into the first paragraph. Knowledge of the victim names does not assist the reader's understanding. We are not here to memorialise the dead. WWGB (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"dehumanizing black lives and describing black and white victims in completely different terms. " Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz were all white. They are all mentioned by name in the lead. JeffUK (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

None of the killed or injured in the described incident were black, so I don't understand the objection about unequal treatment. Besides, the first paragraph is the summary of the summary, so at least this one is written quite well. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Your own source says "Rittenhouse is white, as are the three men he shot", and even if you didn't read that far, the video still shows Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz, who look almost like brothers. I suggest this section be closed as the only responses can possibly be "they were actually white". Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:58, 21 November 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.

More political opinions needed

We only have a snapshot of reactions from politicians, which sound too narrow. There are more decisive reactions (Jerrold Nadler, probably some others) as well as proposals for internship from Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Matt Gaetz and Madison Cawthorn. There was also Trump speaking, along with some other pundits. Please expand the section. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Disagree that this content with specifically named politicians belongs in the lede. Better to keep it in the body of the article. Cedar777 (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I've pointed to the section to be expanded. The lede already covers the reactions well. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose We really should have fewer, not more. Other than playing to their political base why would we care what various politicians (for or against) say about the case. It's important to say the responses were divided and that various people commented but their specific comments/quotes aren't meaningful. If nothing else it would be better to see what legal scholars say. Do they feel this was an example of the justice system working or not? The problem with opening this up to various quotes is soon it could swamp the article and the actual facts of the event would get lost in the volume of opinions. Springee (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Which is why a separate section outlining legal scholars' opinions, when these appear, should be in place. Other than playing to their political base why would we care what various politicians (for or against) say about the case. Because this trial, as Chauvin's trial, or any other trials where the Second Amendment, racial tensions, or both, appear, is hell of a political game and is notable not necessarily for simply being a shooting but also for the political reactions to it. All of these opinions are IMHO notable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Racial issues section

I feel like the article should include more information about racial issues(e.g., persons shot, jury). See this Newsweek article [32]. Is there enough material for separate section?--Nowa (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really, but as a criticism, it definitely deserves some place. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Should mention all three he shot were white. Dream Focus 18:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Also true. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Persons shot

Here's more on the persons that were shot. [33]--Nowa (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, more information on those shot could be illuminating to the reader ... or has it already been deleted? Haven't paid attention to this article before the court verdict. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In general I would leave this sort of background information out of the article. The problem is if you include it then you open the door for both the flattering and unflattering parts and ultimately it's not overly important to the full article. I think the NPR article did a nice job of covering both negative and positive content but honestly, I feel like that is just too much info and out of the scope of what this article should cover. Springee (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Jump Kick Man Is Not Unidentified

If we're not going to put his name, at least put like "something-year-old (place) resident". Saying he is "unidentified" is untrue. HumanHistory1 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The best source I could find for him is this. Others are worse. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, let's wait on this. There's no consensus on the reliability of Fox News political coverage. Normally I'd think it's fine for basic facts like this, but this is a contentious article and every other source from a cursory Google is either worse or something I've never heard of. QoopyQoopy (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• not yet We have an allegation from unreliable sources, and then a statement from the prosecutor saying he things the state knew. Even if we consider Fox reliable, this is insufficient to state in Wiki voice that JKM is identified. At most we could say that Richards said that the state knew. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• not yet Better source needed. Fox News by itself is insufficient for a claim that is a potential BLP violation for Wikipedia. See WP:RSP. Really, this entire article should be purged of Fox News as a source for claims due to the politicization of the subject and the lack of consensus among editors on the reliability of this publisher. Until the identity is confirmed and picked up by better quality sources it has no business being in the article. Cedar777 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Eh. I disagree with the above that Fox News is not a reliable enough publisher for this; Fox generally has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in its crime reporting, which the identity of an individual who is pictured in a video plainly falls into. However, I think that the specific report alone actually isn't enough to establish this here as due. Fox News notes the source of the man's identity as one that defense attorneys revealed to Fox News. The Fox report then cites an anonymous source familiar with the discussions between the prosecution and jump kick man as a means to verify the identity. This seems to be enough to satisfy basic elements journalistic rigor—there are multiple sources making the claims and there isn't a clear issue with circular sourcing. However, given that one of the sources is defense attorneys and the other is anonymous, it's not a report that deserves a tremendous amount of weight when making BLP-related claims including allegations of criminal conduct. Jump kick man seems to be a low profile individual, so I don't see the rationale for including his name. At the same time, it's not clearly the case that he remains "unidentified". I've seen a Maine affiliate of Fox include a brief portion of the story on their website, and that local station is clearly a WP:NEWSORG, but the mention is so brief that I don't really think it counts as WP:USEBYOTHERS. Law and Crime also has reported the name of the individual and his age. That website has a published masthead and is currently used in 246 articles. Law and Crime has some backing from A&E Networks, which in my mind lends it some additional credibility to the claim made. As a result, I don't think that stating that he is "unidentified" in a continuous present tense is the best thing to do.

It'd probably be better to say that jump kick man was "then-not publicly identified". This avoids the BLP issues with naming him, while also accounting for subsequent reporting that indeed has publicly identified him. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

A whole sentence should not be parenthetical

At the end of the second to last paragraph under "Republican", we have an entire sentence surrounded by parentheses, "...similar to what Rittenhouse had done earlier.[190] (The FBI said that there is no evidence for Antifa's involvement in the attack).[191]" I propose we either remove the parentheses and let it stand alone as a sentence, or remove the period before it and have it as a parenthetical at the end of the previous sentence.JMM12345 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345