Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse

"Shot three men who pursued him"

M.boli, your edit summary here indicated you deleted "who pursued him" as a "weaselly description". Weaselly is defined by Websters as "not direct and honest". Why would the words "who pursued him" be not direct and honest? It's clear from the lead of the Kenosha unrest shooting article that they pursued him and that their pursuit was a key part of the events precipitating their shootings. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that adding this phrase is weaselly as it implies blame. Two men pursued Rittenhouse AFTER he shot someone else and he fled the scene. It is a biography of Rittenhouse. The focus should remain on who he is and what he has done first and foremost. He attended on the third night of unrest, he brought an AR-15, he shot three men, he became a conservative celebrity. Cedar777 (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree. On the primary topic page this phrasing was carefully weighed. I would suggest using the phrasing established there. The fact that the lead skims over so much of the KUS content is crazy. I also don't think sources really support the "conservative celebrity" part. I really doubt most conservatives see him as a celebrity and the sources mostly say he became a cause celebre rather than he as a person is a celebrity. The current article lead makes it sound like the shooting was an incidental event in his life rather than the pivotal moment. The lead spends more effort talking about media appearance and a video game than it does the entire shooting. Springee (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

One provided source uses "celebrity cause"; the others don't. Sources that say conservatives don't see Rittenhouse as a celebrity might support that suggestion; otherwise it's original research. I previously suggested 'focal point' (perhaps similar to 'pivotal moment'), but that was not supported by editors here. As a summary of this article (not the KUS article), the lead does cover Rittenhouse's life beyond the trial. Regarding the video game subsection, the lead includes only that he "announced a video game to raise funds for legal defense". —ADavidB 18:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

How many sources don't describe Rittenhosue as any kind of conservative celebrity? If we are going to use that in the opening sentence it needs to be rock solid. Even the WP quotes a conservative who disagrees with the lionization of Rittenhouse [1]. Now look at the list in the lead and what they actually say. The first two sources, The Globe and NBC News appear to say he is a celebrity. Next is the Boston Globe which only makes the claim in the article lead. It's well established that source leads shouldn't be used to support claims. The body of the article doesn't say celebrity. Next is a WP opinion article (perspective) which says he has been celebrated and treated as a cause celebre. It doesn't say he is a celebrity and as an op-ed article we shouldn't care either way. Next we have Slate offering the perspective of an "expert on the far-right". That expert says, "He’s a celebrity for many of these right-wing militia groups". So that isn't saying he is a celebrity to conservatives. NPR says he is part of a celebrity cause for the far right (are we claiming "far right"=conservative? The Nation quotes Rittenhouse's attorney in context. He certainly isn't claiming he is a celebrity among conservatives. The Conversation says, "Rittenhouse and his celebrity among right-wing extremists". Are we going to claim right wing extremist is "conservatives"? Finally we have NBC News talking about his TPUSA appearance with the comment, "overnight celebrity status". That doesn't say he is a lasting celebrity. The sum of all this is sufficient to claim he has been celebrated or became a cause celebre in some circles but it's nowhere near sufficient to claim, in the opening sentence of a BLP and in wkivoice, that he is a "conservative celebrity". Springee (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If the existence of reliable sources that don't mention something meant other reliably sourced content that says it was unusable, WP articles would be a lot shorter. Different sources don't have to be in lockstep in their language, and I wouldn't expect them to be in a nation with free press. The Guardian and NBC News sources, the first two which you acknowledge "appear to say he is a celebrity", should be enough. The term "conservative" was agreed to in prior chat, but "right wing", as used in both of these sources would suffice. We're not predicting his future celebrity status, but including what reliable sources say he is now. I'm curious what policy has established that a source's lead paragraph(s) are not usable. (I get that a title alone is not reliable.) —ADavidB 23:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

To make a claim like that in Wiki-voice and as the first claim in the lead you need to show it is nearly universally acknowledged. The Guardian does say it but we need to also keep in mind the editorial bias of that source. The NBC source only mentioned celebrity status at the very end of the article and qualified it, "into a celebrity among right wing fans". So what about right wing people who aren't fans? Regardless, finding a few sources that agree on a claim means it may be DUE to include the information as as an attributed claim. It does not mean the claim can make it to the lead. Also don't conflate "far-right" with "conservative". This is all around really bad writing. Springee (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee, have you looked through the sources in the cite bundle? It doesn't appear you have. You keep making the claim it's a "few sources". He's been called a celebrity by a wide variety of RS, including (but not limited to): The Guardian, NBC News (x2), The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Slate, NPR, The National, and The Conversation. And those are just the ones listed on the article; there are many, many more. Whether you personally agree with him being called a celebrity, it's a perfectly acceptable short description and is widely used in RS.

Also, The Guardian is a green-level RS at RSP. Where are you getting the belief that there is "editorial bias" with this specific article calling the subject that? Also, when you mention NBC called the subject a celebrity "at the very end of the article", that does not matter. I've never seen a policy on WP saying a description of a subject has to appear in their first paragraph or in a certain point in an article. That's laughable. --Kbabej (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Why would you ask if I've looked at the sources when I just listed the sources and my review of them? And yes, I say it's a few compared to the number of sources that discuss Rittenhouse. Additionally, most of the sources *don't* say he is a celebrity. Instead we have a few editors who are distorting what the sources actually say to make the claim. The Guardian being a green source does not make it free from bias nor does it mean we have to accept any claim they make as truth. Do keep in mind that many source mix their own commentary with statements of fact. That is something we are told to be aware of in WP:RS, "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." His celebrity status is commentary, not a statement of reported fact. Springee (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is worth asking exactly how are RS defining the subject per supporters, i.e., are they routinely described as the more specific far right subset of conservatism, or as gun rights advocates, or as conservatives more generally. A close reading of the sources, one by one, would help to tease out the overall picture of how RS make sense of the subject over time. Cause celebre is a more challenging term to grapple with, but there is likely a good and solid reason that many RS have defined it in precisely those terms. Cedar777 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The Kenosha unrest shooting article's lead says that Rosenbaum "chased" Rittenhouse before he shot him. What's the difference between "chasing" someone and "pursuing" someone? The presence of the three words "who pursued him" was a straightforward way to state the basic facts of what happened, answering the question that will be begged by readers when they read that he shot three men without giving any indication as to why. I see that another editor already tried to add "in self-defense" in place of "who pursued him" after the latter was deleted, likely sensing that the answer as to why is missing here. I suspect that will continue to be a perceived problem for editors who come to this article for years to come, wondering why this isn't being addressed, etc. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't "straighforward." A lot of complicated events happened. Your analysis is backwards: if the event was as simpleminded as Rittenhouse "shot men who pursued him," the reader is left wondering why was there a trial. -- M.boli (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Links are given for a reason. We don't have to get into everything here. Including some detail does beg for more, though, which I had resisted with former wording. —ADavidB 19:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

In the trial, he shot the last two men 'who pursued him,' after one of the hit him with a skateboard over the head and knocked him to the ground. That was the third attempt of self defense. The first was shooting the first man who attacked him at the business he was defending against looting and he was running around cars from the mob, then he was 'pursued' by the mob finally being knocked down by one of the men he shot and killed, the second was maimed. That was why he was able to successfully claim 'Self defense' and there was video footage that the STATE held back from defense until the judge made them produce that exonerated Kyle. AND the worst crime of the media was to perpetuate the lie via implication that the victims were black when they knew from the beginning that all three of the victims were white. Being 'straightforward' this entire article would tell the story of how he was defending the building from looters, was attacked and shot the first man to protect himself, was pursued by a mob, hit and then shot the remaining two men and THEN turned himself in when the rest of the MOB was then retreating. SouthernYiayia (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen, I’ve removed that wording from the section. Not only is it unsourced (the AP source for that sentence doesn’t mention that), it’s likely undue. —Kbabej (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen, you seem to be adding lots of information to the 'Shooting and criminal trial' section. A friendly reminder this article is a BLP of Rittenhouse, not for coverage of the trial, which is extensively covered in depth at the Kenosha unrest shooting article. The information you've been adding would be best there, IMO. This article is for Rittenhouse's life outside of the trial. --Kbabej (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, from what I can discern, I added "who pursued him" to that section, and then after you reverted that, I added that Rittenhouse "argued self-defense". Can you itemize what other items you're referring to when you state that I am "adding lots of information"? AzureCitizen (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I could have used different verbiage. What I meant to say is you seem focused on additions to that section, but my main point remains: this article is a BLP, not a rehashing of the trial. —Kbabej (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cedar777 How is saying he shot "3 men who pursued him" questionable in the slightest? He was chased by the first guy, and he shot him. Afterwards, he was chased by two other guys, and he shot them.

The phrase in question is 100% factual and I don't see at all how you could argue it's "weaselly". Oktayey (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Rittenhouse was pursued, that is out of the question and an accurate description of what occurred, though you can take your choice of words, if you want to twist it in the pursuer's favor, you can use the loaded attempting to apprehend, pursuing is the least loaded term we have unless you want to use chasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:1DCC:D192:F42:194A:A033 (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOVN discussion

To get more eyes on this topic and the issues with the lead I've opened a NPOVN discussion here [[2]] Springee (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the NPOVN discussion is clear that saying he is a celebrity is problematic. Based on the feedback from that discussion I would suggest that this article is merged into the KUS article as a bit of an "afterwards" section. That will address issues of how we neutrally address Rittenhouse's actions the day of the shooting as well as allowing some space for a summary of his post acquittal activities. Springee (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Springee. I object to the merger, so it will need to go through AfD. --Kbabej (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Since this article wasn't merged back into the original article I think the issues noted at the NPOVN need to be addressed. The first is the opening sentence of the lead. Tying Rittenhouse's notability to being a "conservative celebrity" (a claim which the majority of sources don't support) vs to his involvement with the KUS is a big issue. Springee (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If you would like a different short description, what do you suggest, @Springee? A weak consensus determined "conservative celebrity" is the best option, and it is supported by RS. What other suggestions do you have? --Kbabej (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I've opened up a new discussion at the bottom of the talk page, since the other short description discussion was very long, and then the topic was opened under this header as well. Maybe best to start the discussion afresh! --Kbabej (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It's dishonest and misleading to just say "killed 3 men"

He killed them in self-dense because they chased him. 1Trevorr (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @1Trevorr. Where are you getting the verbiage the subject "killed 3 men"? Are you talking about the lead? That currently states the subject "shot three men, two fatally." --Kbabej (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I mean to say "shot", but it's dishonest to leave out the reason why. He was acquitted because the jury determined that he shot them in self-defense. 1Trevorr (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation. Juries never make such determinations. They merely determine "guilty" or "not guilty" of charges. No juror ever mentioned "self defense". WWGB (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we aren't following NPOV in the criminal trial portion. We should include some facts about the interactions between Rittenhouse and those shot. Right now, it gives the implication that he came there to protect businesses and just shot 3 people, and that's a gross oversimplification of the events. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Kyohyi! We actually have an entire article about that, which you can read at Kenosha unrest shooting. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Please, patronizing responses are not helpful. The existence of the other article does not mean that we aren't failing NPOV in how we present things in this article. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kyohyi, it is not meant to be patronizing. This article is a BLP on the subject's life, not a rehashing of the Kenosha shooting events/trial. We already have the article on that; this article's scope is Rittenhouse's life beyond those events. --Kbabej (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And yet we still cover it in part, and that coverage needs to be compliant with NPOV, which I am asserting it is not. We don't need to re-hash the whole other article, and no one is suggesting that we should. But what we are including in this article is a gross oversimplification which fails WP: IMPARTIAL. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kyohyi, the ONUS would then fall to you to advocate for inclusion via consensus. I do not agree with its inclusion, but I'm also not the arbiter of this article. It looks like an IP added it and was quickly reverted by another editor, who reminded them about getting consensus on this talk page. --Kbabej (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, I brought up why we should add such content up above. Is it your position that it is okay that we include no information on the interactions between Rittenhouse and those he had shot? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kyohyi I've made my position clear (you must have consensus, and I do not agree with inclusion), so I suggest rereading my comments above. The reasoning behind those comments is scattered throughout this talk page over multiple threads, but it's neither here nor there, because I have already made my position clear. You aren't going to convince me about this by calling me patronizing and asking reductive questions, so I would respectfully suggest you focus on convincing other editors to gain consensus if you want the information added. It appears as if multiple editors do not currently agree with its inclusion (me, @M.boli from their comment directly below, and @WWGB from reverting the IP additions). I may be misconstruing their opinion, however. --Kbabej (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how the shooting and criminal trial section has the POV problem @Kyohyi and @1Trevorr claim. The paragraph accurately summarizes the event and its repercussions, with a main-article link to the more detailed article. The addition of because Rittenhouse was chased is a misleading reduction of the incident. There was an indictment and a complicated three-week trial to sort out the details of what happened and the culpability, including who chased who and when and why. (@Kbabej was correct to point out the main-article link, it is unfortunate this was read as "patronizing.")

If there is a slant to this paragraph, arguably it would come from including Rittenhouse's claims (he claims he went to Kenosha for a particular altruistic reason, he claimed self-defense at trial) without the opposing claims. But I think that is a judgement call, and pretty unimportant. -- M.boli (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot see how a section which includes more information is a greater misleading reduction than a section that omits more information. It isn't an accurate summary since it does not include any information on the actions of the people who were shot. We don't need to re-hash the entire trial, but we can't have nothing. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You are merely playing with words. You could describe anything you want to add as "more information" and then claim more information is, perforce, better. Nonsense.

Because Rittenhouse was chased reduces a complex and ambiguous event to a simple-minded sound-bite. A sound bite that serves only to excuse Rittenhouse, not to explain anything to the reader. In your version, the reader would be justified in wondering why there was even a trial. Further, as @Kbabej points out, the complexities and narrative of the shooting and the trial are the subject of a different article, for which there is a main-article pointer. If you add because he was chased then you logically have to add a lot of other narrative about what happened. @Kbabej and I are telling you the same thing in different ways.

The current text isn't bad. So far you have very little argument. There doesn't seem to be a lot of point to engaging. -- M.boli (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The more descriptive points from the lead of the Kenosha unrest article could be borrowed and adapted here on the Rittenhouse BLP so that it's not so ambiguous as to what happened. Consider this phrasing, which is about 40% longer than our current synopsis:

On August 25, 2020 when Rittenhouse was 17, he shot three men during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin that followed the shooting of a black man, Jacob Blake, by a police officer. Rittenhouse was armed with an AR-15 style rifle and had joined a group of armed men in Kenosha who said that they were in Kenosha to protect businesses. After a man chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, Rittenhouse fatally shot him. Pursued by a crowd, Rittenhouse fatally shot a second man after he struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard and tried to grab his rifle. Rittenhouse wounded a third man when he approached Rittenhouse with a handgun. Prosecutors sought to portray Rittenhouse as a criminal gunman at a trial in November 2021. A jury weighed two counts of homicide, two counts of attempted homicide, and one count of reckless endangerment, but found Rittenhouse not guilty after he testified he acted in self defense. Public sentiment and media coverage of the shootings was polarized and politicized, with an Economist/YouGov poll finding that two-thirds of Republicans thought Rittenhouse should be acquitted while three-quarters of Democrats thought he should be convicted.

If we used that phrasing instead, what complexities of the shooting and trial would anyone say are still being left out? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That summary may reduce the complaints and impulse edits. I would adjust the word order in one sentence to "At a trial in November 2021, prosecutors sought to portray...". —ADavidB 12:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This summary is world's better than what's in the article. The prosecutor comment could be wordsmithed better. We could present it as "Prosecutors brought (insert charges here) against Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse presented a case of self-defense, and Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges." That's meant to be high level order of information not exact wording. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That strikes me as a lot of narrative detail. As long as there are two articles, one on Rittenhouse and one on the shooting incident, it seems cleaner to keep them separate. And there will be disagreement about which narrative details constitute a useful but fair summary. But I also understand about complaints and impulse edits. Anyway, though I disagree -- I think the current paragraph is fine -- I wouldn't oppose the change. (I still oppose merely saying because he was chased or in self-defense.) -- M.boli (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

We do need to be very careful that we don't present the impression that Rittenhouse's self defense claims etc are not true. We don't endorse them as true but we also do not present them as false. I do agree that just saying he shot 3 people without providing context is a problem. The ultimate solution is probably just close out this article. Springee (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee, a friendly reminder content disputes are not valid deletion rationale. --Kbabej (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. I wouldn't propose AFD to address this issue. However, it does address some of the issues raised by myself and others in the discussion here [3]. As was mentioned in that discussion Rittenhouse is little more than a BLP1E. The material here beyond that related to the shooting, prosecution and trial are largely not important and can be integrated into other articles ore removed entirely. Springee (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is how to summarize a trial that already has an extended explanation on another article, on an article where the information is already summed up on the same page the trial is explained on. In other words, this is a fork. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen, thank you for the suggestion. While I opposed the simple addition of "because he was chased", this seems like a much more balanced paragraph than that. I think you are likely right it may reduce impulse edits. While I agree with @M.boli about keeping the two articles separate (one for the shooting/trial, and one for the BLP), it seems there is an appetite for a slightly more fleshed out paragraph than what is currently there. I would not support expansion beyond what you are proposing, however.

It seems in my view as if there is a consensus to add the paragraph. Obviously AzureCitizen agrees as the proposer; M.boli said they wouldn't oppose the change; @Kyohyi said it's "world's better than what's [currently] in the article"; and I am fine with it as well. Both @Springee and @FrederalBacon support deletion of the BLP altogether, but from what I'm reading don't seem to have any arguments about updating the section wording while the AfD plays out.

AzureCitizen, would you like to implement the paragraph? I'm not giving "permission"; just trying to step back from editing the article a bit per @Cedar777's 7/11 suggestion I may be taking an ownership mentality with the article. Since that suggestion, I have been thoughtful about what changes I am making and have only edited the article four times (I am not counting reverting text mistakes I made). One of those four edits was removing a run-on sentence I had previously added, per Cedar777's suggestion (the Lindy Li response); and the edit today was simply adding a source when the previous source was removed for being an op-ed. For large(r) section restructuring, I'll let others implement. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No reason not to try fixing things. If the AfD fails then I'm sure more efforts will be made to fix this article. I'm holding off on suggesting/making changes until the AfD is over. Currently it looks like the article will stay. Springee (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s a fair view! —Kbabej (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Appreciated everyone's input and good to see there is rough consensus to expand the details enough to ensure that readers don't puzzle over their absence. As mentioned by ADavidB, hopefully that will reduce impulse edits and complaints going forward. In just a few minutes, I'll implement the replacement paragraph using the same sourcing from the other article. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

An expansion of the shooting and trial section was warranted for this subject. I also included that Rittenhouse fled the scene of the first shooting per the main article. While the defense won their case in Kenosha, it is still essential to summarize both the key prosecutorial arguments and the key defense arguments to cover trial basics. An AP News source from the closing of the trial was substituted for USA Today from the opening. Readers will invariably come to both articles (KUS and Rittenhouse's page) with a strong sense that one or the other argument was the correct one but its not for editors to frame. RS covered prosecution and defense arguments at length and here we need only summarize these in a balanced way. Cedar777 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Hello @Thunderbolt4000. You've changed a RS stating the subject is White to another saying the subject is half-Hispanic. The Snopes article actually says something different than what you've attributed. The article says while an officer listed him as Hispanic during a traffic stop, the Kenosha Police Department lists him as White, as do other reliable sources. They write:

"Meanwhile, multiple reputable news outlets (such as The Associated Press and Reuters) reported Rittenhouse was white. No evidence other than the above-displayed record pertaining to the Aug. 19 traffic stop — which, as we noted, carried a disclaimer that law enforcement noted “Hispanic” based on a subjective look at Rittenhouse and was not a self assessment — indicated that the 18-year-old was possibly any race other than Caucasian."

If you're read the Snopes article, you'll see it does not claim he is Hispanic, or half-Hispanic. --Kbabej (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You've updated the sentence to say: "He is Half-Hispnaic. [sic]" There are multiple problems here. The sentence should read: "He is half Hispanic." The multiple errors include erroneous capitalization, unneeded punctuation, and a misspelling of "Hispanic". Please read what the sources say (because in the source you've provided it states the subject is not Hispanic), and please pay attention to what you are writing. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Short description

Given the AfD determined the subject is indeed notable, the AfD nominator has taken issue with the subject's short description. Given the extended discussions above, I thought it might be best to open a new discussion to discuss this. The current short description describes the subjects as a "conservative celebrity", a description applied after weak consensus determined this was the best option. Here are some short descriptions I've found:

• "celebrity" (used in The Boston Globe, The Guardian, Complex, Vice, Mic, among others)
• "gun-rights activist" (used in the Fort Worth Star Telegram)
• "media star" (used by Salon)

I find "celebrity" to be the most accurate, as that's how the subject has been treated since the acquittal. Open to other editors' thoughts! (Courtesy ping: @Springee.) --Kbabej (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

First, I noted the problem with "conservative celebrity" before the AfD discussion and mentioning it here is a red herring. Second, I think this edit [4] is far better:

is an American teen who became known for his trial and acquittal after he shot three men in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The circumstances of that shooting made him a cause célèbre with some conservative and gun rights groups.

I can see an issue with "is an American teen" as that won't be true in a few years. Perhaps something more like "...as a teen he became known for...". Regardless his involvement in the shooting should be the primary thing. Also, he shouldn't be called a conservative celebrity or anything else that puts the focus on him vs on what he represented (gun rights against government over reach, a failure of the legal system to hold someone accountable etc). I would also dispute the claim that the current lead has any consensus. The NPOVN discussion should make it clear this lead fails NPOV. Springee (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

So you are suggesting "cause célèbre" as the short description? We can't just have "American" for the short description, since you don't want "American teen[ager]"; I agree the latter is not appropriate. To me it sounds like you almost want nothing as the short description, but that isn't how BLPs work on WP. In the sentence you've suggested, the only short description listed, "American teen", is one you summarily reject.

There are two issues you're discussing here. First is the short description, for which you've never provided a suitable suggestion or alternative. The second issue is the lead sentence, which is separate. I'm fine adding "cause célèbre" to the opening paragraph, but we can't not have a short description. --Kbabej (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with American conservative celebrity. I was persuaded of Rittenhouse's celebrity status during the earlier discussion of the lede. There are sources describing him as such, and also the right-wing media articles read to me like celebrity news coverage. For the lede sentence, mentioning that Rittenhouse became notable for shooting people is needed. Rittenhouse's celebrity-hood has outlived his use as a right-wing cause célèbre. By way of comparison, the short description of George Washington is President of the United States from 1789-1797, but the lede sentences show he is notable for being first president, a Founder, leading the Continental Army, etc. -- M.boli (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@M.boli, thanks for the thoughts. I agree the "cause célèbre" is outdated; he has passed into being a celebrity. And I've definitely come around to agreeing him shooting people is needed in the lead. --Kbabej (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources don't support calling him that in wiki voice. That needs to be widely used, not just used in some sources. Also, a number of the listed sources do not support the claim. For example, "celebrity cause" is not the same as saying he is a celebrity. Springee (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources do. And the "celebrity cause" is used in one source, which I think you've misrepresented. The quote says "The trial and Rittenhouse himself have become celebrity causes." Regardless of the one "celebrity cause" quote, the RS use it extensively. You still haven't come up with an alternative, and editors came to the consensus it worked in a previous discussion. If you don't like the current short description, I suggest coming up with an alternative (which has been suggested multiple times) and then trying to gain consensus. As it stands, you have two editors in this discussion supporting the current wording, backed by a number of green-level RS, compared to you saying "I dont like it" without an alternative. --Kbabej (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You claim they do so please provide the quote from each that supports the "conservative celebrity" label. Also, show that this is a widely used label vs something that comes up with a keyword search. For example, would say 30% of the first 30 news articles about Rittenhouse use that term? I don't see that the current text has consensus (it looked like no more than half the editors supported it and almost no one at NPOVN supported it). It stands because editors aren't interested in edit warring it out. I have provided a neutral alternative. Springee (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee, for readers' and editors' ease of access, I've done a cite bundle in the lead with quotes, where the word is even bolded. You should be able to access that easily. You have not provided what constitutes an alternative; you rejected your own alternative of "American teen" (not acceptable because it's time-referenced, and because it's slang). I will leave the discussion here, as you do not seem to understand you have not provided an alternative. I would suggest reviewing WP:SHORTDES, which states that a short description is (in part) "a very brief indication of the field covered by the article." Your narrative of "an American teen who became known for his trial and acquittal after he shot three men in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin" is not an accurate description of the subject today. You have been saying from your first edit on this page you do not think the BLP is anything but an extension of the "parent" article. Community consensus rejected that argument through the AfD. You are still viewing the subject as only connected to that event, which is obviously not the case and not why the community kept the article. The short description describes the subject overall, not at a moment in time. Until you have a reasonable actual short description to !vote on (since you have not presented one), I will likely leave this discussion here. Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If you look at this edit [5], I looked at the sources at the time and showed that most didn't support the "conservative celebrity" tag either because the claim was poorly supported in the source (or was not in the body) or used phrasing that doesn't mean "conservative celebrity". The ONUS is on you to support the claim, not me to prove it wrong. Springee (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The claim is supported in RS, and by community consensus. If you want it changed, gain consensus to implement. --Kbabej (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As I showed in the link, no it's not widely supported by sources (a requirement given how it is being used). Additionally, the previous discussion ended with about an even number of editors opposing as supporting thus no-consensus for this new content. Springee (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC below. --Kbabej (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC about subject’s opening description

Should the subject be descripted with the opening description “conservative celebrity”? --Kbabej (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. The subject is described as a celebrity in a number of RS, including nine currently used in the lead (formatted through a cite bundle). I have included the corresponding quote from each of the sources along with the bolded wording calling the subject a celebrity for ease of review. The sources include: The Guardian, NBC News, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Slate, NPR, The National, The Conversation, and NBC News (again). I can add more if needed, but I think that's just overkill. In employing this short description, I used what RS are calling the subject over time, not just at the point of time of the shooting, trial, or acquittal. The AfD (which was closed today) overwhelmingly determined the subject is notable, which throws out BLP1E concerns – the subject is clearly notable for parlaying the shooting, trial, and acquittal into a celebrity status, which has continued since the acquittal. I think this is the most comprehensive description we have, and over the long discussions on the talk page, no reasonable other short description has been suggested that meet the definition of short descriptions. In put appreciated. --Kbabej (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC/Oppose This is a bad RfC because it fails to note this is the opening description of the lead sentence. Second, is a "yes" to mean somewhere in the article or in the opening sentence? Does "yes" mean in Wikivoice or with attribution? So beyond the bad RfC issues, I say not in wiki voice. The sources don't support this claim. While a few do, most sources won't say any thing about Rittenhouse as a "conservative celebrity". Remember, if we are going to apply such a label it needs to be very widely used. A few sources have used this label but even in the sources that say something along those lines more do not. I will do some source analysis below. Springee (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Springee. I want the RfC to be formatted correctly, as I am not familiar with opening them. I believe it is accurate, though I'm open to suggestions if needs to be reformatted. You said "it fails to note this is the opening description of the lead sentence". That's where the short description goes. Per WP:RFC, the question should be as concise as possible; I believe the intention is clear. WP would not say "The Guardian, NBC News, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Slate, NPR, The National, The Conversation, and NBC News all describe Rittenhouse as a conservative celebrity". That seems cumbersome at best. --Kbabej (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Kbabej, many editors will think you're referring to the WP:Short description, which displays in a few places (mostly in mobile view). I think what you're really asking is "Should the opening sentence describe Rittenhouse as a 'conservative celebrity'?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Fff, I think you are hitting on part of the issue. I think a second issue is should the lead put this claim/label before the information about his roll in the KUS. Springee (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think placement of the opening description would go beyond the scope of the RfC. That would require double voting. Ie: "Yes to description, no to first mention". --Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @Firefangledfeathers. Should I simply change the wording, or delete and repost? --Kbabej (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Given it's one word, "short" vs "opening", I updated. That way the links on different project's links still work. I do not think the second part of Springee's suggestion, where the description should be placed in the lead, falls within the scope of this RfC. --Kbabej (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. In addition to the cite bundle in the lede, for me what settled the matter is: it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck. When I search his name in conservative media from this year, I find celebrity coverage with no relation to his shootings or trial. For example:

• speculating where he will go to college (many articles, story evolved over time)
• an article titled "MTG and Kyle Rittenhouse attendees at 2000 Mules election documentary premier"
• articles about Rittenhouse releasing video game
• articles noting/discussing that Rittenhouse tweeted an opinion on Hunter Biden's laptop
• an article noting "Rittenhouse made an appearance at Turning Point USA's Young Woman's Leadership Summit"

We have references which say Rittenhouse is a celebrity. And sure enough -- it looks, walks, and quacks like a celebrity. Even though until recently Rittenhouse was known to me only as the right-wing extremist kid who shot a bunch of people in Kenosha, and that is what made him notable, I am persuaded he is a conservative celebrity. -- M.boli (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It is better not in the first sentence Placing Rittenhouse as a celebrity/personality/whatever in a 2nd paragraph, after describing what made him notable (shooting people), seems like an improvement.

As I write this, the lede has been rewritten in that order.

However I think the long paragraph describing his celebrity-hood is not appropriate for the lede. The single sentence is enough: Since the shooting and acquittal Rittenhouse has become a celebrity among American conservatives.[refbundle]" full stop. -- M.boli (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "celebrity among..." is a good summary for Wiki voice. For many Rittenhouse isn't a celebrity but his cause, ie what some see was a political driven over reach by a prosecutor (or similar), made his a cause celebre. We also need to be very careful about suggesting that "conservatives" in general think he is some sort of hero etc. When looking at the sources used to support the celebrity claim most do not support "celebrity among American conservatives". Just changing the order of the lead doesn't address that issue. Springee (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• No, and I removed this silliness. This is still a BLP and we should be adults about this. He may have celebrity status for some outlets or whatever, but "celebrity" is too vague and should certainly NOT be right there in the opening sentence. He's a teen known for traveling to some town where he killed two people, and that is what should take precedence here. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies, that's what this RfC is sorting out. It's the descriptor the community came to a weak consensus on before. Before unilaterally removing the point of the RfC, how about giving editors the chance to actually see what we're discussing? --Kbabej (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm also surprised you're considering The Guardian, NBC News, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Slate, NPR, The National, and The Conversation as "some outlets", given most all are green-level sources at RSP. Your "silliness" is used extensively across sources, including the highest-level sources we've got. --Kbabej (talk) Kbabej (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Kbabej, given your contribution to this RfC, I am not surprised to find more silliness here, and from M.boli as well. Where to start? "Giving editors the chance to see" is ridiculous: it's still in the history. In the meantime you are trivializing the very idea of the BLP, as well as what this man is known for. You could have chosen to say something like "he has become a celebrity", or a cause celebre, or whatever, but no, you and M.Boli had to boil down his essence to "celebrity". Second, yes, "some outlets", since there are hundreds if not thousands of publications about him, and most of those do not pin him down as a celebrity. Finally, M.Boli, your edit summary had a few nice big words, but it completely missed the point: it's not the references that are silly, it's the "conservative celebrity" and its placement in the opening sentence. I actually find it hard to believe we are having this utterly trivial discussion here. Who put that in there to begin with? Update: I have gone through a dozen journal articles, the best type of secondary source we can use, all of which discuss Rittenhouse and none of which describe him as a "celebrity". I did, however, find him being called "vigilante", for which there is plenty of support among opinion pieces--which is why we shouldn't call him that either. The problem of course is finding a noun to identify him as, when really nouns don't always do the job well. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC - this issue is a lot more complicated than the question this RfC poses. I think we need further discussion about what the sentence should say. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would prefer conservative personality or conservative media personality. A lot of the sources don't exactly call him a celebrity per se or matter-of-factly, they talk about things like his "celebrity status" or his "celebrity treatment" or his "fame" and similar. "X is a conservative celebrity" is additionally a bit of a strange thing to read on any article. Someone already suggested this elsewhere, I can't remember who, but credit to them I guess. I too would've preferred there was some additional discussion beforehand, as what the lead sentence should be is not just a binary question of "should he be called a 'conservative celebrity'?", so I agree this is a bit of a bad rfc. Endwise (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  We’ve had that discussion. Extensively, if you review the discussion above. I originally created the article describing the subject as a “media personality”, but it was rejected via consensus. —Kbabej (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I dislike both "celebrity" and "personality" as they are too fan-ish. His notability primarily derives from being an acquitted shooter. If we must have a media term, I suggest "figure". WWGB (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems like it may be a reasonable compromise. I also lean towards the perspective that any mention of his media cause celebre is ancillary to the chief notability attested to in the sources. But as middleground solutions go, "figure" at least has the benefit of being generalized enough to be supported by any source that discusses his post-acquital media role. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. As a matter of WP:WEIGHT, when I look at the body of sources in toto, I don't think "celebrity" accurately captures the description of any of the chief roles for which the subject is principally notable. It certainly appears as a descriptor in a non-trivial number of sources, but I still don't perceive that it is the most WP:DUE description for the lead sentence. As proposed by WWGB above, I'd be a little more comfortable with something like "figure", as it is general enough to be supportable by a significantly larger base of sources. So something along those lines could be a reasonably justifiable inclusion, even if I do question whether any mention of this post-trial media role is prominent enough for the lead at this time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose in opening sentence It's just really awkward phrasing for one thing, and not how we write a BLP, I could agree with "media personality" or something like that, but "celebrity" is too meaningless and vague. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: NPOV violation. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: The descriptor "Conservative Celebrity" doesn't improve the article and, I would argue, adds more vagueness and confusion, which is contrary to the intent of WP. Even if writers associated with reliable sources have referred to him this way, does NOT automatically justify the usage of the exact phrase in a WP article, especially a BLP lede. WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLPKerdooskis (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• No, because the next paragraph is all about the issue being a Cause célèbre, so it would be repetitive.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose He's not notable for being a "conservative celebrity". The description could go in the Commercialization and use of his image section (maybe), but definitely not in the lead. Some1 (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion - "conservative celebrity"

• Reposting (with edits) what I said before: How many sources don't describe Rittenhosue as any kind of conservative celebrity? If we are going to use that in the opening sentence it needs to be rock solid. I did a web news search for "Kyle Rittenhouse", none of the first 10 hits called him any sort of a celebrity. That a keyword search or selective search can find support doesn't mean this is a widely used LABEL. The WP quotes a conservative who disagrees with the lionization of Rittenhouse [6]. Looking at some of the sources cited for the claim in the article a few do directly support the claim but most do not. As such the claim doesn't have WEIGHT to be used even in Wikivoice much less as the most notable aspect in his BLP. Now look at the list in the lead and what they actually say. The first two sources, The Globe and NBC News appear to say he is a celebrity (thus they actually support the LABEL). Next is the Boston Globe which only makes the claim in the article lead. It's well established that source leads shouldn't be used to support claims. The body of the article doesn't say celebrity thus doesn't support. Next is a WP opinion article (perspective) which says he has been celebrated and treated as a cause celebre. It doesn't say he is a celebrity and as an op-ed article we shouldn't care either way. Next we have Slate offering the perspective of an "expert on the far-right". That expert says, "He’s a celebrity for many of these right-wing militia groups". So that isn't saying he is a celebrity to conservatives (thus doesn't support). NPR says he is part of a celebrity cause for the far right (are we claiming "far right"=conservative?) The Nation quotes Rittenhouse's attorney in context. He certainly isn't claiming he is a celebrity among conservatives. The Conversation says, "Rittenhouse and his celebrity among right-wing extremists". Are we going to claim right wing extremist is "conservatives"? Finally we have NBC News talking about his TPUSA appearance with the comment, "overnight celebrity status". That doesn't say he is a lasting celebrity. The sum of all this is sufficient to claim he has been celebrated or became a cause celebre in some circles but it's nowhere near sufficient to claim, in the opening sentence of a BLP and in wkivoice, that he is a "conservative celebrity". Springee (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Post-closure discussion

Thank you to those who participated! The RfC process stated the editor who opens the discussion can close it if a consensus has been reached quickly (WP:RFCEND). In this case, it definitively has, so I've closed the RfC. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Kbebej, to me this looks like a consensus not only to not have "conservative celebrity"/celebrity among conservatives in the opening sentence but to not call Rittenhouse a conservative celebrity (or similar) in Wiki voice full stop. If you disagree with that I suggest the RfC should be reopened and allow a 3rd party closer to assess consensus. Springee (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted Kbabej's closure and re-opened the RfC. Particularly because there is disagreement about what this RfC actually means, I think it should be closed by a neutral third party. Endwise (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022

Requesting an edit to add clarification to the nature of the provocation referenced in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Kenosha unrest shooting" section, as to avoid the ambiguity of it becoming misleading to readers. Suggested changes are sourced from the same article that was originally cited.

Adds "by bringing a gun to the protest" after "participants".

Section to be changed:

At a trial in November 2021, prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse was seen as an active shooter and had provoked the other participants while defense lawyers argued the affirmative defense of self-defense, stating that he had used force necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

After changes:

At a trial in November 2021, prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse was seen as an active shooter and had provoked the other participants by bringing a gun to the protest while defense lawyers argued the affirmative defense of self-defense, stating that he had used force necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. OuchBees (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment I thought the prosecutor claimed Rittenhouse aimed the gun at people, not just had it. Clearly the gun was part of the issue but towards the end of trial the prosecutor tried hard to show Rittenhouse aimed the rifle at one or more people. So while the gun was part of the provocation I'm not sure this requested change would make it clearer or not. Springee (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Media Accountability Project

This consists of baseless legal threats, so I reverted the Snopes fact check, but I think it should be removed altogether. It's a BLP problem to be insinuating that people are going to get sued for no reason and then not do it. Andre🚐 23:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Most of the article, outside of the shooting, can be described by the subject "almost" doing something. Almost suing someone. Almost going to college. Almost making a video game. Almost getting a book deal. Almost getting bills named after him. Most of this article, outside of the shooting and the profile he got because of the shooting, isn't notable. I brought this up at the AfD and got an (albeit very polite) "I'm done talking to you". FrederalBacon (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I !voted to keep the AFD but I agree that this article could be trimmed down a bit. Andre🚐 23:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

We have entire categories and articles on things that have "almost" happened. It doesn't preclude them from being a part of a WP article if they are reliably sourced. --Kbabej (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The question is though, are those things that almost happened notable? Sure, I'll concede that even though his media appearances are pretty much all related to his one event, that is not what BLP1E is, and because of his media appearances, he has garnered enough coverage in reliable sources to keep his article.

I still think there appears to be too much weight given to certain things, particularly under Personal Life, and his "Career" (I question why it's called a career section when it doesn't actually detail anything of a career), and in fact believe that most of the article needs a major re-write, but given the absolute controversial nature of the subject, I don't think it's going to go well, and shouldn't be done without significant discussion here first. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The 'Personal life' section has two short paragraphs about his educational aspirations, which seem fine to me. The 'Social media use' coverage can be moved to 'Commercialization and use of his image' since it no longer covers his own personal media use.

I agree about the 'Potential book' part in 'Career' section. It hasn't happened, or even been announced. It's speculation about a possible book. The Media Project has already started, so that should be kept. The video game has been started as too, so should be kept.

But I agree with discussing first; a very contentious page indeed! --Kbabej (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

My thought is that calling opening a fundraiser to potentially sue people for defamation related to media coverage around him, and making a video game, a "Career" is extremely generous to the subject. The latter should be discussed in the commercialization of image section, right next to the other video game he is already involved in.

As for MAP....well, from their own website: "The Media Accountability Project “TMAP” is the official fundraising vehicle for helping Kyle Rittenhouse hold the worst offenders in our activist media accountable in court." It's not a "Project", it's a fundraiser so he can sue people. Not sure holding a fundraiser counts as a career. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I did have a question about the infobox at top right listing Rittenhouse as having TMAP as his "organization." Is it really an organization? The template help page says that the organization field is for "Non-employing organization(s), if relevant". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I also have the same question about us linking to it as an "External Link". At face value, we have a link to a fundraiser favoring the subject as an external link. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, why did you restore this Snopes reference [7]. I removed it since it wasn't in reference to something Rittenhouse said. Instead it appears to be an unsourced claim that Rittenhouse won a lawsuit that he hasn't claimed to have even filed. Also, if we are going to remove a statement that Rittenhouse intends to file suit (regardless of his actual intent) why keep the source that implies he has already filed? Springee (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

As I just explained I restored it. It fact checks his claim of filing suit and points out it's baseless, "Rittenhouse has said that he feels he was treated unfairly by the news media and has threatened to file lawsuits against certain media personalities, such as “The View’s” Whoopi Goldberg. But as of this writing, there was no pending case involving Rittenhouse and “The View.”" Then other editors edited the article which changed the meaning of the sentence and removed the statement that was being fact checked. Andre🚐 02:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Where did Rittenhouse say he has filed the lawsuit? As for the legal merit of his claims, I don't think Snopes is reliable for that sort of claim. M.boli improved things by making it clear this wasn't a factual claim. Currently we do/did have sources saying he intends to file suit. I'm OK with taking that content out (though I suspect it could be RS'ed) but leaving the Snopes bit in while taking the other part out is questionable. I think it should be removed again. It doesn't serve any purpose since it doesn't say what Rittenhouse has done or is claiming to do. Springee (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The version I reverted to did not use the Snopes source in the same way that M.boli did in his edit. I have no particular desire to see the Snopes source if it's not being used to fact-check Rittenhouse's threat that he would sue Whoopi Goldberg. I'm happy to remove the threat as well as the fact check. Andre🚐 02:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Um...is this not a clear POV issue? "It fact checks his claim of filing suit and points out it's baseless" is pretty clearly an intent to give that sentence a certain slant, that is, to make his claims appear baseless. Nothing against Andrevan, I don't even think he wrote the sentence, or wrote it this way. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Huh? It's a fact check of his substance-less legal threat. The text that was relevant from the Snopes source was, "there was no pending case involving Rittenhouse and "The View." If we don't say he threatened to sue then we don't need the Snopes debunking of his legal claim. Andre🚐 02:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a fact check of his substance-less legal threat. But it doesn't even do that, he DID threaten to sue, that's pretty clear. It debunked a fake story going around that he had already won. The legitimate threat to sue people that he made was completely separate to the alleged win against The View. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It fact checked both the claims of a case, and stated that there was no case pending. It's not needed in the article if we are going to just remove the whole bit. Andre🚐 02:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that it's completely irrelevant to the article. I don't think it's necessary to include snopes debunking a viral story about the subject. People can make up anything about anyone on the internet, just because one of them was about someone relevant enough to warrant an "official" fact check doesn't mean that story is relevant to the BLP, since it isn't actually about the person. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who originally added it to the article, I simply reverted its removal. But if we're going to have baseless legal threats in the article, it's relevant to have a reliable fact-checker pointing out that no lawsuits were ever filed. If we just remove the lawsuits that is a fine solution. It was being used for the line in it about no lawsuits being filed, and not for the fact check in the headline. Andre🚐 02:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The lawsuits include pretty much the entirety of the current activism section. If anything, considering the fact that it appears that "The Media Accountability Project" is simply just a fundraising arm for the subject of the article, and not what most people would call an "Organization" or a "Project", I argue the entire section needs a rebalance for weight, potentially being lumped in with an entirely different section, if a suitable place can be found. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. Andre🚐 03:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to mix the sources reporting on a viral satirical article and sources reporting on the activities of Rittenhouse.

• Both the AP and the Snopes articles (there were others also) reported on a rumor which originated in a satirical article.
• If and when Rittenhouse sues somebody, it will appear in the news and a description of his factual lawsuits would be in this page. It is also possible that the MAP is a scam, it raises a lot of money without taking any legal actions. The news article exposing that scam would be in this page.

I figure that if the viral rumor material belongs in Wikipedia, it would be here for the benefit for readers who had heard the rumor and looked to Wikipedia for information. But I can also see that this rumor may not be notable enough. -- M.boli (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Your rationale makes sense. Andre🚐 03:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

In regard to the link of TMAP in the "external links" section, I want to specifically address this, and ask for input from those interested.

We link to TMAP in external links as the official website of the organization. Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, number 19, Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered. The reference to "should be linked" essentially refers to WP:ELOFFICIAL in this case, which states that the official website of a subject has to meet both of the criteria of

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

I'd argue that the link, while meeting the first criteria, fails the second, as it doesn't cover any content related to the article, it sells merch and raises funds for him, and acts, I suppose, as a central place to watch his interviews, despite it actually just being an embedded Youtube player. As such, I think it's safe to say the external link to TMAP should be removed.

Also, why does he have an IMDB external link? FrederalBacon (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't know, fine to remove both links. Andre🚐 13:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon He has an external IMDB link because he's appeared on a number of television shows. Those links are included for more than just actors. --Kbabej (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are media appearances, as himself, which are already covered in the article itself. It isn't used as a reference, it isn't relevant to the article in any way shape or form. FrederalBacon (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. He's appeared as himself 19 times in interviews, and 60 times as archival footage. That's way more than what's covered in the article itself. It is very relevant; him parlaying his infamy into these interviews/projects is why he's notable. --Kbabej (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Following up, WP:LINKSTOAVOID, number 1, specifically says we should avoid external links if they are things that are, or should be, simply covered in the article. Those media appearances are covered in the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon They are not. Without counting, maybe 1/4 of his appearances/interviews are covered in the article. Are you willing to incorporate the rest? --Kbabej (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

That is up to you if you want to incorporate the list, but per LINKSTOAVOID, I have removed the link, as the media appearances already has a section. I also removed TMAP, since it fails WP:ELOFFICIAL. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to incorporate the list, as it's covered in the IMDB link. It's very standard WP practice to include an IMDB link for a subject who is a high-profile "talking head" on television interviews. I don't care about the TMAP link, but the IMDB link doesn't make sense to remove. I've reverted the change. --Kbabej (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, we can remove TMAP, and discuss the IMDB link further, I'm good with that. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't care about the TMAP link one way or another, but you may be reverted if another editor disagrees. In reviewing this discussion (which I have not done in depth) it appears you may be the only one advocating for the TMAP removal at this point. I won't revert, but someone else may since there hasn't really been a consensus one way or another. --Kbabej (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I am allowed to BOLDly remove the links, you are allowed put them back in, now we discuss (BRD cycle). However, I still wholly thing both links completely fail the guidelines. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Not sure why you'd unilaterally remove them in the middle of a discussion, but that's your prerogative I guess. I don't care about the TMAP link, but the IMDB link makes total sense and is routine practice. I still haven't heard a reasonable explanation about why it should be removed other than you just not liking it for whatever reason. --Kbabej (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I gave you a perfectly reasonable, policy based explanation above. It meets criteria 1 of LINKSTOAVOID, as it should be covered in the article. I wholeheartedly reject the assertion that this is because I do not like it, I have gave precisely zero impression that is the case, have given completely policy based arguments the entire time, and I ask you to retract that "not liking it for whatever reason". FrederalBacon (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

But your explanation isn't based in policy, as I pointed out. I pointed out maybe 1/4 of the appearances aren't included, which you agreed with saying "That is up to you if you want to incorporate the list", admitting they aren't all included. If only 1/4 of the appearances are covered, the IMDB link is useful. You can mention LINKSTOAVOID all you want, but the fact of the matter remains the 19 interviews and 60 archival footage listings are barely covered in the article. And when I said 1/4, I meant of the first section. None of the 60 archival listings are mentioned. It remains relevant, standard practice, and needed, as the appearances aren't covered. --Kbabej (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You have NOT said it is not based in policy, you just disagree with my interpretation of it. I STILL call on you to retract your statement, as that is a clear misrepresentation of my argument. Disagreeing with my policy argument doesn't mean my argument isn't based in policy.

but the fact of the matter remains the 19 interviews and 60 archival footage listings are barely covered in the article Because they have to meet notability. We don't need to cover every single time a talking head appears on TV, there's hundreds of them, and they appear nightly, on dozens of different shows. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You've made your position clear, and I've responded. You haven't done any work trying to incorporate even one of the additional listings in the IMDB list to try and incorporate them. We are not going to agree. I think it's useful, and you don't. I don't understand the impetus to remove something that can be very useful to WP readers, and something they would likely expect. Until a consensus is reached by additional editors weighing in, I'm going to leave this here. --Kbabej (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with the latter part, as considering the fact that you STILL have not retracted your aspersion that I was only rallying against this because I didn't like it, despite my absolute rejection of the same, statement of policy (not of personal dislike), and clear and polite request to do so, twice, I have no reason to continue with this conversation, and would, AGAIN, ask for you to withdraw your casted aspersion on my intent for the removal of this link.

Other than that, consensus will not be the two of us, so I would obviously agree that, now BRD is in effect, we need more input. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Image

The above discussion about imdb caused me to notice: imdb has a much better image of KR than the image currently in the article (and its predecessor). Is there any way we can use it? I have no idea about the protections on imdb's images, and clicking on the image didn't reveal and useful metadata. Here it is: picture Without the "I'm famous for getting away with murder" smirk some editors will object. But I think it is worth considering -- M.boli (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the one currently in the article is much, much better. It's cleaner and isn't a mug shot. It's also more recent. I am not very familiar with image copyright; I only use images that have been uploaded by someone else to Wikimedia. --Kbabej (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Mugshot for a public personality, for someone who was acquitted of the crimes they were arrested for, by a jury? And the editor who is wanting to include it, wanting to include it to remove a "I'm famous for getting away with murder" smirk? That appears to influence the POV of this article, so I'm saying no. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The current and immediately previous picture are neither captioned nor described with I'm famous for getting away with murder smirk. But in the context of what makes him notable --- killing people and being acquitted --- it is a natural, unflattering, reading of the image. I know some editors will prefer the smirk. But it seemed to me that neutral voice suggests we find an image without it.

But no matter, to my mind it isn't a big issue. The problem occurred to me when I saw the non-smirk image. And possibly can be argued both ways. -- M.boli (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't full understand the point you are making, I would like to though. Your statement is that the current picture is non-neutral because he appears to have a little bit of a smirk in it, one that you refer to as a "I'm famous for getting away with murder" smirk?

I also take issue with the idea that he "got away with murder". He was acquitted by a trial of his peers based off the evidence presented at trial. Like it, don't like it, agree with it, disagree with it, whatever, that's the fact of the matter. To me, changing the image to closer associate him with a crime he was not convicted of isn't neutral. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The current picture really does make it look like he is a daytime gameshow host rather than someone who killed two and seriously injured a third person (regardless of the circumstances). However, I don't think using his mug shot is appropriate given he was acquitted. We do need to be careful with the use of most of these images. I'm not sure that fair use allows Wikipedia to use a picture just to show what Rittenhouse looks like. Springee (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it makes him look like a "gameshow host", whatever that means. It's a clear, recognizable, high-quality picture. It doesn't matter if editors think it makes it look like he's smirking or a "gameshow host". Using a mugshot when a picture of this quality is available is laughable and completely non-neutral, as @FrederalBacon said above. --Kbabej (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Make it look like he is a daytime gameshow host rather than someone who killed two and seriously injured a third person (regardless of the circumstances) And OJ Simpson's picture was taken of him during a sports broadcast, instead of making him look like a guy who got away with (in my opinion) something considerably more heinous than what Rittenhouse did. The point is: It's not a matter of what it makes the subject appear like. It's just a picture, to illustrate the subject to readers. The picture shouldn't be changed to change the way the subject appears to the readers, that's literal POV editing. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It is the current picture which has the POV problem. In the context of the lede paragraph and what he is known for, the smirk says "I got away with killing people and it's great!" (I won't use the word "murder," no problem.) The image before this one was a bit more pronounced in that respect. The two O.J. Simpson articles, since somebody raised that example, show a mug shot in proximity to the information about the killings and trial. An image of Simpson smirking next to a discussion of his trial would be problematical in the same way this picture of Rittenhouse is.

But this isn't to my mind a problem worth fussing over. I didn't know the imdb picture was a mug shot, but I agree it is a lower quality image. It simply occurred to me upon seeing a non-smirk image that a more neutral image might be better. Over and out. -- M.boli (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into his facial expression. Is the mug shot even freely licensed? VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, now that I fully understand your point, your concern is that because he is known for the shootings, a picture of him with a relatively straight face, maybe a bit of a smile or smirk, looks inappropriate to you, and you want to change it to a mugshot. That's a literal POV edit. You don't like the POV of the article and want to change it to something that you feel is more appropriate. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I said what I think and feel. @FederalBacon's radical reinterpertations telling me what I think and feel do not strike me as productive contributions. I think I am done. -- M.boli (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not telling you what you think and feel, you're making it clear that it is your opinion that the subject has a smirk in the picture that is currently featured, you dislike that, because you feel it isn't neutral, because he is primarily known for a shooting, and you think the picture should be his mugshot. What I'm telling you is that to do so would be a POV edit. You said you didn't even know it was a mugshot, I'm not sure why you're having an issue with it, knowing now that it IS a mugshot, I think you'd be in agreement that to do so would be a POV edit, especially considering the fact that he was acquitted of the crimes the mugshot is from.

You raise the issue above of OJ's article featuring his mugshot closer to the article about the murders and trial. If you can find a copyright free version of it, in my opinion, feel free to do the same thing in this article, it makes sense to me to feature the mugshot in the same way it is in OJ's picture. However, just be aware, while I would not revert it if it were added in that way, someone else most certainly would. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

While saying you are not, it comes across as if you are. In providing your reworded summary of M.boli's words and position, you tend not to frame it as your own reinterpretation, but as M.boli's. Such response easily appears as annoying arrogance, and doesn't help bring about a consensus. —ADavidB 18:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Language Bias

Opening sentence. "[acquitted] after he shot three men, two fatally, in what he testified was self-defense during the civil unrest in Kenosha" Language bias - "what he testified" makes it seem like his sole opinion. Should be to changed to "what was deemed self-defense" as a court of law deemed it so. Alternatively remove the phrase completely: "[acquitted] after he shot three men, two fatally, during the civil unrest in Kenosha" 95.145.254.245 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)