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)

Irrelevant to your point, but in the latter case, wouldn't we say "tissue"? QoopyQoopy (talk) 19:22, 23 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)

What about the handgun, should it be referred to as a "semi automatic pistol" commonly used by protective forces all over the world? Tepkunset (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO, we should generally echo what the source cited in support of article assertions call it. The article does that in the instances I looked at, generally saying "handgun" and saying "Glock pistol" with support in one case. In one case, though, the article says "handgun" and cites only this source which describes it as "gun" and "pistol"; there, I think "handgun" and "pistol" are synonyms. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Intentionally misidentifying any rifle as an AR15 is highly promotional. You might as well say that a Dodge Charger is a Honda Civic style car. It sounds like a Colt AR15 salesman is editing this article to promote a firearm that was never even used, nor was any Colt variant of an AR15 used. Yikes!69.165.145.133 (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

In case it matters, I see that this NBC News article identifies the rifle specifically as a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:35, 23 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.

Fox calls itself entertainment, has a political agenda that determines its content, was founded as a mouthpiece for the GOP ... none of those news organizations you mention is anything like that. -- Jibal (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

SomeRandomGuy 10:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You Cant be serious??? CNN is not political??? MSNBC???? I cant think of one major "news source" that isn't political. 22:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC) 2601:5C4:4301:217C:E480:9F0C:8409:151F (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You're focusing in on the word "political" for some reason. What Outdatedpizza likely meant is Fox is not suitable as a source for political coverage, as per WP:RSP. This is because editors perceive Fox News to be biased and opinionated. CNN and MSNBC have a history of factual accuracy and as such as considered reliable by a majority of Wikipedians per WP:RSP. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

SomeRandomGuy 10:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The word "political" should be focused upon, because Jibal who I was replying to made it such. Nearly all "news" sources are highly politicized, and Wikipedia unfortunately has become as well. Nearly every wiki page on politics bashes conservatives. CNN and MSNBC have a long history of non-factual one-sided political advocacy - how many of their shows even pretend to be news? Was CNNs coverage of Nicholas Sandman, Kyle Rittenhouse or Huter Biden's laptop "reliable" or "accurate". It's not Fox News that's biased, its the folks who have hijacked wikipedia. The page you point to shows that Wikipedia excludes all non-liberal sources (Fox, dailyMail, NYPost, etc., etc.) that I know of, which speaks volumes about wikipedia's reliability. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:AC3F:7AA6:DD0F:B40C (talk) 20:30, 25 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)

It's not even remotely "important". And "apparently" is a personal opinion. -- Jibal (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't be as important if the jurors were unaware of the incident, but because the judge informed them, it becomes very important. Same with the Nov 9 videotaping of the jury bus: https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/11/09/rittenhouse-jury-videotaping/ which resulted in the judge "instituting new procedures" to protect juror privacy. I'd like to see that added back in (I was reverted and then the page got protected). BBQboffin (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Separate article for trial?

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

---

The 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: [2]. 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)
• Wait It's one event, the Legal proceedings section on this article doesn't take a disproportionate amount of text, and the article size is reasonable at 31KB prose. feminist (t) 08:09, 22 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.

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)

The people commenting here are not refuting the valid points in my original comment, only providing their own opinions, many of which excuse, defend, or ignore the issue of this teen's ending the lives of two people. ɱ (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ɱ: What exactly do you wish Wikipedia to do, and specifically, what in this article? Are you venting frustrations or asking for an edit to be made? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to engage in irresponsible WP:OR labelling of this event, I'd like to advocate for calling Rittenhouse the victim of felonious and irresponsible vigilantes who chased him and of a lynching of his image by the media and some slanderous politicians, who actually think he had a duty to curl up in the street and die. If you don't like what I just said, please don't advocate for your own perspective here, because it's irrelevant. We have to reflect what reliable sources say, and in the case of contentious labels like the one you used, make it very clear who said it, instead of incorporating it into the article in WP:Wikivoice. 2600:1012:B068:D777:3172:6FCB:3354:9A46 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That is an extreme way of putting it, but neither Rittenhouse and the people he shot should be described in some insulting or praising manner, since that would violate NPOV. Bill Williams 23:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to illustrate how charged words matter here by giving an alternate way of viewing the events. I did indicate that I considered that characterization irresponsible; personally I consider the entirety of this a multidimensional display of stupidity and tragedy; somewhere underneath the tension of dueling narratives, semantic debate, etc. is what this article should seek to responsibly cover, e.g. both the events and reactions, properly and dispassionately. Debates over calling it "murder" at this point is not what wikipedia is supposed to be about. 2600:1012:B068:D777:3172:6FCB:3354:9A46 (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Can this libel be removed and the perpetrators banned? This isn't a forum, and not a place for spreading libel and disinformation. 67.174.115.222 (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

So, who is going to decide what is a murder? You? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:1B3E:A064:38E6:3B39 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the article be titled "Kenosha unrest killings"? Seems like that is more in line with policy. ––FormalDude ^talk 12:57, 25 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 [3]. 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 [4]. 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 [5]. 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)

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Among sources covering the poll, if you insist on secondary sources, is a student newspaper outlet from Indiana. Nothing more to be sure.

There's another poll published post-trial, about whether the verdict was just: Morning Consult

As a side note, probably some info should be added about Rittenhouse interview to Fox News. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:27, 23 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)
  • Fox is fine for this content. First, for politics Fox's reliability is contested, not "unreliable". Second it's a stretch to claim this is politics vs news reporting. That said, I agree with your removal at this time. Springee (talk) 12:14, 22 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)

I can agree with that explanation. I believe the best way to go is to attribute the finding to the defense attorney, as I've just done. Besides, the article itself does not cover something out of order, so that's the situation I'd allow it to be used as a source, even if, in a broad sense, it is related to politics. Contentious means someone disagrees with the coverage, but other media have sadly simply ignored it, and not for the best of reasons. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wait So far we have limited information on this. I would support hedging our statements to say something like "unidentified during the trial" which is true and will stay true even if this changes in the future. Not many sources are talking about this and it seems most sources from here out want to talk about politics and the reactions of public figures who were not a party to the case so we probably won't see much more about this. If a few more sources pick this up and if they state it more definitively then perhaps include (Fox was careful to attribute the claim). Springee (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:BLPNAME. VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @VQuakr: I think that there are suggestions that we keep the name excluded but also don't say in wikivoice that the individual has not yet been identified. What do you think about those? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: yes, that went without saying. :) VQuakr (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Await further sourcing, in that whereas NBC News currently terms Jump Kick Man an unknown person, Rittenhouse has asserts to Fox News that on Nov, 7 his defense team had I.D.'d him.

  "[...W]e went into the Judge's chambers and the prosecution said, we identified jump kick man, and the prosecution threw a fit a little bit. They didn't want us to interview him. They were like, well, he's a victim, and didn't want my investigators or my attorneys to interview him or ask him questions. They just wanted to do it private, non-recorded, and the Judge said, no, no, no, it's going to be recorded. And then a couple of hours later, they say, oh, he asked for immunity and we're not going to give it to him. So we're not going to be calling him as a witness."

  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Rittenhouse is White Hispanic

Kyle Rittenhouse is actually far less white in every conceivable way than the men he shot. Can it be acknowledged that he's White Hispanic or Half Hispanic instead of otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:5520:2800:F920:1A14:C6CD:5F5D (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No, not without a reliable source. I've looked into this claim, apart from one or two obscure online tabloids this is not presented anywhere as fact. Snopes has an explanation of the source of this rumour, if anyone's interested. Is Kyle Rittenhouse’s Race Described Differently in Separate Court Records? JeffUK (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

As JeffUK said. For those who don't have the time to read the link, a police officer [...] recorded him as Hispanic based on his appearance, it is not a self-identification. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The prior offense involved a stop for a traffic violation, not an arrest. —ADavidB 15:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, in my jurisdiction it can be both at the same time, it was not my intention if this has broken WP:BLP. Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the statement from here and replaced it with [...] just to be on the safe side! No harm done JeffUK (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Media coverage?

Has anyone done an overview of the differences in media coverage from different sources? Like, not just far right and far left, but overall? I saw both of them stating things that clearly did not actually happen in the videos... TYT and Mr. Jones are not reliable sources! XD However, even when not falling along party lines, there was clearly a lack of fact-checking. 47.221.248.223 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead mentions that "public sentiment of the shootings was polarized and media coverage both polarized and politicized." Kleinpecan (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW not to move to the proposed title (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Kenosha unrest shooting → Kyle Rittenhouse shooting incident – I have never heard of this mentioned as a the "Kenosha unrest shooting". Also any coverage of this shooting always revolves around Rittenhouse and his role, as does the content of this article. Therefore, it makes the most sense for the name to reflect Rittenhouse's involvement. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: neither the current name nor the proposed title have a claim to WP:COMMONNAME, so "I have never heard of this mentioned", while true, has little sway here. The current title actually has more Google News hits than the proposed version. I agree that the shooting and Rittenhouse are practically synonymous in the national/international media, but that's also true of Kenosha. Firefangledfeathers 22:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The alternate title would have BLP issues. This article is also a child article to Kenosha unrest; titles are to be consistent per WP:TITLE. VQuakr (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Shootings are usually named by location, time (St Valentine's Day massacre) or victim. "Rittenhouse" goes with "case" and "verdict" but not "shooting". Agree with all previous Oppose reasons as well. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have never seen a shooting article named after the shooter. The proposed title does not make clear whether KR was the shooter or the shot. WWGB (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment on the premise that the coverage is about Rittenhouse. The coverage was initially of the Kenosha events, then after KR was charged, of the Rittenhouse case. The defense never disputed that KR shot the three men, but until that became clear in the legal proceedings, responsible media had to be careful to not use terms like "Rittenhouse shootings" or "killings". Even less will they do that now that he has been acquitted. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Shootings are usually named after the location of the shooting, not the shooter. 67.80.108.160 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kenosha unrest is the parent article, not Kyle Rittenhouse. The word "unrest" is through the article, and more so through the references. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name is more accurate considering not only did Kyle Rittenhouse shoot, but so did Ziminski. Additionally, Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were all involved in the incident as well, so naming the article solely after Rittenhouse is not representative of the incident. I think that splitting the article into the Trial of Kyle Rittenhouse would solve the issue of not having an article with Rittenhouse in the name, and having additional information on Rittenhouse there. Bill Williams 03:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As I believe someone above mentioned, splitting the section about Kyle Rittenhouse's trial into a separate article (which I would support) would solve this concern. Joe (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don’t think the trial warrants a spinout. At the moment, the coverage is news primary sources. It may be controversial, but I speculate that very little detail of the trial itself will be the subject of ongoing comment. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 24 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.

Slow motion edit war

Bill Williams, you have repeatedly overwritten neutral language that referers to the sequence where Ziminsky fired a warning shot, after which Rittenhouse turned towards Rosenbaum by insisting in the lede that Ziminsky caused Rittenhouse to turn and shoot, i.e. that Ziminski was responsible for RH's actions. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3

It is problematic to use the word "caused" in wikivoice (Ziminski fired a shot that "caused" Rittenhouse to shoot Rosenbaum) as it caries a negative implication of blame that simply isn't necessary to convey what the sources actually say. Wikipedia should be very carful to attribute a person's actions to them alone, as the source does, and to avoid any possible perception of blame. Ziminski made a choice (he is soley responsible for his behavior) and Rittenhouse made a choice (RH is solely responsible for his behavior). Ziminski fired a warning shot, after which (2.5 seconds later according to a detective)[6] Rittenhouse fired at Rosenbaum.

The Wikipedia article later states that "At least 16 gunshots from other sources were heard on video during the time that Rittenhouse was on the ground." Did these 16 gunshots or warning shots cause other individuals to open fire or result in other fatalities? Nope.

Here is how sources describe the sequence:

• CNN "Rittenhouse then heard a gunshot behind him, he said. Police detectives testified earlier in the trial that Ziminski fired that initial shot in the air, and Ziminski has separately pleaded not guilty to three charges related to that night. Seconds after that gunshot, Rittenhouse turned and saw Rosenbaum, 36, coming at him with his arms out front, he said. "I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun," Rittenhouse testified. He then shot Rosenbaum four times, killing him. [7]
• AP News On Tuesday, the jury watched drone video that was zoomed-in and slowed down to show Rosenbaum following Rittenhouse, and then Rittenhouse wheeling around and shooting Rosenbaum at close range. [8]

The word caused needs to be removed from the article and replaced with some sort of neutral language ASAP per NPOV . . . Cedar777 (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that Rittenhouse turned immediately after Ziminsky fired the shot, and Rittenhouse claims that is the reason why he turned, and this is not disputed by any source in existence, so how exactly is this not neutral? Bill Williams 08:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Also please do not claim that I have "repeatedly overwritten" something when all I did was make I made an edit that you disagreed with, which you then reverted, and then I reinstated my edit in a different manner and included some of what you wanted in it. That is not "repeatedly overwriting" anything. Bill Williams 08:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cedar777. I've implemented a change to the wording in the lead. ––FormalDude ^talk 08:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude how is the way I phrased it now? I changed "and" to "then" since regardless of what caused Rittenhouse to turn, sequentially he turned after the shot was fired by Ziminsky. Additionally, the citations were in an awkward place, so I put them at the end instead. Bill Williams 08:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks! ––FormalDude ^talk 08:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Who were the barristers?

Who were the barristers defending (or prosecuting) Rittenhouse?

I know Lin Wood and John Pierce started, but were fired and replaced with three barristers, one of them Mark Richards.

The prosecution was by Thomas Binger and a "Mr Krauss".

Who were the others, and what were the full names? I believe Lin Wood and John Pierce are notable persons of general interest and (in)famy?

The Judge was a Bruce Schrœder and he is described as the most experienced judge in Wisconsin?--2003:C8:4713:4700:45C7:64AA:F496:763B (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, the replacement defense team was Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi; see here and elsewhere. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Minor point- Usually in the US, we don't call lawyers barristers because unlike some other common law countries we don't have a distinction between barristers and solicitors. We just have lawyers.JMM12345 (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Also, Natalie Wisco was another attorney for the defense, but she was mostly just handling evidence. JMM12345 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Hey all, please keep discussions focused on how to improve the article, not for general chatter about aspects of the subject, per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK#TOPIC. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please include a section about Lin Wood, John Pierce and Mark Richards, Corey Chirafasi and Natalie Wisco in the article, as they are seen in numerous videos and pictures from the trial. Also, Mark Richards said Wood/Pierce were fired after they set up a meeting with what later was determined to be Proud Boys (the infamous pictures that were discussed in NewsNation by Rittenhouse himself and Ashley Banfield in a later commentary).

So I think the lawyers are notable enough to be included into the article. --2003:C8:4713:4700:CCA6:AA3F:34C0:80BF (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Attorneys, not lawyers.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure they need naming to be honest, the prosecutor got some detailed coverage for his interactions with the jury and the judge, but the others were just playing their parts, of course they got a lot of screen time but their identities don't have enough weight, especially as the article is about the shooting and the aftermath. JeffUK (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

Previous: 'Rittenhouse said he was there to protect a car dealership from being vandalized and to provide medical aid.[9]'

Suggested Edit: 'Rittenhouse was there to protect a car dealership named Car Source, owned by Indian business owners, from being vandalized and to provide medical aid to protestors.[9] 2601:640:C580:5580:5104:37E1:1FB1:E32E (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Support: I feel this a good change with helpful details. Icrmowun (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree in view of no support having been offered and in view of the present article content saying, "Accounts differ as to whether Rittenhouse and Black's help was requested by Car Source." Related source-supported assertions follow that. Also, related to this, this NY Times article not currently mentioned or cited says that Dominick Black testified "that someone from their group told Mr. Rittenhouse to go protect the lot where he eventually shot Mr. Rosenbaum." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

We're not saying he was there under instruction from the owners, only that this is why he went. He may have been there to protect it entirely of his on volition, or there to protect it believing the owners requested it, whether or not they actually did JeffUK (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Reactions - subsections titles

The reactions to the verdict are split into "Republicans" and "Democrats", which may be second nature in a polarized two-party country, but do we know that every person listed there is officially D or R? Most are politicians, which is easy, but do we know baseball player Aubrey Huff is a registered Republican just because he has established right-wing views? Do we know that Derrick Johnson is a Democrat, when he is the spokesperson of a non-partisan organization, the NAACP? I think these subsections should be retitled something like "In favor of the verdict" and "against the verdict". Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and will do; Splitting it by party lines seems very strange.. especially considering "Far right activists" sit under 'Republican' too. I think the 'Democrat' one reads a lot like a random list of everyone who's commented and risks growing even more. To be honest I think having a section called 'Pundits' just begs for gossip and trivia to be added from anyone who has decided to comment... JeffUK (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think removing 'pundits' and leaving it with JUST politicians removes a lot of the fluff, and restricts the scope, I think the titles are right, the content could be changed to fit the titles not the other wy around. JeffUK (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It is notable that far right pundits support him. It is also notable that an overwhelming majority (if not a totality) of both activists and non political mainstream public figures believe the verdict is unjust. Yes, the coverage of this case, and the reactions to the verdict is polarized, but it's important to outline where the divide is, and who are on each side. This isn't a Republicans versus Democrats kind of polarization. The divide is between the mainstream and the fringe right. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability isn't the question, I don't think 'what people felt about the outcome of the trial' is relevant to the shooting, and barely relevant to the trial. This is a trial in which a person was found not guilty of any crime. This is not a political campaign where 'support' for one side or the other has any relevance. Where that commentary is very widely reported (such as the President of the United States!) then it becomes more relevant, self-published commentary by pundits is much less so. This shouldn't become a list of 'everything anything has said or written about the trial' . JeffUK (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It is also a trial that has been heavily criticized. Reliable sources and legal experts have brought attention to unusual behavior on the judge's part that imply bias (though that belongs on the article on the judge, now that he has one). Far Right partisan outlets and "influencers" also paint a drastically different picture about the facts of the case and the ruling than what reliable mainstream sources say. It is important to bring attention to who is criticizing the ruling in the case and the fairness of the trial, and who is satisfied with it. The coverage wasn't simply polarized. Mainstream media and public figures were fairly consistent all across the board. Only fringe right wingers went against the general consensus. This may be a trial and not a political campaign, but the far right has made it political by presenting an image of the shooting and the subsequent trial that goes against the official mainstream reporting and pushing conspiracy theories about "far left bias" in the mainstream media. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you cite any sources for this? I'm sure some sources have made such claims but are they even remotely qualified to make the claims? Springee (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That isn't really a good characterization. Many of the right leaning sources and many legal analysis blogs (regardless of bias) noted the evidence pointed to a strong self defense case. Many of the conservative sources noted that much of the mainstream media coverage either got facts wrong or emphasized aspects that could mislead readers. Examples of getting the facts wrong are that Rittenhouse shot African Americans, crossed state lines with a gun, couldn't legally poses the gun (Politifact got this wrong then claimed the were right even when the charge was thrown out![9], NYP talking about it [10]). The emphasis on crossing a state line without noting that Kenosha was only 15 miles away from his house and that he had a number of family and other ties to the town suggested he went to an area specifically because he was looking for trouble. Thus many conservative sources and legal bloggers noted that the difference between what many people understood to be true and the facts of the case (generally the facts that the prosecution and defense agreed upon) were very different. The catch here is finding "reliable" sources that will note these failures. Springee (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, just because a right wing talking head claims a mainstream source is wrong about something, doesn't make it so, especially when that source has a good reputation for fact checking (which MSNBC does) and they don't. If maintream reliable sources got details wrong, there's evidence of that in other reliable sources that contradict their reporting, or them issuing a retraction. We cannot just throw out reporting by reliable sources on the words of some blogger.

As for your other question, MSNBC and other reliable sources have interviewed multiple legal scholars and civil rights activists on the political implications of the trial's outcome, and the message it sends to white supremacist extremist groups. Parallels have been drawn with people of color being shot by the police without consequence, or being sentenced for less egregious offenses than what Kyle was accused of. Another element that was criticized was the exclusion of Rittenhouse's outing with members of the Proud Boys, and a prior video which has been interpreted as him expressing intent to shoot people, despite the prosecutor making a strong case that those videos show a pattern of behavior that suggest some level of premeditation - the emphasis on crossing state lines is part of the same argument.

And one way or another, this is a heavily politicized case, and that is how mainstream media has treated it and reported on it since day one. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

Change Rittenhouse was followed by Rosenbaum and journalist Richard McGinnis to Rittenhouse was chased by Rosenbaum. Journalist Richard McGinnis followed Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse. GigglyBits (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Source 1

Source 2

It’s also in the article itself that Rittenhouse testified to this version of events — Preceding unsigned comment added by GigglyBits (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I find "chased" more specific and accurate than followed. I found the additional sources that use this same terminology.

Source 3 Shortly before midnight, he was chased by Joseph Rosenbaum, who had come downtown that night and joined the crowd, into the parking lot of a car dealership. Source 4 A detective testifying in the ongoing trial for Kyle Rittenhouse said the defendant shouted "Friendly! Friendly! Friendly!" as he was being chased by a man whom he later fatally shot, as Rittenhouse’s attorney described the confrontation as a "classic ambush." The video, played for the 20-person jury of 11 women and nine men, also shows the man running after Rittenhouse and throwing a plastic bag at him. Kenosha Police Detective Martin Howard agreed with defense attorney Mark Richards that Rittenhouse had repeatedly shouted "Friendly!" as he was being chased and that Rosenbaum appeared to be gaining ground on Rittenhouse. [11] Afraid, Rittenhouse took off running and Rosenbaum gave chase. Source 4 The defense then played a video of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse into a parking lot, with Hernandez testifying that he heard someone shouting “fuck you” just before shots rang out. Source 5 Rittenhouse continued to move in the same direction he was moving previously, and Rosenbaum starts to chase Rittenhouse. Videos taken of the scene from other witnesses show Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse but he was otherwise unarmed. Source 6 Just before midnight, he shot and killed Rosenbaum as Rosenbaum chased him across a parking lot. Icrmowun (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)