Talk:Kenosha unrest

Request to mention the details of the shootings

"Rosebaum" in Shooting section should read "Rosenbaum."

Just mention how the first shooting happened (from the parking lot), and then detail the 2nd (that he was on his back, and shot two of the four people who were running towards him, and that the guy who had his arm shot drew a gun on Rittenhouse before he was shot). Very important context. If you read most news articles, it makes it seem like he shot them for no reason, but the videos show it was self defense. Nate Hooper (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Self defense has a specific legal meaning, and there's currently dispute over whether what happened would qualify as self defense under Wisconsin law. At this time it's most relevant to include information about what Rittenhouse has been charged with and statements the Kenosha PD has officially said. Honkinonbobo (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The article currently says "[Rittenhouse] is then seen opening fire on those pursuing him." In fact, Huber ran up to the fallen Rittenhouse, whacked him on the head with his skateboard, and then tried to grab the rifle when he was shot. That is a bit more than "pursuing him", more like assaulting him. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

He was being pursued and assaulted... he didn't just get hit by a skateboard, but was also kicked while on the ground: Kyle Rittenhouse being kicked. Whether or not this was self defence depends from a legal standpoint on whether he provoked the attack on himself, in other words, whether he was being pursued due to him have acted criminally. The video of the first shooting is ambiguous as to whether he was justified from a self defence perspective, however, if the first shooting was justified under self defence laws, then subsequent attacks on him would allow him to invoke self defence as well (even if those attacking him thought they were acting in the public interest) --218.214.183.100 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, your reversion won't stand. I'll let someone else work on it, but these paragraphs are poorly written and have problems with POV both, suggesting that Rittenhouse shot the protesters without provocation and that he was in possession of an illegal gun, among other issues. These things have yet to be established by evidence in court, and even interpreting the videos for purposes of this article is questionable. I see similar comments above, so if you can't achieve more acceptable wording, maybe an administrator should look at the problem. Pkeets (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits guys, I see that many details have been added since I first posted the request. It now mentions the fact that Kyle was chased and that the 3rd guy was holding a gun. I think there is still work to be done, but it's good that some of the details were added. Appreciate it. Nate Hooper (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

One section reads "Rittenhouse then pointed his gun at another person, Gaige Grosskreutz, who ducked and took a step back with his hands in the air. Grosskreutz, allegedly carrying a gun in his hand,[71] then moved toward Rittenhouse who fired at him". This entry reads with confusing wording that makes it difficult to distinguish the sequence of events. 1. It fails to properly depict the relevant fact that Grosskreutz was moving towards Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse pointed the gun at Grosskreutz, and 2. Fails to properly depict the actions of Grosskreutz immediately before he was shot. I'd like to propose correcting it to: "Gaige Grosskreutz, allegedly carrying a gun in his hand,[71] began to move towards Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Grosskreutz, who then halted and took a step back with his hands in the air. Grosskreutz then began moving towards Rittenhouse again, at which point Rittenhouse fired a single shot at Grozzkreutz." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.204.185 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yours is certainly better than the top quote. It's currently a mixture of the two. I'll change the sequence of events to better reflect that fact that Gaige was moving towards Kyle before he raised the gun to him. Nate Hooper (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The video has been posted at various news sites. It looks like Grosskreutz was closing as Huber moved away, and Rittenhouse jerks the gun around to point at him. He raises his hands and backs up, and at that point you can see there's no gun in his hands. Then Rittenhouse fires and we can see the gun in the stills afterward. The video goes so fast and is so dark that it's hard to see exactly what happens, but what we can see strongly suggests Grosskreutz made a move to pull the gun out and Rittenhouse saw what he was doing and shot him. Pkeets (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I should have checked the Talk, and I didn't realize you guys had already suggested better versions than the current one, so I made one myself that was reverted within an hour with the comment, "We go by sources". The DA's Criminal Complaint (https://www.mystateline.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2020/08/Rittenhouse.pdf) cites the video, and my description is consistent with both the video and the complaint. The passage reverted to clearly is not. (Also the reverted version isn't grammatical.)

It's clearly not true that "After Rittenhouse shot Huber, Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his hands in the air". On the contrary, he stepped back with his hands up, and then lowered them when he continued forward. Saying that he "approached Rittenhouse with his hands in the air" makes it sound as if Rittenhouse shot him when he posed no threat.

The video shows what I wrote -- "As Huber was shot, Gaige Grosskreutz stopped charging toward Rittenhouse, and raised his hands. When Rittenhouse lowered his rifle, Grosskreutz continued toward him and lowered his hands. [Then I merged my sentence with what was already there about the gun.]"

What I said is consistent with what's in the DA's Criminal Complaint: "When the defendant shot Huber, Grosskreutz freezes and ducks and takes a step back. Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air. Grosskreutz then moves towards the defendant who aims his gun at Grosskreutz and shoots him, firing 1 shot." I suggest using my revision, or one of the others that are consistent with the video and with the Criminal Complaint. What's there now is misleading, and simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:20E0:E1B0:F959:2DCF:E8E7:9AF5 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2020

Kenosha protests → ? – this is an adjustment to this partially closed request necessary because of the page move. The ongoing survey and discussion can be found below in the #Break after partial closure subsection. This can technically be considered a relisting. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous move request:
Kenosha riot → Kenosha protests – Per WP:COMMONNAME. To limit my analysis to news sources I used news.google.com In order not to retrieve older protests/riots, I restricted the searches to last week only. "protests in Kenosha"=20. "Kenosha protests"=28. Total PROTESTS=48. "riots in Kenosha"=8. "Kenosha riots"=12. Total RIOTS=20. Conclusion: protests is *more than twice as common* in news sources! "Jacob Blake protests" would also make sense but only 8 occurrences at present. gidonb (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

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 partial result of the move request was: Consensus against riot. I am going to partially close this discussion. I find, based on our policy that there is consensus that this should not be named Kenosha riot(s) and I further find that it is eligible for early closure (that is the elements of WP:SNOW are satisfied) despite the presence of established editors in favor of Kenosha riot(s). As such I am closing that element of the discussion and moving the page for the remainder of the discussion to Kenosha protests, as the original proposal. I am not closing the discussion overall, however, as there is substantial support for Kenosha unrest. Given this divide further discussion is still necessary to determine if the article should be at Kenosha protests, Kenosha unrest, or a new suggestion which might emerge through the RM process. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

• Strong Support The news outlets called the riots that are taking place riots. But the majority of demonstrators are in daytime and largely peaceful. Albertaont (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest Jacob Blake protests as the article title. The events are a reaction to the shooting of Jacob Blake. This approach is similar to the George Floyd protests article (which morphed into a global protest movement article with the Minneapolis riots spun off into George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul). Using "Kenosha protests" or "Kenosha riots" as the main article title is far too limiting, especially as other parts of Wisconsin have already had notable events, and it is a way of diminishing the person who was shot. Also, it's not a Kenosha thing anymore.VikingB (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Support VikingB's proposal for consistency, as well as to reflect the accuracy of protests tied to the shooting of Jacob Blake that are not limited to Kenosha. While I also support ShadZ01's proposal, that is a discussion to take place elsewhere, as repeatedly mentioned. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As events continue to unfold, unrest more accurately captures the essence of what is occurring while maintaining WP:NPOV. Many domestic and international outlets are largely referring to events in Kenosha as either "protests" or "unrests." I now weak support a move to "Jacob Blake protests" or "2020 Jacob Blake protests," and strong support a move to "2020 Kenosha unrest."

I say George Floyd protests and this article should be merged into one. Call it United States anti-police brutality protests or 2020 United States unrest like that since these similar events aren't just about George Floyd anymore. ShadZ01 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A merger and rename discussion would need to happen on the talk page for George Floyd protests.VikingB (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Majority of the protests are peaceful. So it should be renamed. ShadZ01 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What makes you say that a majority of what is happening in Kenosha was peaceful? Juno (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The news outlets call this riots. Protests take place in daylight - these are not protests at night. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Same reasons as stated by Lightburst user above, also this article is specifically about the riots and the damage caused by them, which massively overshadow the otherwise hardly notable daytime "protests". I also somewhat support ShadZ01's point about the George Floyd protests namechange, but that's for another talk page. Temeku (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Juno (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I would hope editors would consider themselves to have a duty to a correct record, and not a duty to media outlets, which are a tool to arrive at the record but are not the record themselves. Distinguishing between protests of no particular note and riots of considerable significance is a pertinent consideration as well. We do not speak of the Greenwood protests; we speak of the Tulsa Race Massacre.Torriende (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  This comment should not be considered too strongly, as the editor is saying reliable sources aren't reliable. And the comp between this event and the Tulsa massacre is odd and out of place. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  This comment should be taken into serious consideration, as the editor is claiming media outlets report on different aspects of a social phenomenon, whether out of a bias or for purposes of simplification. Some outlets slant to investigate the political (aka the protest) demonstrations, while others slant to investigate the property damage, physical violence and sense of breakdown in law and order. Reasonable persons may consider these to be two overlapping events, linked by a common trigger, and thus reporting on either may be justified if the phenomenon was the result of various factions with different objectives and methods. The mention of the events of late May 1921 in Tulsa ( historically referred to as the Tulsa Race Riots) further underscores this point. Sean729 (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose content of the entry focuses on the violence occurring as a result of the Blake shooting, as evidenced by the Events entries. By focusing on the violence the name and content reflect the riots occurring and not the protests. A change in the title will necessitate new content specific to the protests and engender a need for a new entry to cover the Kenosha Riots leveraging the current content of this entry.BrianCLT (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — BrianCLT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose A separate article is more appropriate, as riots and protests are distinctly different things. This article handles the riots, an additional one might handle protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.161.152 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — 173.206.161.152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose The article title should at the very least reflect the definitions of the words riot/protest as defined on Wiki itself. "Where protests are part of a systematic and peaceful nonviolent campaign to achieve a particular objective, and involve the use of pressure as well as persuasion, they go beyond mere protest". "A riot is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people." Iceness (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• Oppose You can't call all the damage that has occurred and what the media and police are calling Rioting and protest. The article already sites damage and victims of the riots. Also anyone can listen and watch the people on the ground and police audio and see this is more than a protest. From Merriam-Webster Definition of riot (Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a violent public disorder

specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent

b: public violence, tumult, or disorderBurrkilla2 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Burrkilla2 — Burrkilla2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose The majority of the content clearly spells out the damage to property caused on the evenings/nights in question. Thus it focuses on the riot that was the cause. The flaw (and likely cause of confusion) is the opening summary that suggests the rioters were largely motivated by ideas espoused by BLM movement. That link is tenuous at best, and could be discarded without affecting the accuracy of the article and its description of the damage, which insofar as can be corroborated by media outlets could provide a more comprehensive record as to the scale of property damage and the intensity of violence. Sean729 (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I would not use news sources words frequency to determine a title. News sources are 90% politics based and try imposing a narrative. Writing "peaceful protest" for the 1000th is not going to change the impressive circle of violence we are looking at. The George Floyd Protest was exactly that: a peaceful protest. It changed over time, but it started as a peaceful protest. On the other side, Kenosha riots cannot be labelled as protests (much less, peaceful protests), because on the same day they degenerated into violence. We didn't see moms and dads peacefully marching with symbols. It directly went to fire and destruction. dfumagalli —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — Dfumagalli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose Mainstream media outlets and Google search are brainwashing americans into thinking that mayhem is protest. No! It's rioting when there is looting and destruction of private property! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premedios (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — Premedios (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose What happened in Kenosha was violence and destruction of property. That's the definition of a riot. Protests are peaceful. LegionaryIX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Violence is the definition of what's happening. Businesses destroyed and people have been assaulted. These are riots - period. 2605:A000:1005:3A0:58AF:A892:1568:DD05 (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Destruction of property, assault and arson imply a degree of lawlessness. A protest usually takes place in a designated area with co-ordination between protesters, law enforcement and local authorities. I fail to see the validity of an argument consisting of 'it's largely peaceful, so it's a protest'. Let's review this article against the light of Wikipedia's greatest strength, i.e. factual accuracy. Harachte (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Black rioters are running through town, destroying property, lighting buildings on fire, attacking White people and Police officers, and robbing stores. This is not a protest. It is a violent racially motivated riot. Special:Contributions/2600:1000:B104:7F41:25BB:659:E12D:9233 (talk) 19:25 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support We have a lot of IPs and WP:SPAs posting opinions without citing policy. I would not be surprised if there was some off-wiki canvassing going on. Article titles are based on the preponderance of reliable sourcing and per WP:NPOVTITLE, should be neutral. "Riots" is not. "Protests" or "unrest" would be NPOV. Here's a sampling of sourcing (with added emphasis):
  • Kenosha becomes center of nationwide protests after police shoot Black man in front of his children, CNN
  • Jacob Blake Shooting Prompts Tense Protests and Fires in Several Cities, NYT
  • IN PHOTOS: Large protest in downtown Kenosha Monday evening, Kenosha News
  • Protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin over police shooting of Jacob Blake turn violent for second night in row, CBS News
  • Another Night Of Clashes And Unrest In Kenosha, Wis., Following Jacob Blake Shooting, NPR

Naturally, Fox News calls it "rioting".[1] But Fox News is an outlier here; they are a biased source in U.S. politics, as discussed at WP:RSP. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Riots The local Kenosha, WI newspaper calls them riots. Look at the photos in the link from 8/24/20 and tell me if that is from protests or riots. The largest wisconsin newspaper Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calls them riots, Newsweek calls them rioters. Lightburst (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, Look at the photos in the link from 8/24/20 and tell me if that is from protests or riots. That's not what we do. We don't judge things for ourselves, we say what reliable sources say. And that title says "rioters", as opposed to the Kenosha News link I shared that says "protests", which makes it clear that this is predominantly protests, with some rioting interspersed. Much like the George Floyd protests. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice catch. instead read the title of that article IN PHOTOS: Rioters set fires in Kenosha, Lightburst (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I did read that title. The other Kenosha News article I shared mentions protests, while that article mentions rioters. Like I said, it's protests that contain some rioting. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu The title should indeed be neutral. The logic you've applied towards FOX applies likewise towards almost every source that you've linked (namely CNN, NYT and CBSN). Blindly copying MSM rhetoric doesn't ensure Wiki's neutrality, it exacerbates its political bias. Here's an alternative sampling:

• Uptown Kenosha after the riots , Kenosha News
• Locals in Kenosha Attempt to Clean Wreckage after Night of Riots , National Review
• Man Pulls Gun On Reporter During Kenosha Riots , DailyCaller
• As Rioting Lights Up Wisconsin, Democrat Governor Blames Police, TheFederalist Iceness (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Non-neutral but common names are allowed, specifically "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." BrianCLT (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: The Journal Sentinel article you linked to may have used "riots" when you linked to it, but it says "protests" now. Similarly the Kenosha News is calling them protests in several articles on today's front page. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guettarda: I say let it go. Here is a photo from 8/24/2020 Credit: (Yayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images) for your edification. This is not a protest IMO. Some news outlets misuse the term "protest" but the majority consider property destruction and violence a riot. Lightburst (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Sorry, I don't follow what you mean by "let it go". I clicked through the JS link and saw that they're using "protests", not "riots", and wanted to let you know that the article had either been changed, or you had made a mistake. I was operating from a position of AGF, but your response here makes it seem like you're operating from a position of WP:OR and cherry-picking examples to support your position while disregarding WP:COMMONNAME. I'm disappointed that an established editor like you would choose to disregard policy in this fashion, but that's your choice. Have a nice day. Guettarda (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Changing the narrative and calling this a "protest" after all the destruction caused is simply revisionist history. I worry that the neutrality of Wikipedia is being threatened by outside sources in the name of social justice. --2607:FEA8:2C5F:F909:F873:9288:A3F9:B21A (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• per discussion Randy Kryn (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Title should be Kenosha riot or Kenosha rioting. Destruction of property would seem to distinguish rioting from protesting. "Video Shows Armed Residents Protecting Local Businesses From Rioters in Kenosha, WI". Bus stop (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and moved to Kenosha riots per reason and argument above. Plus the correct title for this article should be Kenosha riots (plural name) not Kenosha riot (singular name) as per all riots articles or can be Jacob Blake protests if protest spread beyond the city. 180.245.102.250 (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Comment: The same IP is part of obvious sockpuppetry or canvassing at Talk:Four_color_theorem#Requested_move_22_August_2020. --mfb (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  I encourage people to look at the alleged SPA. It's far from 'obvious' with no real evidence put forward, just an angry accusation on that page. LegendLength (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  @LegendLength: It's completely natural that 5 users from Sumatra show up in a random move discussion with identical opinions and the same uncommon spelling error ("hypernated")? --mfb (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rioting is simply the OBJECTIVE REALITY of what's been happening in Kenosha over the past few days. There haven't been a bunch of parents with their kids marching peacefully, holding signs, and listening to speeches. There's been looting, arson attacks, assaults, including a business owner nearly beaten to death, guns drawn on reporters, etc. Of course me commenting here probably won't matter, as editors will just point to a handful of partisan neolib outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Vox, NYT, and WaPo, who push a misleading narrative for political reasons, and be like "tHeY sAy 'ProTeSTs,' sO We sHoUld cAlL iT ThAt ToO!!!" But hopefully, at least just this once, objective reality and truth will actually prevail! -2003:CA:871F:47AB:8CCD:DAC:59BE:B0DE (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE: Protests are different than riots. Assaulting and intimidating people & burning down and looting businesses is not a protest that's a riot. We need to stop normalizing these riots. Words have meanings, we need to stop perverted those definitions. These are riots, do not change the name from Kenosha Riots to Kenosha Protests, that would be a lie! If Wikipedia wants to continue being the place people turn to for information, that information needs to be factual and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoGirlInASoCalWorld (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — ChicagoGirlInASoCalWorld (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• COMMENT It appears that this discussion has been listed on some alt-right page. As a result, we get tons of new editors and editors returning after a long time of absence who put their opinions here. Their general argument is that these are riots because they "feel" that this is the appropriate word. They sidestep the fact that the press overwhelming calls these protests and protesters (or, in other cases, promote conspiracy theories about the press and Google brainwashing Americans). Saying that we need to call these riots because this feels about right, while the press calls these protests, is of course promoting WP:original research, hence clearly conflicting with WP policy. But even if we sidestep the data as well for a moment (we shouldn't but for the sake of the argument), then, still, protests is the only proper word to describe the events. The reason is simple: while protests can be violent, riots cannot be peaceful. Hence protests with elements of violence are per definition protests, NOT riots. It is as simple as that! gidonb (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The prevalence of personal opinion in the majority of comments is apparent and should absolutely be ignored. With that said, a public expression that results in the destruction of public and private property, otherwise the elements of violence, is what Wiki itself defines as a riot. Elements of violence don't spur out of existence because the press overwhelmingly refers to the events as a peaceful protest. Unless there is evidence that the act of public expression is exclusively, not largely, peaceful, the existence of violence makes the entire act a riot, not a protest. So far, there is a staggering amount of evidence listing multiple acts of violence by the very same press. This article's name should reflect the reality of the situation, not mirror the press headlines to the T. Under your logic that protests can be violent and remain protests, 1992 Lost Angeles Riots article would also need to be renamed. Iceness (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—you say "Their general argument is that these are riots because they 'feel' that this is the appropriate word." Merriam-Webster defines "riot" as "a violent public disorder". Wouldn't the burning of cars be "a violent public disorder"? I believe that's what transpired. Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

As I explained, between what an individual believes and carefully picks out of a book and the events in Kenosha and between what authoritative sources say, the sources take strong preference. Otherwise, we promote WP:Original research. I understand that some have this tendency to portray protests by initially mostly African Americans as riots but whenever there are protests of which some forms are nonviolent and others are violent the common denominator is "protests". This part of my text explains why: "The reason is simple: while protests can be violent, riots cannot be peaceful. Hence protests with elements of violence are per definition protests, NOT riots. It is as simple as that!" Again, my policy argument is that contradicting the large bulk of the authoritative sources is promoting WP:OR and Wikipedia articles must not contain original research as it is not neutral and cannot be carried in consensus but this can help you organize it in your mind. gidonb (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—I oppose misnaming the article based on factors such as whether or not some of the participants may be "African American". That may be your concern but it has no counterpart in objective reality. Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, if you had read my text more carefully you would have seen that I oppose misnaming the article because many protestors are African American. The press doesn't do this and neither should we. We should follow the WP:RS and not engage in WP:OR. It is very simple: the press calls this for the most part protests and protesters. The entire idea that there is violence or there are minority populations so this must be riots is based on a misunderstanding of what riots and protests are as well as on prejudice. WP should not engage in racism or other types of misinformation and prejudice but summarize WP:RS. gidonb (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—there are no racial factors in whether this is a "riot" or not. Yet you are saying "some have this tendency to portray protests by initially mostly African Americans as riots". You are stating your concern. But what does your concern have to do with objective reality? It bears no relationship to objective reality. It doesn't matter if one racial identity or another racial identity ignites new automobiles, fresh off the assembly line, into flaming infernos. It is still rioting. It is still waste of human resources. It is still air pollution. I'm not looking at the color of the skin of the person who destroys some of humanity's finest creations. There is a reason new automobiles cost tens of thousands of dollars. These are fine creations. Who has the right to riot and smash the windows of brand new, high quality driving machines, and then set them ablaze? That is not rioting? How much air pollution derives from a burning automobile? How many wasted hours of fire departments have to be devoted to this nonsense that you are pretending is merely "protesting"? If sources call it "rioting" we can call it "rioting". And the dictionary definition concurs. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, my opinion is crystal clear: we should follow the Reliable Sources, otherwise we'd be engaging in Original Research and deviate from the Neutral Point Of View. The racist prejudice and the misunderstanding of what protests are -"There is violence so these are not protests" is a false statement- is how I explain that a lot of people here hold different opinions. These opinions clearly conflict with our policies and should not receive the same weight as those rooted in WP policy and guidelines. Otherwise canvassing -like the outcome we see here- will again become all the rage. All this is my analysis. My opinion on the name, clearly stated in the nomination, is based solely on what the Reliable Sources say. It is a WP:COMMONNAME argument! gidonb (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—you are referring to "racist prejudice", and in an earlier post you say "WP should not engage in racism or other types of misinformation and prejudice". What is this a reference to? I haven't seen "racist prejudice", at least not in this thread. You can cut-and-paste a quoted excerpt of something you think someone said that you feel displays "racist prejudice". And I suppose we can discuss that. Maybe I will agree with you. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb-but whenever there are protests of which some forms are nonviolent and others are violent the common denominator is "protests" . According to which source do you believe this to be true? This is the core divergence between our points of view - from my understanding your claim is false. I am open to being challenged though. In the meantime, consider this - there are five people that are being mugged on a train with the capacity of one hundred people; as some people are not being mugged, the common denominator for the incident on the train is that no mugging occurred. The point is, this article doesn't exclude the existence of peaceful protests in Kenosha - it describes the riots that have and are occurring. If peaceful protests do occur within the same time frame, they need to be covered separately, within this article or in a dedicated one. Iceness (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Iceness False. The common denominator would be that all these people (crime victims, criminals, and bystanders or sitters) are traveling by train. Also, we have been through this discussion many times before. For example at the George Floyd protests. The consensus was that "protests" is the correct name as this is what the WP:RS use. Here too. I'll quote my own statement in one of the discussions: Peaceful protests and violent protests -- what do they have in common? Yep! The one word that we need and have in our title! Violent protests are a real thing. It is discussed at length in the literature and is also reflected in our protests article. What isn't a thing is peaceful riots. Riots are contained in protests. Using riots, instead of protests by the RS, we would be implying that for WP only violent actions count and that the rest should be discounted. I couldn't disagree more! Bundling peaceful and violent protests as "riots" is a strong departure from WP:NPOV. gidonb (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb And what would the Wiki article look like regarding the incident, 'People are traveling by train' or 'Mugging occurs on the train'? I think you have an inherited bias in this, with your reference to the George Floyd article. While I personally believe (and I stress the word personally) that the George Floyd page title should also be renamed into 'movement' akin to the Yellow Vest movement, but lets sidetrack that and get to the bottom of this - are there riots occurring in Kenosha, yes or no? Breathing is contained during the act of murder, that doesn't mean that each time each a person breathes they commit a crime. Wiki is a non-profit foundation, and as a psychology major I absolutely resent the tendency in this thread of narrowing down the argument to aligning with the phrasing from a cherry-picked list of commercial media outlets. Iceness (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Iceness NP. My opinions are clear and directly rooted in WP policy and guidelines, in social science and in logic. I do not recognize myself in a narrowing down of any sort. On the contrary, I addressed the big picture. All the protests. Peaceful or not. All news sources. I wish you good luck with the riddles. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—looting and arson are not protected by the US Constitution. Only peaceful protest is protected by the Constitution. You are arguing to downplay looting and arson to peaceful protest. And you still have not told me what "racist prejudice" has been expressed in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop - This is getting more ridiculous each time. I'm not downplaying anything. Protests cover violence and peaceful demonstrations. With "riots" you are downplaying that there are peaceful demonstrations and do not want this acknowledged in the title. You're totally projecting on me what you are doing in this discussion. Second. I have explained many times in this threat that racial prejudice and other factors can cause people to prefer a different terminology than the one adequately describing what happened or is used in the press. This analysis is rooted in a large body of social science research and proven to be correct when it became apparent that an alternative reality website had placed a call to come and influence the discussion here. We at Wikipedia do not engage in politics just describe reality based on WP:Reliable Sources. Your suggestions totally conflict with reality, and your points do not hold water. Have you even read our policies and guidelines? And if you did and disagreed with these, maybe their talk pages are where you should be arguing? gidonb (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—I feel it is improper for you to invoke racial prejudice unless it exists in this thread. You are saying "This analysis is rooted in a large body of social science research". But you are going far afield from the topic of this discussion when you say "some have this tendency to portray protests by initially mostly African Americans as riots...The racist prejudice and the misunderstanding of what protests are...WP should not engage in racism or other types of misinformation and prejudice". I am unwilling to engage you in a discussion about the alleged "large body of social science research". Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about feelings, I feel that it is improper for you to engage in tendentious anti-anti-racist soapboxing at great length and at every available opportunity. --JBL (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb Your logic removes the existence of the word 'riot' from the language by replacing it with 'violent protest' (and incidentally dropping the 'violent' part from the title). I have spent years recognizing ethical, confirmation and sampling bias in scientific publication and I have myself written papers on social science - to me, the mere concept of CNN (or any media, left- of right-leaning) being treated as a reputable source is ludicrous; I understand that live social events can only be reported by the media - this makes it further imperative for the admin board to maintain impartiality when reviewing this request. Notwithstanding my point, these are today's hard numbers from Google News - "Kenosha protests" (as spelled) from Aug 23 to Aug 27 returned 100 articles; "Kenosha riots" (with the same parameters) returned 90. If both events don't exclude each other, they should be treated as two separate events - but removing the word 'riot/(s)' from this current article's title is an act of censorship against the reports by the very same media that have identified the events as such. Iceness (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support We should use high quality media such as BBC, CNN, MSNBC source as to writing this article when they definite it as protests, not FOX when i considered more unreliable than BBC which use definition riot for that event. IMO, BBC is a high quality reliable source when writing to evwnt in Kenosha than any other media in the world, even Fox News. 182.1.23.97 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  Comment: Again, what the media reports does not change the fact that these are violent race riots. Buildings are being burned and looted, Police and Whites attacked and shot at, and other forms of general destruction. To gain an actual image one must see the full story from all perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B0CB:BCD:740A:41C7:7D5F:9445 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  Comment: The BBC ones are funny. They avoid the use of 'riot' at all costs but then say stuff like "In the surrounding streets we saw vehicles set on fire, buildings vandalised and whole rows of streetlights pulled down." LegendLength (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• STRONGLY OPPOSED: There is a very clear difference between a protest that's peaceful with some sort of civil disobedience, but this is not anything resembling a peaceful protest. The fact that the media lies to everyone and gaslights by utilizing the word "protest" rather than "riot" should be a separate part of the article where we talk about the one sided media coverage. Tim Pool rightly calls this and the riots surrounding George Floyd as they are. They are riots and they should have titles that tell the truth about the situations on the ground. Onstrike (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)— Onstrike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose: Reliable sources are referring to violent destruction as being caused by rioters.(CBS 58) Rioters setting fire to homes and apartments, places where people live, and jeopardizing the lives of the residents, does not fall under the umbrella of protesting.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Refer to modern American history and how it references the violence [2] Pictorals from each of the events as described by the History channel refer to them as Riots. Los Angeles Riots, Watts Riots, 1967 Detroit Riots, Zoot Suit Riots, Attica Riots... The Los Angeles Riots were subsequent to the beating of Rodney King. That event mirrors these riots as do the others listed by the History channel. Protests are non-violent. Recent riots have all resulted in murders, attempted murders, serious bodily injury, arson, rapes, etc. These are not the hallmarks of peaceful protests and do not deserve that moniker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.241.95 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: Peaceful people do not attack people or light buildings on fire and protesters have nothing to gain by threatening people in the middle of the night. These are tactics of rioters, oppressors, thugs, and criminals. 657viper (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — 657viper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support per Muboshgu. Most RS are calling this a protest. Moreover, "riot" is not a neutral title, especially since (as stated in the article) a local sheriff said that most of the damage was caused by people from outside the county who had no intent to protest. Davey2116 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd rather change to something like Kenosha unrest or 2020 Kenosha unrest. See Ferguson unrest. Kingofthedead (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the fact you are trying to find a compromise. The reliable sources, however, are clear: these are protests and protesters. "Unrest", too, would be WP:OR. As I see it, given the huge quality edge over a massive amount of largely canvassed opinions, this discussion is going into the correct, WP:RS direction. A compromise solution would be worse than calling the protests by what they are: protests. In my comment above I explain why. gidonb (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

While I oppose any page move from its current title, using "unrest" as a title would not be WP:OR. There are plenty of reliable sources that use the term "unrest". "Department of Corrections building burned to the ground in Kenosha unrest" (CBS 58), "Kenosha unrest tests political potency of Trump's 'law and order' convention message" (CNN), "Jacob Blake shooting: gun battle in Kenosha on third night of unrest" (The Guardian), "Gov. Tony Evers declares state of emergency in wake of unrest after Kenosha police shooting" (The Cap Times). There are many reliable sources that refer to the situation as unrest, the actions as rioting, and participants as rioters.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Killings occurring, mass property destruction. Riots perfectly describes the event. JoshuaAMarsh 18:09, 26 of August 2020 (AEST) Joshua A Marsh (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Joshua A Marsh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose insofar as there are protests going on, they are not the notable event. The notable event which is attracting wide coverage in various sources is the ongoing riot. 182.2.136.223 (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• strong support I agree that this should be merged with the floyd protest article, as in this strikes me as a sub event of like the 2020 usa blm protests. If not that, then either protest or unrest. Guardian headlines; "Jacob Blake shooting: gun battle in Kenosha on third night of unrest ", "Shots fired on third night of Wisconsin unrest over police shooting of Black man ", "Clashes at US protest over police shooting of black man" --Hiveir (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Easy to oppose this because there are videos all over youtube showing the riots. LegendLength (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)— LegendLength (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose: Sources focus on the civil disturbance and violent aspect of the events. A curfew was called on the first day and the National Guard in the first 24 hours. Fa suisse (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment There are reports of armed vigilantes, and according to the Washington Post, 2 protesters have already been killed. I think it best to avoid language which might encourage more violence against protesters. I think some of the language above violates WP Civility, amounts to taunting, and creates a hostile environment for minority Wikipedians. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: There seems to be a discussion now about what "protest" and "riot" mean. According to multiple dictionary definitions for protest and riot a protest is neither referring to a peaceful or violent protest. To denote it as either would require qualifying it as "peaceful" or "violent". A protest is just a public demonstration in opposition to something. A riot is a violent public disturbance created by three or more people or, legally, it is an unlawful assembly (assembled for a common purpose) that terrorizes the public or has become violent. A riot isn't required to be chaotic, confusing, or disorderly to be a riot. There can be organized riots. The common purpose of the people assembled could be to protest or it could be to simply loot stores. If we start with a group of people assembled for a common purpose. The only addition necessary for a riot is either violence or terrorizing the public. A violent protest (of 3 or more people), then, would be, by definition, a riot. Hence, once a large peaceful protest becomes violent it becomes a riot so long as there are 3 or more people involved. 657viper (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — 657viper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. If both violent and non-violent protests occur, then protests would be the more inclusive label. 2. In many cases, including this discussion, violence against protesters gets confused with violence by protesters. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

riot — noun ✔️1. a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets. ✔️2. Law .a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes. ✔️3. violent or wild disorder or confusion. ✖️4. a brilliant display: a riot of color. ✖️5. something or someone hilariously funny: You were a riot at the party. ✖️6. unrestrained revelry. ✔️7. an unbridled outbreak, as of emotions, passions, etc. ✖️8. Archaic .loose, wanton living; profligacy.

— verb (used without object) ✔️9. to take part in a riot or disorderly public outbreak. ✖️10. to live in a loose or wanton manner; indulge in unrestrained revelry: Many of the Roman emperors rioted notoriously. ✖️11. Hunting .(of a hound or pack) to pursue an animal other than the intended quarry. ✔️12. to indulge unrestrainedly; run riot.

Burning Buildings, Torching Vehicles, Assulting People non ADW, ADWs, Robberies, Lootings, MURDERS... NONE of this is "Peaceful Protesting"... Do not change the title!!! Mk2jahouser (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Mk2jahouser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong support Changing the name helps keep Wikipedia's status as a joke consistent 4.59.70.125 (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support protests more common name and far more neutral term. I know we generally don't lock talk pages, but I feel that it might be necessary to lock this one due to clear bridging that is going on here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lightburst. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Onstrike. Finnegas (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. As of today's reporting, NPR is calling them protests, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is calling them protests, as is WaPo, CBS, ABC, NYTimes, Chicago Tribune, Politico, The Guardian, even the Wall Street Journal. We're a clear outlier here. Guettarda (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the Kenosha News refers to "night three of protests", "Kenosha's Tuesday protest" and the "Third night of protests" in the headlines of stories currently on their front page. Guettarda (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that there are two viable options here, and neither of them involve simply re-naming this page "Kenosha protests". The first option is to create another article Jacob Blake protests to contain information about actual protests occurring as a result of Jacob Blake's shooting. Such protests have occurred and were not limited to Kenosha. This article can then remain to contain information specifically pertaining to the riots and destruction in the city of Kenosha. The other option is to re-name the article Kenosha unrest, which completely avoids the issue of weighing whether protests or rioting were more characteristic of the events thus far. However, this second option has the disadvantage of excluding both the protests and destruction which have occurred in, e.g. Madison. BirdValiant (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support – unrest or protests, doesn't matter to me. Both have a much stronger case for COMMONNAME than the current title. We can decide between them later. PLEASE, IAR and close this discussion. Canvassing has caused a disruption to this page and this nomination would have SNOWed otherwise. We should not have to live with this title for 7 days just because some people are gaming the system. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Looking through the sources, there are many instances where we use "riot/rioters" while the cited source we uses "protest/protesters", "people", "crowd" or "vandal". Although "riot" is used by some sources, "protest" is more prominent. –dlthewave ☎ 15:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - People have been murdered during this unrest and there is significant destruction of property. Not sure I understand why this is even debatable. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: "People have been murdered" obscures who is responsible for the violence. I don't want to get too deep into the weeds on assigning responsibility, because that runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Still, titling the page as "Kenosha riot" and making vague references to people being killed implies that those responsible for the deaths are the demonstrators themselves. "Kenosha unrest" describes both what is taking place and where, without asserting responsibility on any person or party for the violence. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Was the shooter not a demonstrator? He wasn't a cop. Juno (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the reports I've seen, the shooter was a pro-police vigilante, and the victims were protesters. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that it is obscure as to who is responsible for the violence. It seems to me that the notability of the article isn't whether or not there are protests taking place, but that there are riots taking place. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This thread has been brigaded by an alt-right guild part of the social media website called Ruqqus. While I know this is not a vote, I want editors to be aware of the fact: https://ruqqus.com/post/2nq5/psa-the-retards-who-manipulate-wikipedia Dr-Bracket (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Dr-Bracket, thank you!!!!! I knew that there was off-site canvassing going on, I just didn't know where it was happening. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Seconded, Muboshgu. Good find on your part, Dr-Bracket. This definitely explains the influx of minimally-sourced, appeal-to-emotion opposition to a change to the name of the page, particularly from IP-only accounts. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for finding this. How do you search for these things? Juno (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: In a WSJ Journal article, It mentions, "The city has experienced violent clashes, fires and looting since Jacob Blake, a 29-year old Black man, was shot in the back by police on Sunday.". It does not deny the fact that there were protests but it does not deny the fact that there weren't any riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightvour (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• • Changed to Support After a bit of searching through comments, @Muboshgu: explains his argument quite well and by that I do support his argument. So I will change my status to support. Nightvour (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support this really is a discussion about the scope of the article. At this point it makes sense to have a single article about both the protests and the riots. VQuakr (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @VQuakr: If both the protests and the riots are to be lumped together, isn't "unrest" better? BirdValiant (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: sure, my !vote can be counted as a "support" for either. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• oppose: They are riots, plain and simple. 73.89.157.3 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• don't care: But if you keep trying to change others' perception of reality with words, after a while the words start to more closely represent the phenomena people observe in connection with those words. You see it all the time in euphemisms: "retarded" used to be a more polite, enlightened version of "moron", "idiot" etc. Yet now it's just as much of an insult if not more so. Do you want the very idea of protesting against the existing order to be irreparably associated with spiteful nihilistic violence? Because that's what you're doing. Slowly but surely. 204.93.126.18 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose If almost everyone in Wikipedia could leave his Liberal bias for a few minutes and be objective and apolitical you'd realize this is in fact a riot, just like in Portland or Minneapolis, I don't care how much you support Black Lives Matter or oppose racism or how wrong you think the shooting of that criminal Blake was, it IS a riot. --177.230.47.65 (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not the arbiters of truth. As a policy, we follow the example of reliable sources. If they call it "unrest" or "protests", we call it the same. If they call "riots", we call that. The vast majority of sources do not use riot to describe these set of events. In a page showing the first 100 results of for "Kenosha", the word riot appears 1 time. While protests appear 24 times and unrest appears 10 times. That is clear evidence besides the many points made above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right. Most peoples' objections in this talk page would be better taken up with the news outlets rather than Wikipedia, but the fact remains that you still have a great deal of lattitude in how you treat these subjects. Strict, consistent policies are great, and in light of that, if I wanted to vote, I'd vote in favor of the move. You guys set yourself apart as collators of information, not originators.

The problem comes in when I see editors listing off news outlets that they should listen to more than others, how they're more "biased" than others. I thought you guys weren't arbiters of truth?

This is an extremely difficult situation you're in. Truly responsible people, the kind who get remembered for generations, would be VERY CAREFUL that they weren't letting their own biases creep in. That they had the humility to accept that they could be wrong, even about things they're absolutely sure of. 204.93.126.18 (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Google News results top-100 for "Kenosha", protest appears 50 times, unrest appears 25 times, and riot appears 21 times. Clear evidence that riot is NOT the COMMONNAME. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support A search for "kenosha protest" OR "kenosha protests" in Google News currently shows 120,000 mentions of those terms, while "kenosha riot" OR "kenosha riots" only finds 14,000. And that's before excluding stories from the latter where the term is only included in a link to this very page.

Ontologically, all riots are also protests, while not all protests are riots. Using protest would therefore be the sensible & safe choice where there doubt. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's equivalent to saying "all fist fights are interpersonal conflicts, ontologically." Well, OK. You could say that about 99% of fights in the real world, but that's still not enough to say the concepts are "ontologically" encompassing. Some people fight in sparring sessions with the friends to learn to defend themselves. Some people fight for fun. Some people, money. Likewise, not all riots are protests. What if people just burn shit and lynch people because they felt like it? What if there's no discernible meaning at all? There's no element of *protest* there unless you REALLY stretch.

One word doesn't encompass the other, rather, they overlap. It's important, I think, not to confuse this relationship because it makes certain phenomena, (which in this case happen to reflect a fundamental aspect of human nature), impossible to describe because you've already ruled them out syntactically/definitionally. If you're like most of us, and think in words, it makes these possibilities harder to even consider. What it boils down to is an implicit, unspoken, probably even *unconscious* assumption that, "if people are rioting, they must have a reason one can sympathize with."

Words and meanings are intricate, dangerous things. Be careful with them. 204.93.126.18 (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Very weak support. On the one hand, that the media is making an effort to portray these as protests, and as such that is what many of the sources (especially ones that we deem reliable) say. On the other hand, every bit of coverage I've seen, video on twitter, and reports from the area sure looks and sounds like rioting to me. Policy would say to go with the sources, and that we aren't the arbiters of what is the truth. SQL^{Query me!} 19:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • SQL, there is a suggestion to use the term unrest which, according to my searches, is the second most common name but more precisely describes the events. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Coffeeandcrumbs, That's not a bad idea as a compromise. If sources start to describe as riots more than unrest or protests in the future, it can always be moved in any case. SQL^{Query me!} 19:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the preponderance of RS. And while I expect nonsense from canvassed SPAs that show up to fight 'liberal bias', veteran editors who are basing their oppose arguments on homegrown definitions of the difference between "riot" and "protest" should know better. Grandpallama (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support This article covers various events, some of which are perhaps better described as rioting, others which are clearly not, including the fatal shootings on 25 August. If the article covers all this, then it should be a more neutral term, like "protests". If you want an article just on the rioting, then a bunch of material needs moving to another article. Bondegezou (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support i agree with Bondegezou argument that protests is more neutral term, at least word "unrest" per Ferguson unrest, but in BBC, they call it "Jacob Blake protests", not Kenosha riot as far-right media mentioned as BBC not necessary naming the city whose rioting. Wikipedia should using high quality reliable source to explain this like BBC, AP, Reuters, etc. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: can you clarify how any of the options are more recognizable than the others? We don't have a separate article at this time about the unrest in general (and creating one would be an unnecessary split), so I am unclear on how WP:PRECISE would apply either. VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Guettarda and the overwhelming use of "protests" by RS. --JBL (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest moving all votes from ip editors/new accounts that have no other edits outside of this area to a hatted subsection, this one included. There is a lot of brigading going on and I do not envy whoever has to look this over to close it. Please make their lives easier. 2001:4898:80E8:3:FEB4:F184:A5D0:AFD0 (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Also please remove some of the more racist comments such as Special:Contributions/2600:1000:B104:7F41:25BB:659:E12D:9233's and 204.93.126.18's and 177.230.47.65's. I do not appreciate the use of the word "retarded". 2001:4898:80E8:3:FEB4:F184:A5D0:AFD0 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You've got to be fucking kidding me. Read my comment before you embarrass yourself. I really hope this is a bot or something.204.93.126.18 (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Haven't seen any sound policy arguments for opposing. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure that any of the choices is more prevalent than another (protests, riots, or unrest). Personally, I think "unrest" bridges the two extremes and would be more befitting of an article involving protests, riots, and murders. - MrX 🖋 22:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's a great deal of coverage from journalists live on the scene, and their reporting indicates that the predominant activity by the crowds in Kenosha has been rioting rather than protesting. Wsw248 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support All of the opposes are just talking about the media, my reasons for support are that the we used the word support in previous articles of this type. Idan (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Zvikorn Inaccurate per 1992 Los Angeles riots , 2020 Delhi riots etc Iceness (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Very Strong Support the George Floyd Protests had their fair share of violence and rioting but they're still called "Protests" so as such this should also. Dan the Animator 23:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - As some editors have pointed out, it would be better to move to a more time/place/event-specific title, such as Jacob Blake protests/riots or 2020 Kenosha protests/riots. NoNews! 00:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: Your latter naming convention propose (2020 Kenosha protests/riots) is required in all disaster management articles which it shall be formatted as <year> <place> <event> (Example like 2020 Delhi riots, 1992 Los Angeles riots, 2011 England riots). Even there are exceptions, such as riots in Kenosha which never have riots before then, the naming convention shall be used as redirect. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I acknowledge that -- but I also note the George Floyd protests article is named as it is right now. Therefore I'm voicing my objection to both the existing and proposed article names in favour of the ones I have listed. The result of the discussion will determine the choice between "protests" and "riots". NoNews! 00:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Violent protests can still be called protests. Any closure that does not strike the extreme amount of canvassing and sockpuppetry here should be disregarded. Reywas92^Talk 00:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Riot, though not itself defined in the Wisconsin Statutes, is mentioned in the following: 943.20(3)(d)3, 943.20(3)(d)4 (Crimes Against Property); 62.09(8)d (Cities); 61.24 (Counties); 61.24 (Villages); 323.11 (Emergency Management). A riot is defined as three or more persons engaging in unlawful behavior by the use of force or violence. This definition has been in use for centuries and is reflected in the laws of the States and of the United States. The acts committed in Kenosha meet the common law and statutory definitions of riot. 5JVL9 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support; these are overwhelmingly described as protests among reliable sources, eg. [3][4][5][6][7]. Note that the sources people are presenting to argue otherwise are almost uniformly low-quality, non-WP:RS, and/or opinion pieces; the mainstream news media is overwhelmingly terming them as protests, which even some of the oppose !votes concede. Furthermore, WP:NPOVTITLE requires that we use a more neutral title; calling them 'riots', a plainly incendiary framing, would require strong sourcing that is completely absent here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The majority of the demonstrations have been violent its getting to the point were it is worse then Minneapolis in may.- User:Garmin21

• Support George Floyd protests are filed under protests, this is consistent with existing naming convention. Honkinonbobo (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Though George Floyd protests were called protests, it was because of WP:COMMONNAME, most of the news and media called them protests. On the other hand, most news and media have called these riots because people literally go outside every night with guns and go to war with each other. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Also, can we stop SHOUTING and say Very strong Support or Very Strong Oppose, because adding a "very strong" does not carry more weight than just a support or an oppose. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Oh, it's a riot. Big riot. Please Wikipedia, just look at the footage, this is just getting silly. Nate Hooper (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Give me a break. We're supposed to follow what reliable sources say, and the majority are saying protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.129.178 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support per the WP first mentioned in creating this move request, and following the similar naming scheme for the George Floyd protest. Also, just to point this out but I don't think daytime or nighttime matters in what counts as a riot or a protest, as some users seem to think above. -boldblazer (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment The amount of suspicious activity by SPAs and obvious sockpuppets on this RfC is ridiculous. There's absolutely no way that there isn't extensive off site canvassing going on here. Anyway, the whole thing should probably be merged to Shooting of Jacob Blake. Volunteer Marek 04:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the more neutral title for this article is "Kenosha protests" or "Kenosha unrest" which is comply with NPOV. The title like riot, revolt, etc doesn't make it neutral as it places into far-right argument. This is principles of Wikipedia which articles that made shall NPOV tone. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment Alright, so in the last few hours, it's been moved multiple times, from riot, to protest, to unrest and now back to riot (quite amusing to be honest). I was one of the people who thinks "riot" is best, but let's just talk on an issue that most of us will agree on. That is the fact that about half of us are on one side and the other half are, by definition, on the other. Now, these are the perfect conditions for an edit war, so we are at an impasse. It seems that there is no way to solve this problem, short of a never-ending edit war... I've never seen such an even split on Wikipedia before. Can we flip a coin or something? lol Nate Hooper (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that it's an "even split" when many of the !votes are by IPs whose arguments are entirely devoid of WP policy or any reference to WP:RS. Also see WP:DEMOCRACY. Whoever closes this RfC is in for a nightmare. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - 304,000 hits for "protests" on Google vs. 143,000 for "riots". But there are only 24,000 for "riot", singular. Regardless of the outcome of the RfC, the title should be plural. As it stands it is inaccurate either way. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support The amount of SPAs here unable to cite policies is staggering. One of them is even saying mainstream sources are "brainwashing". We go by WP:COMMONNAME. Robby.is.on (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

How does one go about dealing with all the SPAs and opinions from not-logged-in users (IP addresses) in concluding this move request? Do you just ignore them, and then consider the consensus present? -boldblazer (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The closing admin will weigh the comments against Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The drive-by sheep will be given very little consideration. WWGB (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support but preference to Kenosha unrest it seems clear there have been protests as well as things often described as rioting. It doesn't make sense for this article to only cover the parts called riots. Protests seems the more common name so would be preferred over riot. But given that many sources do seem to acknowledge some of it goes beyond protests and that unrest is often used, I think it's a good middle ground. If in the future the riots or the protests become clearly the most significant part of this, we can re-asses it then. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Muboshgu. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose These are not peaceful protests. The violence is quite blatant and changing it to anything else would violate WP:CENSORED. We have to be realistic here. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenFrogsGoRibbit: I struggle to see how WP:CENSORED applies to the title of this article. The policy you've cited deals with the content contained within the article, or the existence of the article overall. If someone were requesting that this article be deleted, or was editing content to exclude any violence that occurred during this unrest, that absolutely would fall under WP:CENSORED. Changing the article's title is only an effort to adhere to WP:COMMONNAME, which is what is in contention here. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 13:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose But needs to be plural since the rioting has lasted several days - article should be changed to Kenosha riots. see similar articles e.g. Watts riots, 1992 Los Angeles riots, etc. Yodabyte (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support The term protests encompasses peaceful demonstrations all the way to violent riots. This is practically the same discussion that we had with the George Floyd protests. Yes, there was violence. But it was mostly peaceful, so we should account for that in the title. I even think that we should merge George Floyd protests with Kenosha protests into 2020 United States protests. JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lean support per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NPOV. Regarding whether the events in Kenosha are riots or protests is a false dichotomy. There were both peaceful protests related to the killing of Jacob Blake, and rioting. Furthermore, the line between a protest and a riot is often not so clear (MLK: "A riot is the language of the unheard.") A protest can give way to a riot, violent agitators often mingle with otherwise peaceful protestors. As others have noted, a preponderance of sources use the term "protest", etc. However, this move discussion seems focused on this false dichotomy, which is probably a source of our conflict. An alternative option that might satisfy everyone is to move to Kenosha protests and riot. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Strongly object to this "compromise". Violent protests are included in the definition of protests. Peaceful riots do not exist. This is exactly why we need to move from riots to protests! gidonb (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  An alternative option that might satisfy everyone Ha! --JBL (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  I would support changing the title to Kenosha protests and riots. Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A move to Kenosha protests and riot or Kenosha protests and riots is needlessly wordy and does not align with WP:COMMONNAME (unless there is evidence to suggest that people are using this dual terminology). Many users have recommended Kenosha unrest or 2020 Kenosha unrest, which lines up with media descriptions of what is occurring and describes that violence is taking place. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"needlessly wordy"? Are we trying to save electrons? Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop: per WP:PRECISE, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. Also, per WP:CONCISE, the goal of conciseness [of a title] is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. For example, the official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island is the most concise title to fully identify the subject. The title "Kenosha unrest" is concise and accessible to the layperson seeking information on the specific topic. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 17:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Delta1989—thanks for pinging me. I think the events in Kenosha go beyond "a disturbed or uneasy state", which is the definition Merriam-Webster gives for "unrest". I think the suggested title downplays the level of violence and destruction and arson and looting. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

While you might personally think that the term does not go far enough, 1) as has been repeatedly demonstrated, these events are being covered as "protests" and/or "unrest" by the media; and 2) Wikipedia already as a matter of course (e.g. List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States) uses the term "unrest" (i.e. civil unrest) as a term that encompasses everything from non-violent protests being met with violence by the authorities to armed occupations (such as the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge) and overtly violent events such as the Tulsa Race Massacre. It's worth noting that the first example usage of the word unrest in your link is "The country has experienced years of civil unrest," which serves to buttress the argument that the term is, in fact, accurate in describing what has taken place in Kenosha. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You say It's worth noting that the first example usage of the word unrest in your link is "The country has experienced years of civil unrest," which serves to buttress the argument that the term is, in fact, accurate in describing what has taken place in Kenosha. That is in reference to which "country"? Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The example given is just that—an example, intended to showcase how the word unrest is used. As such, the dictionary example does not actually refer to a specific country. The usage of the word unrest, however, is apt. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 23:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As "the dictionary example does not actually refer to a specific country" you cannot say it is "accurate in describing what has taken place in Kenosha". But you are correct that the example sentence shows usage. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose A protest is a peaceful assembly to support a particular position, and a riot involves violence and property damage. This is clearly a riot. Pkeets (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the sources identified by Muboshgu and Guettarda. That, and not the opinions/definitions of Wikipedia editors (or passersby), is what these determinations are based on. "Unrest" may be preferable to "protests" since it's more inclusive perhaps, but both seem more common than "riot" in the high quality sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment FYI 8/27/2020: Newsweek CNN Mocked for Calling Kenosha Riots 'Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Protests Lightburst (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. Isabelle Belato (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Move to "Kenosha unrest", although "Kenosha protests" is preferable to "Kenosha riot". This is per the most recent sources and when discussing it in a variety of contexts: NPR, NPR again, Politico, The Guardian, CNN, CNN again, the Associated Press, ABC News, CBS 2 Chicago, etc. There is a local anti-protest militia, as well as rioting by a subset of protestors, and this is why sources typically say something other than just "protests" (even those that do use that word). This name would follow Ferguson unrest's example. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Move to "Kenosha unrest", with "Kenosha protests" as a potential second choice; "Kenosha riot" is not acceptable. The brigading and clear POV-pushing to support "Kenosha riot" would on its own be a reason for the move, per WP:DENY. I don't envy the closer the task of clearing off the mud seeping between the policy-compliant !votes, however. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. In addition to the other great points made, the terms "protests" and "unrest" are simply more accurate descriptions of what's covered in the article. The term "riots", by definition, excludes the peaceful protests that have occurred. The term "protests" doesn't exclude the riots. Frankly, it's embarrassing that these SPAs are able to ensure the article remains under such a biased title for seven long days. Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 19:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support protests, per RS. No RS is using riot (only tabloids, as far as I can see at a glance). Protests is by far the RS supported word. On another note, the level of canvassing here is incredible, though I wouldn't quite say unprecedented. On a final note, we're confusing the heck out of Google: a search for "Kenosha unrest" gives this article, with URL "/Kenosha protests" and with title "Kenosha unrest", even though both the title and page name are "Kenosha riot". Interestingly, a Google for "Kenosha riot" is autocorrecting to "Kenosha unrest". I can't tell if they're trying to correct for our mess and week-long bureaucratic procedure, or if their caches are confused. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support unrest first, protests second. There are protests and there are riots. It makes no sense to have articles for each and unrest is the best proposed title that covers both. The streets of Kenosha have been filled with peaceful mass demonstrations in recent days, but also damaging riots by night in which businesses have been looted and burned.[8] AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support While all riots can be described as protests, not all protests are riots, and this article would be improved immensely if it described the riots as well as other forms of protest. If this was only about the riots, a lot of information would have to be omitted. RobotGoggles (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• For the sake of the encyclopedia, riot seems inappropriate in that something that started out as events intended to be peaceful and seemingly became a riot when militaristic tactics got involved (for whatever reason it is common in these United States for police to use a chemical banned in warefare to “disperse” civilians for excercising the First Amendment). Trillfendi (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support I think the page reads somewhat oddly when the word riot isn't even mentioned in the lead. Comatmebro (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2020 (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.

Break after partial closure

• Unrest per my previous suggestion. There has been protesting as well as rioting, so "unrest" covers both of these. The "unrest" option is the most diplomatic and does not have the inflammatory effect of hiding the fact that riots have happened. Finally, I would like to take this moment to criticize those who have said that seasoned veterans should have "known better" than to vote "oppose" for various reasons. BirdValiant (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Kenosha unrest. This is per the most recent sources and when discussing it in a variety of contexts: NPR, NPR again, Politico, The Guardian, CNN, CNN again, the Associated Press, ABC News, CBS 2 Chicago, etc. There is a local anti-protest militia, as well as rioting by a subset of protestors, and this is why sources typically say something other than just "protests" (even those that do use that word). This name would follow Ferguson unrest's example. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Closer's comment despite my archiving the discussion above it was not my intention for people to have to reiterate their position (unless they would like to clarify on unrest/protests/etc). I would hope and expect whoever closes this discussion in the end to consider the comments above in assessing the consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - As with Wikipedia's established style, no matter what is chosen as the page's title, unrest, protest, or riot, it should be preceded with the year. "2020 Kenosha Protests" is far more encyclopedic and proper, especially when compared to other articles of a similar nature that follow the <year> <city> <event> format. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  See NOYEAR. Can you point to a different topic that may reasonably be confused with this? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

My comment below goes into greater detail, but WP:NCE sets out the general format of year/location/event for titles that concern events limited in time and geographic scope. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Although esthetics are difficult to argue, for what it's worth, plain "Kenosha unrest" to me sounds more like the name of an indie band or roller-derby team, than it does a Wikipedia article about civil unrest. Due to the mismatched expectations, I think that this will be confusing to at least some people. Thus I would prefer either "2020 Kenosha unrest" or "Kenosha civil unrest" more than plain "Kenosha unrest". WP:NOYEAR be damned, since I think that applying its guidelines here results in something more confusing than it has to be, such that WP:IAR is a useful option. BirdValiant (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:DNFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a fiery peaceful protest, wp:CABAL admins have decided to push their deocratic agenda and ignore the 43 opposes to 41 supports. Keep fighting the right side of history fight. 2601:602:9200:1310:B458:2F73:854C:6B3 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC) I guess you missed it above, see WP:NOTAVOTE Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Kenosha unrest: Per sources offered by Crossroads. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support the term unrest, per Crossroads' sources. Additionally recommend the format "2020 Kenosha unrest" per WP:NCE, which states that in the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: when the incident happened; where the incident happened; [and] what happened. The examples given, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, are not confusable with other similar events in similar places, but still have the year included as a useful identifier. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support moving to Kenosha unrest per Crossroads.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I also support moving to "Kenosha unrest" per Crossroads. -boldblazer (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support the term unrest just like the Ferguson unrest article.--Excel23 (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unrest per Crossroads and Tdl1060. While "protests" seems to be the predominant choice of wording among mainstream media outlets, there have been compelling arguments towards the use of unrest and how it more broadly covers the "riot" and "protest" nature of the events. These users have also provided solid evidence of adoption of the word among RS. Further, the Rittenhouse shooting does not exactly fall into any of these, which is why "unrest" seems to be a preferable blanket term. And it also works as a more neutral option. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 04:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) By the way I made a comment in the first RfC but I changed my signature in the meantime, so that was me as well.NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 05:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Kenosha unrest" per my comments in the above move request. Unrest is used extensively in sources and bridges the two alternatives: "riots" and "protests" without violating WP:POVTITLE. - MrX 🖋 12:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Over 40% of this article is about the shooting of 3 protestors by a 17-year old from out of state. That material may be spun out into its own article. Until such time as it is, this article needs a name that is suitable for a large chunk of the article being about that event. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose "unrest". Keep it as "protests". "Unrest" is a namby-pamby word that doesn't begin to describe the situation, and also doesn't cover the protests in other cities or the dramatic action by the athletes, which are also part of this story. I would consider a change to "Jacob Blake protests", to be comparable to all the articles named "George Floyd protests", but certainly not "unrest". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support unrest - I think it's a fair and accurate term for what's been happening in Kenosha recently. Love of Corey (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support unrest broader term that encompasses what multiple RSs are saying. Anon0098 (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Protests is the stronger name that covers the events, which is always my preference. Regardless of who killed who or demonstrates against who. Protests is also the name most used in the press, notwithstanding the quote of selective sources above. My opposition to "unrest" has been well summarized by MelanieN (kudos!). Unrest is what I have at night when I cannot sleep (and check if I can do something on Wikipedia). It looks like this is moving from the term with a right-wing bias to the term with a left-wing bias. I initiated the first, moving away from bias. Sorry to see this important gain lost. I choose the WP:NPOV status quo, i.e. protests. gidonb (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Funny you say that, I always viewed "protests" as a left-wing bias, "riots" as right-wing, and "unrest" as NPOV. Guess everyone has a different viewpoint on it Anon0098 (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Protests includes purpose and action, unrest is just disquiet. An extremely passive, or, as MelanieN puts it, "namby-pamby word" implying that the people who engaged in these are not responsible for their actions. Typical left-wing bias. The same way the left talks about, for example, Palestinians. Everything just happens to them. Supposedly they have no will. Such passivism is also disrespectful. As a complete opposite of what was being said by likely right-wing supporters in their last message before that I had not yet answered (these were so repetitive and I do have other responsibilities), I do not have a problem with the term "riots" either for an article. If the protests are all violent. Likewise, if all protests are classic and peaceful "demonstrations" can be used. I proposed changing away from riots because both violent and peaceful protests were held. To the next most specific term. Using riots when protests are peaceful and violent is singling out one type of event over any others for political purposes. My problem with unrest is that we'd be moving away from any purpose and specificity. gidonb (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gidonb—you write "Typical left-wing bias. The same way the left talks about, for example, Palestinians. Everything just happens to them. Supposedly they have no will. Such passivism is also disrespectful." Am I permitted to support "unrest" in the title without being anti-Palestinian? This is the way you argued in the previous section, saying "some have this tendency to portray protests by initially mostly African Americans as riots". Am I permitted to support "riot" in the title without being anti-African American? Just for the record, I am not anti-anybody. My only aim would be to give the article an appropriate title. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC) I see plenty of green but there's no relationship between anything I wrote and you or your texts. None whatsoever. gidonb (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Gidonb—you are saying "Such passivism is also disrespectful". Would it be "disrespectful" to change the title to Kenosha unrest? Bus stop (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC) It's a nonsense question based on a false interpretation of my words. Please stop harassing Wikipedians who hold another opinion than yours! gidonb (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support I already wrapped my mind around protest as a common name. Even though these were classic riots in my mind and some rs. However the definition of unrest includes chaos and disruption so I can get behind it.Lightburst (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, aka keep current ('protests'). A quick Google search suggests Kenosha protests is the WP:COMMONNAME over Kenosha unrest by a nearly three-to-one margin; beyond that, "unrest" is somewhat clunky and euphemistic. The arguments that "unrest" is more encompassing are effectively editorializing on our part - the whole point of COMMONNAME is that we are not supposed to do that. --Aquillion (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Interesting. We are suffering from the same naming problem with the 2020 American athlete boycotts. A boycott is not an accurate description of what is more like a strike. And yet most of the RS calls what the athletes are doing - a boycott. So do we go with the RS or with our own judgment? Does it become synth if we we change a title to reflect actual and not go with the RS? Lightburst (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Google search result counts do not distinguish between sources based on Wikipedia's criteria for RS, and taking into account only the results that Google will actually show you, the margin is far closer, with Google no longer showing any results after page 39 and 386 results for "Kenosha protests" and page 35 and 347 results for "Kenosha unrest". Regardless, I reiterate my comments from before the partial closure, that there are plenty of reliable sources using the term "unrest".There are plenty of reliable sources that use the term "unrest": "Department of Corrections building burned to the ground in Kenosha unrest" (CBS 58), "Kenosha unrest tests political potency of Trump's 'law and order' convention message" (CNN), "Gov. Tony Evers declares state of emergency in wake of unrest after Kenosha police shooting" (The Cap Times).--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support the term "unrest" in preference to "protests". "Protest" connotes articulately expressed ideas and demands for specific changes. Burning of vehicles, looting stores, beating people up—this is inarticulate. These activities are best conveyed by the word "unrest". Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The article Kenosha protests#Ongoing demonstrations does describe specific, well-articulated calls for action. –dlthewave ☎ 17:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Dlthewave—if you see something in the Ongoing demonstrations section that you consider a specific, well-articulated call for action would you please bring it to our attention? The closest thing I can see to a specific, well-articulated call for action in the Ongoing demonstrations section is the reference to calls for "police reform legislation" and that is nonspecific, providing no concrete recommendations. As I argued in my post, to which you are responding, the word protest "connotes articulately expressed ideas and demands for specific changes". "Unrest" is the preferable term due to the absence of any clearly articulated demands for concrete and specific changes to the status quo. I thank you for the opportunity to clarify my thoughts. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, seeing some of the comments above, it appears people are attempting to editorialise through the use of the term. The activities in Kenosha meet the definition of a protest and it seems to be the most WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME Bravetheif (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

In what way is it an WP:NPOVTITLE? You can say it, but that does not make it so, Bravetheif. Provide some reasoning to support your assertion. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought people would understand from my statement of "it seems to be the most" preceding WP:NPOVTITLE that I meant "in my opinion it seems to be the most WP:NPOVTITLE". Apparently not. As for why I believe that, well, in your very own comment above (along with others) you seem to be trying to use the term to propagate a bias towards considering the protests to be illegitimate and violent. They're still protests, whether you like how some have presented themselves or not. If you want actual hard evidence, this ML sentiment analyser ranks "protest" as a neutral term, and "unrest" as a negative one. I don't know much about the company that made it, but I do know a bit about ML and to train the model they probably chucked a bunch of tagged data and books to create it, which means the output model should be a pretty decent representation of an average person's sentiment about a term. Also "unrest" is a very vague term in general. Bravetheif (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You say I'm "trying to use the term to propagate a bias towards considering the protests to be illegitimate and violent". I think the activity is "violent". By the way, we wouldn't be using "MonkeyLearn Sentiment Analyzer" because we have little interest in causing customers to buy our product. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... That's what a bias is... I do not understand what you're actually saying about MonkeyLearn and I don't really care either. Point is, "protest" is the more neutral term. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to push your opinions. Bravetheif (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a more precise description would be that you are attempting to reframe the it away from a protest into something illegitimate and violent. Putting that in the title is, definitionally, taking a point of view. Of course it's impossible not to take some kind of POV, but protest accurately describes the entire movement and is a far more neutral term Bravetheif (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bravetheif—"illegitimate and violent" are separate. The events are "violent". I have not said that the events are "illegitimate". But I emphatically say the events are "violent". Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I use illegitimate in the sense that you do not believe they are real protests (as in "the events are not legitimate protests"). You've said as much in your comments. Bravetheif (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bravetheif—sorry but you are mischaracterizing me. And you also seem to be misquoting me. Let's start with the possible misquoting. Where did I say "the events are not legitimate protests"? Obviously, I'm not sure if I said that or not. So, I am asking you to tell me where I said that. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop I was not quoting you, the quote was demonstrating the manner in which I was using the term. I apologise if it came across like I was quoting you, it was not my intention. What specifically made me use that term to describe you was your statement: "'Protest' connotes articulately expressed ideas and demands for specific changes. Burning of vehicles, looting stores, beating people up—this is inarticulate". Correct me if I am interpreting it wrong, but it appears that you do not consider the events in Kenosha a protest. The events in Kenosha do meet the definition of a protest, so I think it's reasonable to describe your stance as "not being a legitimate protest or legitimate form of protesting". Bravetheif (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bravetheif—I believe the article is incorrectly titled as Kenosha protests. Why? Because these events are unaccompanied by anything like articulated verbal demands for specific changes to the status quo. That is why this is best characterized as a "riot", or "unrest", as opposed to "protest". If you think there are concrete, verbally articulated and specific demands being made, please present them here—or even better—add them to the article. The article makes no allusions to any verbally articulated demands. In what sense is this a "protest"? Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop A protest is just expressing disapproval of something. A riot, while a violent and generally disagreeable form of it, is still a protest. That said, this specific protest is part of the larger BLM movement which does have articulated verbal demands and intent. Bravetheif (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bravetheif—aren't you conceding that the "Kenosha protests" are protests in name only when you say "this specific protest is part of the larger BLM movement which does have articulated verbal demands and intent"? Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop I'm sorry but I don't follow. BLM is a movement with demands and intent which is achieved/disseminated partially through protest. Kenosha is one such protest. It also is a protest over police violence, such as the kind shown towards Jacob Blake. I do not understand how that makes it a "protest in name only" Bravetheif (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (Support "Protests") - The current title covers a broad spectrum of events which, although sometimes appearing chaotic and destructive, do have an overall focus and purpose. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support I don't think the current protest title is bad but I think the riots/destruction/disorder are the most notable part of what started as protests. However, I don't think people will fail to find the article or view the content differently if the name isn't changed. Springee (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Kenosha unrest - per BirdValiant and Crossroads. Also better to add the year per Delta1989. Temeku (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support only because it is more accurate than the current page name. However, "unrest" sounds much too much like a WP:EUPHEMISM. Unrest = riots; otherwise, it's a protest. "Kenosha riots" is the most accurate name. Ergo Sum 01:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. The larger story here clearly is the rioting. Perhaps the article could even be split, as who would agree that a story about a peaceful protest belongs in the same article about a riot? Certainly not the peaceful protesters, who I'd think wouldn't want to be associated with rioters. On the other hand, I don't recall if there were any peaceful protests during the LA riots, but I'd be willing to bet that the people doing the rioting would want their larger message to be seen as a protest of sorts anyway. -- œ^™ 02:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Kenosha unrest. There are protests here. There are also lots of things not constituting protests. Juno (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse: militia member? (split)

Milita

(User:Juno has split this into 2 questions)

Is it fair to describe Kyle as a militia member? I lean no. Juno (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Juno, what do reliable sources say? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen anything solid that tags him as a member of a group. Juno (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the line because of some confusing wording. I'm surprised media sources are even mentioning him by name, as he is 17. A CBC news article said: The Anti-Defamation League, which tracks extremist activity, told CBS News there were militia members at the Kenosha protest but found no indication from Rittenhouse's social media footprint that he is connected to any extremist movements. KidAd talk 19:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we can thank TMZ (and probably Twitter) for the misinformation. Media conflation determines that 1 there were militia members at the protests and 2, an individual killed people at the protest so therefor the individual was a militia member. KidAd talk 20:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

There's not one single group called "the Militia", it's various different people that oppose the rioters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplosiveResults (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The local paper just published this article, with the title giving away the conclusion: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Kyle Rittenhouse, charged in Kenosha protest homicides, considered himself militia --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that article, but there's nothing at all in the article to support the claim in the headline that he "considered himself militia". Wsw248 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You're second-guessing the source, then. The title and first paragraph definitely make the claim, as does a reference to "[the guy] and his fellow militiamen." It's not usually required for claims by reputable media to include primary sources.

And, even by that standard, the article includes evidence for the statement, quoting the gunman with

[...] and our job is to protect this business.

The use of the plural indicates that he considers himself part of the group in question (or, alternatively, French royalty from the 17. century) --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Our job" as in the armed civilians on the scene. Unclear how many of these people were militia members. And I wasn't suggesting the article needed to include primary sources, but it should have at least explained the assertion in the title and the first paragraph, which it didn't. Instead, the article did everything except support or explain that central thesis. Maybe that was just their interpretation of "our job", but that seems like a really weak basis for the central thesis of the article. Wsw248 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include per sources [9] [10] [11]. These are outlets that can be trusted to gather and report information reliably even if they don't include the primary source; in this case the reporting seems to be based on deleted/non-public social media posts. –dlthewave ☎ 02:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"based on deleted/non-public social media posts" Other WP:RS sources indicated there was no militia content whatsoever in his previously available social media; only support for police causes and affinity for firearms. Wsw248 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include, widely described as such in sources per the above. --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include but by focusing on self-description and what is known, not conjectures. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal article is fine. We could write something along the lines of "an interview, video and social media suggest the teenager was active as a militia member who saw himself as protecting life and property". Fa suisse (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• No If you read the Sentinel article it actually says "...Miskinis said he didn't know what group Rittenhouse was part of. He wouldn’t comment on the circumstances leading to Tuesday night's shootings, saying the investigation was too new." With that I would hold off on using this terminology until more is known. Comatmebro (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Too soon to say – "There are no overt links on Mr. Rittenhouse’s social media accounts to militias or white supremacist groups who have dispatched armed men to protest events across the country." –[12] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think we should say "he is a militia member" on current reporting. We can quote him or talk about how he saw himself: that seems a good way forward (depending, as always, on the reporting). Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Leave it out. He certainly doesn't appear to have been a member of any organized militia. He may have hooked up temporarily with a group in Kenosha calling itself a militia, but that's not the same thing. His strong attraction seems to have been toward police (I believe he was or is a member of a Police Explorer Post) rather than militia movements. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

However... I just saw where his lawyer described him as "a Minuteman protecting his community when the government would not."[13] "Minuteman" is a term commonly used by organized militia groups. There is still no evidence that he actually belonged to such a group, but his lawyer tagging him with that name suggests the defense may claim he had such an affiliation. I still say leave it out, but watch this issue for developments. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is as much that the so-called "Kenosha Guard" was more a facebook page and a call out rather than anything with structure.Leutha (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Name

(User:Juno has split this into 2 questions)

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.

---

Also: is it reasonable to use his name? I lean yes. Juno (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Juno, what do reliable sources say? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

While I generally lean against mentioning peoples names, let alone minors - a large number of sources have said his name. Thank you, Wsw248 for bringing up WP:MINORS. With that in mind, I would like to move toward not mentioning his name. Juno (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

To the second question, I lean no, due to WP:MINORS. To the first question, probably wait and see until more information becomes available, I suppose. Wsw248 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should avoid the use of his name in-article. It has been broadly publicized but our standard for protection of minors is very high. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this. WP:BLPNAME would suggest that he meets the threshold for using his name, but that he is a minor and, more importantly, that we can describe the events without using his name make me lean slightly toward omit for now. If a trial ensues and this gains continued coverage, I would lean toward inclusion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't use his name. See WP:BLPCRIME. Not using the names of people who have charged with crimes but not yet convicted is generally preferable, and omitting the name does not result in any significant loss of context in this case. TompaDompa (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems right. --JBL (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include; virtually all news reports after his identity was determined seem to use his name prominently, and he is central to the event. This satisfies the requirements of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME, provided we are clear that he is only accused at the present. WP:MINORS is just an essay (and not one that particularly reflects current practice, especially around the age of 17; in that borderline we generally go with the sources.) Additionally, even by the standards WP:MINORS, the key question is whether he is considered a minor in his locale for the purposes of responsibility for his actions - and the sources are already saying he will be tried as an adult, which answers that question in the negative. --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include per Aquillion. The relevant policies and essay require care and caution when covering suspects, which we're able to meet by clearly labeling him as such. –dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include. It has been published around the world, and he has been charged as an adult. WWGB (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Omit. Seconding EvergreenFir. Even if he is mentioned across media, I'd lean toward not including the name of a minor if possible, which is the case here. Fa suisse (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Omit obviously, per WP:BLPCRIME, which overrides any local consensus. Reliable sources naming him is quite irrelevant here, as that's the entire point of WP:BLPCRIME existing. He is a low profile individual, per our policies, thus BLPCRIME applies. Plus, he's a minor, which should just add more strength to WP:BLP arguments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  The relevant passage of BLPCRIME appears to be When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Are you suggesting that Kyle's name "has not been widely disseminated"? Newimpartial (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  You’re looking at BLPNAME, not BLPCRIME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  So we're talking about editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime? I'd say the matter has been considered, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  The wording was written in 2007-10, I'm not sure why it hasn't been changed since, but in practice it means "do not add such material". The good thing is these policies override "talk page consideration", as they should, since most editors aren't going to be familiar with them. That the subject is a minor only adds to the issue. Feel free to wade through the archives of BLP and BLPN for further reassurance of this idea, as I had to do when I was mistaken on this matter. There's a very high burden to add a name in defiance of BLPCRIME, and I'm not aware of any cases where that's met (we literally hide the name of a previously convicted rapist at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann under this policy). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  This looks more like a BLUDGEON than a valid precedent, I'd that's where you're pointing. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Precedent would be [14][15][16][17] & this is just with a quick search. It's really up to you to dig the archives. It wouldn't really be logical to interpret BLPCRIME as a formality where editors on the talk page say "duly noted" and add the words in anyway, as you suggest above. Perhaps BLPCRIME needs to be looser and more clearly worded, but this wouldn't be the venue. Even in the case of ambiguities, we should (& I believe do) err on the side of exclusion, especially when (as in this case) no context is lost to the reader by not naming. At a current tally of numbers, not that it matters, we're at 8 in favour of exclusion and 3 in favour of inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm a actually not sure this shouldn't be the trial case, since the (presently) accused person seems to be integral to the event in a way that is not true in the many cases of we know a crime occurred but don't know whodunit, which seem to be more what BLPCRIME has in mind. I don't think there is any reasonable argument that the shooting during the unrest doesn't meet WP:N or NCRIME, and my sense is that the shooter here is integral to the story of the event. On the other hand, I personally am willing to wait until Kyle is no longer a low-profile individual before restoring the name. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  There's also precedent for including the names of the accused as well, I can think of three right now - Killing of Ahmaud Arbery, Death of Nina Pop and Shooting of James Scurlock. So it's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. And when it's an officer involved shooting, there is precedent for that as well, Killing of George Floyd, and the parent article of this one, Shooting of Jacob Blake. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think many cases are just poor understandings of BLP policy, so articles which are undeveloped (like Nina Pop & James Scurlock) and articles which have only introduced names after interest fettered out are poor examples; the policy is probably violated on a countless number of articles, but it doesn't make it any less valid. Police officers, in the case of George Floyd, are exempt because they're WP:WELLKNOWN, thus exempt from both BLPCRIME and BLPNAME. The case of Killing of Ahmaud Arbery I'm not sure, but given how many times they're mentioned in the article alone, I imagine that may be an instance where it's too difficult to write the article without naming.

  Of course, one could argue that this is a bit ridiculous because we mention the name over half a dozen times in the titles of references on the article, but nevertheless I've seen it applied this way without issue (I think this used to be the case at Derek Chauvin as well, until recent). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  The officer's involved in the Killing of George Floyd were not wellknown before Floyd's death, they only became wellknown because they were involved. And this young man falls into that same scenario. He is now wellknown, due to reliable sources widely reporting his name. Whether his name should be included in this article is a matter of consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  My personal view is that Wikipedia "well known" isn't "is now receiving lots of media attention", and I think WP:LOWPROFILE suggests the same. The officers are inherently high profile due to their position. This young man, irrelevant of how much media attention he receives, remains low profile. Unless, of course, it turns out that he did high-profile actions, before or after his arrest (obviously he can still become high profile), but the media deciding to cover him wouldn't (& shouldn't) alone change his status. The whole point of WP:BLPCRIME is to hide names when WP:RS reports them (otherwise it would just be against core content policies), so to use media reporting as a roundabout way to include a name defeats the point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Omit WP:BLPCRIME and WP:MINORS lead me to believe we should hold off on using his name until a conviction. If he is convicted as an adult, those policies might not hold as much weight, and I could see us using his name at that time. I also tend to lean on the side of "don't glorify these people" for doing things like this. Just because everyone else is using his name doesn't mean we have to. Comatmebro (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Comatmebro: Please clarify your use of WP:MINOR. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Disregard. I realize now that you were just trying to cite WP:MINORS. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Corrected to fix the typo. Thank you! Comatmebro (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  No problem. At least my mistake of not understanding at the time ended up being positive. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include A reading of WP:BLPCRIME implies to me that we cannot imply that the suspect is guilty without a conviction, but little else. A simple way to resolve this would be to detail the events without the name, then mention that 'Suspect was arrest by (Illinois/local) police in relation to the event. The Kenosha District Attorney charged Suspect in relation to the event.' This is somewhat similar to how the Boston Marathon bombing was handled where when the authorities named the suspects and what they were alleged to do. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Adding: Regarding WP:MINORS, it is an essay that deals with a person who is not considered to be an adult along with a separate part about a person who "[...] has been adjudged to be incompetent." If we were follow the WP:NONAME part of the essay by not including his name, we also would have to "Be careful of partial identifications, as a reader might assemble only a few facts and thereby use your information to identify the person who should not be identified, or might even mis-identify someone else." Details of the current suspect are well known online to the point that even a general description would be enough to "[...] identify the person who should not be identified [...]." To do the best to follow this section and not identify the suspect, we would be required to omit everything including age and gender, which still might not be enough to prevent a reader from identifying the suspect due to still needing to cover what is claimed to have happened. There is an addition consideration that the suspect is currently being tried as an adult. WP:MINORS talks about a person adjudged to be incompetent as already noted. I believe that this can be extended despite not being in the essay to the subject, but in the sense that a court will be treating the suspect as an adult. Even if we do identify them, I do believe that a consensus could be reached that the "Editing on a person who must be identified" section of WP:MINORS would apply. That would mean editing [...] what is said about the person so that it is even less contentious than would be acceptable for a competent adult or not contentious at all. Do so not just by adding sources but by toning down the content in a way that remains consistent with sourcing, which I believe should be done anyways due to WP:BLPCRIME. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include We are way beyond the point of WP:BLPNAME. This name has been widely published. Take the usual caution not to imply guilt but publishing his name is not an issue. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include Concur, WP:BLPNAME is baseless at this point. Serious reservations about using WP:MINOR as the government has already announced that they are trying him as an adult.Albertaont (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include - WP:BLPNAME says "... editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime,..." That's what we're doing—seriously considering. Given that this has been widely publicized and video of the murders exists, there is no compelling reason that I can see to omit the name of the suspect. His age is not a factor. - MrX 🖋 11:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include Yes, he is a minor, but the fact that the police are releasing his name indicates that they intend to charge him as an adult. However, we do need to be careful not to say in Wikipedia's voice that he killed the people. I added several "allegedly"s to the article today. No matter what kind of videos or statements come out in the future, he should remain "allegedly" the killer unless and until he is convicted. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  On the note of a being charged as an adult, since the point has been made many times, I must note I feel this point is somewhat flawed. The ideology behind BLPCRIME separates executive (incl prosecution and police) and the judiciary (as impartial). It logically follows that the police/prosecutors deciding to charge him as an adult does not mean that he was (or will be) convicted as one. So him being charged as an adult doesn't diminish his status as a minor. Perhaps we are beyond the point of omitting his name, but even if so, we must still tread carefully and stay true to the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME, which prohibits even implying the person has committed a crime. I think your edits are a good step in that direction, but unambiguous violations do constantly keep cropping up in edits (mainly by newer editors). Thus, I think an editnotice is probably a good idea, as well as a talk notice, to highlight WP:BLPCRIME implications. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Something like User:ProcrastinatingReader/BLPCRIME editnotice perhaps? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include Both prosecution and defence say that it is Rittenhouse who shot a number of protesters. Shooting someone isn't necessarily a crime: his defence lawyers argue he acted in self-defence. If they are correct (can prove their case in court), then we will still be able to say Rittenhouse shot these protesters, but he will be adjudged to have done so legally. What we can't say, under WP:BLPCRIME, is that Rittenhouse murdered these individuals, or shot them illegally (until such time as he is found guilty of doing so, should that be the outcome of legal proceedings). BLPCRIME applies to a crime (first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, attempted homicide -- what he's been charged with). I don't see that it should stop us describing events that everybody (reliable sources, prosecution, defence) agree occurred (Rittenhouse fired shots that hit people, resulting in 2 deaths). Happy to see wording changed to ensure we are the right side of BLPCRIME, but I think we are within policy to say this was Rittenhouse, he fired these shots. WP:MINORS is only an essay and it seems to me to say that who counts as a minor should be determined by state law, and Rittenhouse is being charged as an adult, ergo doesn't that mean he is an adult under state law and MINORS does not apply? Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2020 (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.

Pursuing vs. Attempting to apprehend

Currently, under the Day 3 section, the text reads (with emphases added):

Video footage showed a young white man initially shooting another man who pursued him into a car parking lot and threw something at him.[39] The shooter is later captured on video as he continued to be pursued down the street by several men before tripping. He is then seen opening fire on those pursuing him.

My concern is that pursuing can be interpreted to involve multiple intentions (e.g., pursuing as in chasing prey, a goal, etc.) It can be read as if the pursuers has intent to harm him (which we do not know). In the second and third instances, I suggest we change wording to

Video footage showed a young white man initially shooting another man who pursued him into a car parking lot and threw something at him.[39] The shooter is later captured on video as several men attempted to apprehend him before tripping in the street. He is then seen shooting at those men.

It seems clear from the video that these men are chasing him in response to his shooting of the first man. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear at all that the crowd was attempting to apprehend him rather than attack him. They did attack him physically and with weapons, as you can see from the footage and as reported in several news outlets, but their end goal is not apparent (beat him up, apprehend him, or kill him).Wsw248 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A skateboard is a weapon, now? That is news to me. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

News flash:

FBI Uniform Crime Report 2018: Crime in the United States

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8: Murder Victims by Weapon used

_ 672 Personal Weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)

_ 297 Rifles

_ 235 Shotguns

FBI considers hands, fists, feet, etc as "personal weapons" and such "unarmed" assailants murder more people in the US than assailants with rifles + shotguns combined. (Stats for 2018 compiled, analyzed, & final release 2019)

My state's "Going Armed" statute defines weapon as any instrument carried or used with intent of offense or defense. A skateboard would be considered a weapon when used as a weapon. Two or more assailants with just "personal weapons" against one individual can justify use of lethal force in self-defense if a "reasonable person" (grand jury or trial jury) would be in fear of death or maiming in the defender's position. --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A skateboard is a weapon if you use it as one. People have been killed with far less.[18] MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. skateboards are not weapons. Neither are rocks. He was just an innocent skateboarder who was swinging his skateboard around in a carefree manner when the shooter walked into his swinging. The shooter should have been more careful to not get hit by the skateboard. Please take right wing hate off Wikipedia. There is no place for it here. The Nytimes video shows exactly what happened: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html 86.93.208.34 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Antifa has been using skateboards to bludgeon people regularly, especially in the Pacific Northwest. But I was also talking more specifically about the third victim, who was brandishing a handgun at the shooter. Wsw248 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You clearly have a broader definition of "weapon" (and of "Antifa") than I have. But in any event, I haven't seen any evidence of an attack...with weapons on the shooter, apart from the skateboard hit. It isn't even clear to me that the shooter saw the handgun, and he certainly wasn't "attacked" with it. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Anything can be used as a weapon during an assault. Regardless, I'm not sure "pursuers" is the right framing of this. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I would favor Pursue. "Pursue" is neutral (as you note) -- a person can "Pursue" in an attempt to apprehend or in an attempt to do harm. We cannot know the state of mind of the people pursuing the shooter. Furthermore there is video evidence that both victims who died were at the same 3rd location with the shooter arguing (including yelling "Shoot me, nigga!" at the self-styled militia) before the shooting happened. This means that one reasonable interpretation of the events is that *both* victims who died chased the shooter down a street from the third location, together. As for the 'paramedic' I don't believe he is known to have been at the third (initial) location. Still in the primary source video where he is shot, he can be seen feigning surrender while surreptitiously drawing a pistol, so his motives (in my opinion) are also possibly ill-intentioned. I hope I've made the case that the motives are sufficiently ambiguous that using verbs to imply one is inappropriate. Maddata (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't be trying to assign motives without sourcing, and we certainly shouldn't be using the talk page to suggest that someone who pulled a gun on a person who just shot someone has "ill intent". –dlthewave ☎ 20:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, there's reason to suspect that the guy who pulled the handgun (Grosskreutz) did intend to shoot Rittenhouse. His friend posted on Facebook ([19]) that Grosskreutz regrets hesitating before "emptying the mag" into Rittenhouse (mind you, that interaction occurred after the two fatalities were already shot). Of course, this is hearsay and not a WP:RS, but on the other hand it's not wild, arbitrary speculation, either. Wsw248 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Pursue" is what reliable sources are calling it, so that's the word we should be using. We certainly shouldn't call it an "attempted apprehension" or try to piece together motives without sourcing.

At this point, media reports are basically "one video shows x, and another video shows y." Our article will have to be limited to this level of detail until a bigger-picture account of what took place is released. –dlthewave ☎ 20:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight... Your concern is that pursuing can be interpreted to involve multiple intentions (e.g., pursuing as in chasing prey, a goal, etc.) It can be read as if the pursuers has intent to harm him (which we do not know). However, you then say several men attempted to apprehend him. You're making an argument against implicit assumption while advocating it be replaced with an explicit assumption? MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry guys they were all peaceful protesters, and the gun that guy was carrying was overwhelmingly peaceful. When a man who pulls a gun on someone lying on the ground, and later claims he wished to kill him, we're supposed to not make assumptions about whether he wanted to kill him, because assumptions are bad. But we are supposed to assume that he somehow had good intent. Sorry, that's just your political bias showing. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 10:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The innocent peaceful protesters were only attempting to peacefully apprehend the white by peacefully hitting it with a skateboard of peace, kicks of peace and one innocent peaceful protester pulled a gun of peace in an attempt to peacefully incapacitate the white with a peaceful bullet of peace. When it shot them unprovoked, as whites are prone to do to innocent peaceful humans. 92.5.204.252 (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"one innocent peaceful protester pulled a gun of peace"

Maybe it was a colt peacemaker. 2600:6C5A:657F:F417:2D30:FABC:20EA:527E (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Split proposed

Hi all,

It seems the incidence itself, the shootings from Kyle Rittenhouse, has got enough reliable media comprehensive coverage to the point that I think it could sustain a notability test. Do we want to split this section to a separate article? If so, what's an appropriate title?

(Nominator update Aug 30): please also note the nominator understands the the shootings from Kyle Rittenhouse is arguably a bad title. Please support or oppose whether to split the article, and if you support a split of article, what do you think is the best title. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 21:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support (COI: norm) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Kyle Rittenhouse deserves his own article. RobotGoggles (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @RobotGoggles:, started as The_shootings_by_Kyle_Rittenhouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinbenlv (talk • contribs) 20:15, August 27, 2020 (UTC)

No, we do not need that WP:CONTENTFORK. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the challenge @Muboshgu:. In my opinion they are substantially different topics and the shootings how becomes notable by itself. Could you help start the official process addressing this disagreement, some kind of "Request for Split"? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. They are the same events. There is the tendency to try to cover every aspect of an ongoing event without long-term perspective. This isn’t Wiki News, after all. See how the content evolves over time before splitting stuff off so soon. VikingB (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Currently there's a suspect, but we cannot say that he's the one who did it and we don't even have a coherent narrative of what took place. It doesn't make sense to have a standalone article for something that lacks basic facts and is easily covered by a couple of paragraphs in the current article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support While related to the Kenosha protests, this is a separate event that occurred in the timeline that I believe warrants it's own article. It doesn't just encapsulate the Black Lives Matter movement, but also Gun politics in the United States and several other congruent issues. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Technical support on the grounds the incident is the most notable part so far, but opposed as it hasn't been detailed enough on here to warrant the split and also opposed due to the non-neutral proposed article name. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• I still believe that the suggested name is non-netural, but we have enough information to split and likely should given the issues discussed elsewhere on this talkpage. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• (Same User) Amending this to give my full Support since nearly every single section on the talk page is in regards to the shootings along with there being enough information to split off into a new article. It has overtaken the protests entirely here. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral on the split, but the proposed title doesn't conform to MOS. Try Kyle Rittenhouse killings. But its still pretty TOOSOON. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Way too soon, and the name does not conform with the Manual of Style. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. For now, the shootings can be handled within the Protests article. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I consider the shootings to be significant in themselves. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The shooting is an extremely significant event, even outside the context of the Kenosha protests Bravetheif (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Also would like to add that I think the article shouldn't be titled "The shootings by Kyle Rittenhouse". I would prefer something like the "2020 Kenosha protest homicides", to be more in line with other high-profile shooting events such as the 2017 Las Vegas shooting Bravetheif (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Light support but with a better title.--Pokelova (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support: but agree it should be called "2020 Kenosha protest homicides". Leutha (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both topics can be covered together without detriment to either. --Bsherr (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Light oppose only for now. I also believe something along the lines of "2020 Kenosha protest shooting" as using "homicides" would exclude the arm injury, but as of now there really isn't enough to make a full article. I think once the case goes to court and we have court documents to reference it can become its own page. System Lag (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unnecessary split. VQuakr (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral for now, but it seems highly likely that there will be more than enough for a separate article soon enough, so future Support. Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The future has arrived. Coverage of the shooting is over 40% of the article. Let's split now. Bondegezou (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support split now. Seems to be notable in its own right, subject to its own legal analyses and RS discussion, clearly distinct enough to be split now, can be written about separately and sustain its own notability. It's a mess to the structure of this article to keep it here. Wasn't so sure earlier, but it's a quickly changing area. The_shootings_by_Kyle_Rittenhouse is clearly not a good title, though, so we should figure out a decent one before split so we don't immediately need to bash it through a 7 day RM process. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Changed to neutral. I still believe the handling is trending on the lines of a BLP violation, but per MrX below I don't think this is necessary if we follow that sound advice. Further, a splitting only encourages loading the article with the individual's background (as per BLP1E we can't create an article on the person anyway), which would be supported by RS (as they're doing what they do, which is digging up the person's past), and that obviously only furthers the BLP violations here. We can discuss the merits without a split at this time. A split may become necessary at some stage, but it's an organisational decision really and we can get around it. In conclusion, err on the side of not splitting at this time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose For now, doesn't seem necessary. SQL^{Query me!} 16:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - This has received independent coverage, has its own legal proceedings, and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this article should focus mainly on the protests themselves rather than have a large section dedicated to the shootings. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Title should be 2020 Kenosha protest shootings per naming convention and to differentiate from the shooting of Jacob Blake. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support, although not under the title used above. It's already reached about a third of this article and is growing rapidly, and has plenty of independent coverage that seems likely to be sustained. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The shooting is important but it is much better covered within the broader context of the protests. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose If we strive for brevity, as opposed to exhaustive detail, I don't believe this will be necessary. - MrX 🖋 17:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with many of the opposer that the proposed title was not good. What I am trying to say the incidence is different from protest itself and now somewhat notable with comprehensive coverage. To avoid WP:BLPCRIME, consider using a even less point-y name something like The Tuesday Fatal Shootings During Kenosha Protest xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Xinbenlv Article titles should be precise and concise per MOS:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE. I feel that title fails both those criteria. While "Tuesday" makes sense knowing the context of the Kenosha protests, in isolation it is ambiguous. The preceding "The" is also unnecessary. I already suggested a title, but I prefer the other suggestion of "2020 Kenosha protest shootings"

• Oppose Keep it as part of this "protests" article, of which it is a part. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Since this is being taken into court, it should result in enough coverage for a separate article. I think the title should either be Kyle Rittenhouse shootings, Jacob Blake protest shootings or 2020 Kenosha protest shootings GeorgeMHall 21:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:BLPCRIME at this time. In addition, he is technically a minor. I was surprised we use his name in the article. I think the shooting should stay here for now. Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The shooting is already drawing intense public controversy, debate, legal analysis and a court case. It's rapidly evolving into a more serious issue than it already was to begin with. There's definitely enough coverage to split it as is, and there will only be more as this case develops. This is already over a third of the article, and it's definitely possible for the shooting to become a bigger issue than even the protests. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - There is already enough content to support two articles, and it's 100% certain that more will be written in the coming days, weeks and months. Putting it all into this article will make this article too long. The new article should be called something like "Kenosha protest shooting" or "Kyle Rittenhouse". Lev!vich 15:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support a Rittenhouse article Sadly. pbp 16:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - This article is now much less than 100 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - This deserves more coverage and it will almost certainly expand. It doesn't matter that he's a minor or a horrible person. --User:Sirkh1 7:01, 29 August 2020
• Support - This article is only going to grow once the legal proceedings get under way. The extradition hearing has been postponed to Sept 25, presumably so the defense team can research the issues, and the DA might drop the charges or they might accept a plea, but given who the defense team is, I doubt that. It's become a political issue and will likely play out to establish Constitutional self-defense issues. I would recommend naming a new article after the legal case, currently listed as: State of Wisconsin Plaintiff vs. Kyle H. Rittenhouse Defendant. That's where further developments will take place. Pkeets (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support This event is receiving a lot of coverage, and there is enough information for this incident to have its own article. This reminds me of how Ian Tomlinson and the 2009 G20 London summit protests have separate articles. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support The story of Kyle Rittenhouse and the shootings that he was involved with is leading news right now, separate from the Kenosha protests, with just as much if not more coverage as the shooting of Jacob Blake, and there is more than enough reliable information to spin out a separate article on Rittenhouse and the ongoing developments in his criminal case. Internet Esquire (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Light Oppose Not enough notability to warrant an article. See WP:SUSPECT. Nightvour (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah. Killings by Kyle Rittenhouse would clearly be inappropriate, and Kenosha protest killings would scream "why isn't this merged" and just cause confusion, so what title do we use becomes the question? I see no obvious suitable title, and that's an equally big issue here, and really just begs the idea that this shouldn't be split. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support This shooting that killed 2 people is already an international news story all by itself, a lot of evidence has been reported by now. It is a complex case and there are many legal issues involved that have little to do with protesting or the subject of the protests. Debate should be about a good title I think. Zorba1968 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support This is getting significant media attention and deserves to have its own page at this point Anon0098 (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support The Rittenhouse case by far overshadows the protests and the deaths are not an appendage to them, though there admittedly is a connection. Shai-Huludim (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support the coverage is overwhelming on both topics – both should have articles. Aza24 (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support coverage is extensive regarding 17-year-old killer Kyle Rittenhouse. cookie monster (2020) 755 23:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support As a user who created an Arabic version of the article and following the news of the accident I support the splitting. The event will be in the media for a long time because of the court.--جار الله (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support The legal issues around the incident alone are enough to warrant a split, but the timeline of events also supports it. Nosecohn (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless we going to start separate articles on other destructive acts that occurred in the "Kenosha_protests", such as various acts of arson and instances of looting. Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop If you can name a single case of one such destructive act being individually noteworthy and covered as widely as the Rittenhouse homicides, then by all means start a new article. Whatever your personal view on him and his actions, Rittenhouse should be split because sufficiently covering all the details of it as reported in the media would overtake this whole article. Bravetheif (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, Bravetheif, maybe you're right. An article on "the Rittenhouse homicides" may be warranted. I don't feel super strongly one way or the other about this—I am undecided. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply by that selective quote that I am not being unbiased? What do you think "homicide" actually means? It means "the killing of one person by another". Unless you mean to question whether Rittenhouse was actually the one firing the gun that night, he committed homicide. Bravetheif (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop:, I am trying to be as unbiased as possible, so I am open to a better and neutral title of the incidence, such as “XXX Plaintiff v YYY Defendant” etc. I think the point we are trying to make here, is that untitled incidence has gained enough coverage and could warrant its own article. And I am also open to the possibility that any other related incidences getting their own article so long as they pass notability test by this community. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 17:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support There is enough content here and it would make it easier for the rest of the article to be about everything other than the shooting. Springee (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support This will result in a lot of litigation and media attention. It needs its own article. Comfr (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I opposed, but I am open to splitting if that is the consensus. But if "Kyle Rittenhouse" is in the title of the splitoff article, I will oppose it with every fiber of my being. We absolutely do NOT name an article about a killing or shooting after the name of the shooter (who may be innocent of any crime if the self defense argument holds). Since there is more than one victim, a splitoff article should be titled after the location, Kenosha, in some way. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's become its own news story/notable incident on its that warrants its own article separate from the protests. Debate should now move to how to properly title the new article. RopeTricks (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support a Kyle Rittenhouse split - he's had so much media coverage that I think he surpasses notability requirements now Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I do not believe there is enough reliable material to split this article. In the future there may be enough information that comes from reliable sources, but I would rather have more time pass and more information come out before splitting the article. I also believe that him being a minor should factor in the decision. Jurisdicta (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: there's already a redirect for him to this article, and that's sufficient, for now anyway soibangla (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the section on this specific incident and Rittenhouse already consumes roughly 45% of this article, and that section is even formatted to look like a mini-article within this article. The overwhelming majority of the sources used in that section are specific to this event and Rittenhouse, which is consistent with establishing the notability of the subject. And we do know that it will receive additional media coverage due to the ongoing legal/court case aspect of this event, which will inevitably end up in this article making that whole section undue content for this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support With how much media attention this has been getting plus the discourse going around with the president's response, I'd argue this is more than notable enough for its own article. Breawycker (talk to me!) 13:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support The media coverage solely on the subsequent events of this has only accelerated over the last few days owing to its implications Shiggity (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Media coverage makes the murders notable for their own article. Would also suggest the article be named Kyle Rittenhouse as multiple articles on mass shootings have been named after the killer/shooter. Horacio Vara (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

More than 7 days has past, could somebody help interpret the consensus please? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey xinbenlv, I counted up the votes and it seems like consensus is SUPPORT for the split into a new article. The votes are 34 Support, 3 Neutral, 18 Oppose. Most people who voice an opinion also seem to agree that Rittenhouse's name should NOT be in the new article title. Most suggestions for a name are some variant of "2020 Kenosha protest shootings", so I think that's a good choice for the new name, and can also be changed if we settle on a better one later. Benplowman (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility

Please see my suggestion at Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon#Coverage of fatal shootings. Right now we are trying to cover such deaths within the overall Protests in... article, with the danger of it either overwhelming the article or getting minimal treatment not in line with its importance, or considering a splitoff article for each separate incident (as is being discussed here without an apparent consensus, or see the brand new article Killing of Michael Reinoehl which I totally disagree with). I am proposing that we create an overall article to cover all of these deaths: a federal officer in Oakland, two protesters in Kenosha, a counterprotester and his alleged killer in Portland. It could be called something like George Floyd protest related deaths, with appropriate redirects to guide people to the article. Please comment here or there with your opinion regarding an overall "deaths" article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"a counterprotester and his alleged killer in Portland" The article states that the alleged killer was killed in the vicinity of Lacey, Washington, not Portland, Oregon. I am not certain whether the Kenosha protests are part of the George Floyd protests. Dimadick (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Kenosha Guard

A group of Kenosha residents calling themselves the "Kenosha Guard" approached County Sheriff David Beth and asked him to deputize them in order to "defend [our] City tonight from the evil thugs".

This is a potentially important piece of information, what does the community of Wikipedians think? Here's the source I found. If you can find other sources about this, I think we can bring together a lot of information and better-define the motives of the counter-protestors. Perhaps not now, but later in the article's life. If we collect enough citations, that will be helpful for future editors who might want to find that information. RobotGoggles (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

There is information from BBC, Business Insider, CNBC, Fox Business, The Guardian, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, NPR, and The Verge. Most are on Facebook removing them, but a few are just about their posts on Facebook. There is information here, but I am unsure how much of it belongs in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps none at all, but since this is a developing story, it might in the future. Thank you for your help. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The militias see themselves as storm troopers of the president and organize via Facebook and Alex Jones' InfoWars - The armed militias are increasingly appearing at anti-racism demonstrations in Portland, Atlanta and other cities, see themselves as the president's storm troopers. It is no coincidence that the shooter of Kenosha is a Trump supporter(Protest und Gewalt in Kenosha - Trump's great America)--93.211.208.71 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Look you can oppose Trump or think this shooting wasn't justified, but there's no need to make up utter garbage. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 17:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It is unclear whether the "Kenosha Guard" had any tangible existence outside Kevin Mathewson's activity on facebook and perhaps other means he may have used to promote the presence of militia on the streets of Kenosha on the night of 25 August. Leutha (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact than an unidentified militia-type group asked to be deputized, and the sheriff refused, is already in the article. So is a line or two about the origin of the "Kenosha Guard". -- MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Archiving this talk page

I’m a bit concerned we are archiving after only three days. Surely we should be leaving threads on for at least a few days longer. I propose seven days so people can at least see decisions on things like page moves and article splits. Any objections? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk page is 175kB. 3 days is reasonable until things slow down a bit. VQuakr (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - I propose reducing the talk page archive period to one day to get the file size under control. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

One day would be completely unacceptable. It would require all interested parties to log on at least once a day, every day; not reasonable for those who have Real Lives. Three days is reasonable. And of course, closed discussions can be manually archived. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"Allegedly"

User:Bondegezou removed the word "allegedly" so as to state as fact, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Rittenhouse was the shooter. [20] Ironically, the reference they cite says "allegedly" every time, and puts quotes around "killed two" in the headline.[21] IMO we must not call Rittenhouse a killer in Wikipedia’s voice unless and until there is a conviction; we need to say "accused" or "alleged" or similar wording. I have restored "allegedly" and I request Bondegezou not to remove it again pending discussion here. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. See WP:SUSPECT. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. My only caveat is we need to state who makes the allegation. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is an important point. Media outlets follow standards similar to our BLP policies and a careful reading of sources will show that they don't actually come out and say he did it.

In my opinion it would be best to describe the shooting and the suspect separately. Instead of saying "Rittenhouse allegedly shot at multiple people, killing two" (which leaves the question of which parts of the event are confirmed and which are alleged), we should say something like "A person shot at multiple people, killing two. Rittenhouse has been identified as the suspect." This also avoids the awkward use of "allegedly" in every sentence. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I already did that, but it got reverted by User:ProcrastinatingReader. [22] -- MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have personally reverted User:ProcrastinatingReader's edit here due to this discussion. I made a change that is noted in the edit summary to address an issue that they raised in their edit summary that was not discussed here. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Also going to ping, User:Benmite for their edit. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

imo it doesn’t make sense, but I’m not going to obstruct the change if that’s what the majority want. If we’re fixing BLPCRIME violations, we may wish to look at the glaring, egregious violation in the lead. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Ugh, I didn't even notice that since I have been skipping past the lede. Thank you for catching that and I have removed it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC) (Amended 08:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC))

His legal defence team acknowledge it's him in the videos, but are arguing he acted in self-defence: see here. If both prosecution and defence agree it's him, I don't see why we need to tiptoe around the question. Rittenhouse, both sides concur, is in the videos and is the person described in our text. They differ over what he did constitutes murder, so we can say Rittenhouse shot these people, but we can't say he murdered them. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A lawyer's comments to reporters have no legal standing. At the very least we need to wait to see how they formally respond to the charges. If they claim self-defense, that's one thing and we could probably say "shot". If they ultimately decide to plead not guilty, that's another. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether comments to reporters have legal standing: we report reliable sources, not merely comments with legal standing. We are not lawyers: we are encyclopaedists. It is reliably sourced that his defence lawyers say he shot these people, but that he was doing so in self-defence. We say that in the article. It seems to me very bizarre for us to say, "The prosecution say Rittenhouse shot these people. The defence say he shot these people. Reliable sources say he shot these people." But then to have one use of the word "allegedly" as if that's going to change what the reader gets from the article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not lawyers: we are encyclopaedists. Quite. And that's why we err on the side of caution. The point is not exactly that he did not shoot and kill those people. Rather, it's that said statement necessarily implies guilt and screams murder. And we could debate the linguistics of "kill" vs "murder" but that only proves the point - that many Wikipedians couldn't even tell the difference says a lot about how readers are going to perceive it. Similar applies for the definitive shot. Thus, we must put less weight on the matter, and take great care in how it's worded until there is a legal outcome. I think the current wording, at least of the intro paragraph, is mostly good. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If we just said "Rittenhouse shot some people" and nothing more, then maybe there would be some basis to your concern that there would be material in violation WP:BLPCRIME. But we don't do that. We have a long section that describes events and gives both a prosecutor's view and the defence lawyers' view. Rittenhouse's actions (and even you don't dispute that it was Rittenhouse) are contextualised. You can't read all that and simply presume shooting necessarily implies guilt. It is explicitly laid out how his actions may not mean he is guilty of anything.

That's how we should handle these concerns, with well-sourced text obeying WP:V, WP:RS and WP:DUE, not by sprinkling a few "alleged"s in the text.

A journalist friend pointed out to me how simply dropping in a word like "allegedly" is bad writing. If something is alleged, it has been alleged by someone, some source. Would that help? Instead of Rittenhouse allegedly shot three people, could we look at explicitly saying who alleged this? "Media reports and an indictment allege Rittenhouse shot... His defence lawyers issued a statement concurring, but argued he..." Something along those lines? Because the current text does not read well. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Photos

President Trump's motorcade is led by motorcycles in Kenosha Wisconsin heading west on 60th

I spent some time in Kenosha Wisconsin today. I interviewed a resident who said Kenosha was a war zone. Hyperbole? She said, cars were exploding, lot of glass smashing, all the street lights were knocked down and businesses were burned to the ground. She said fire and police would not come, they told her they could not. She was quite angry but happy to point out a few sites for me. She showed me a car with a bullet hole in it as well. In any event I present some of the photos that I took at the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting scene, the shooting scene of Jacob Blake, and of course some of the destruction. I saw we are now calling these events a protest...I would hate to see what we call a riot. (Jk I understand i guess) I had to do some google street views of some of these places to get what former use and address, because some of the buildings were no longer standing. I want to say also... I did not see everything. I was uptown and midtown. Apparently there was more destruction downtown. All around I could see residents cleaning and painting on the boarded up buildings while the national guard trucks patrolled. I photographed some of that goodness as well. I will upload a few more, but I thought our articles might be better with photos and it is only a one hour drive to Kenosha for me. They are filed at commons under Kenosha protests. Or preotest Photos Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Were all protestors rioting? Weren’t there peaceful protests? Rioting is a form of protests. This has been covered already, but perhaps a clarification: we need to use the most inclusive, neutral word we can find for this topic. As there were peaceful protestors, calling these the Kenosha riots would tar these people with the same brush. Unless we split off a new article to deal with specific rioting, we need to keep this with its current title. I would oppose a split, maybe we need to make it clear in the article itself there was rioting.

Great photos, btw. I for one appreciate you taking them! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you, my argument is dead. I couldn't help pulling the tiger's tail. lol Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Haha! All good mate, it’s a raw time for a lot of people. Noting there was rioting in the article may actually be a good idea, it’s not like violence and property disruption didn’t occur. It’s a matter of balance. Stay safe dude! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the photos. Keep in mind that the peaceful parts of the protest, which were mentioned by several sources, probably didn't leave much evidence behind. –dlthewave ☎ 01:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: right! Do you have a choice for a photo in the article? Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I would lean toward this or something similar. You captured both a damaged/boarded up building and community members doing artwork, which broadly covers the various forms of protest that took place. –dlthewave ☎ 15:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the photos are very good, thank you for taking them. I also think they are appropriate. If someone had photos of peaceful protestors, that would be also great to add to the article. But the photos as added are an important document of the aftermath of rioting during the protests. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The photo is good, and even iconic, but I'm not sure it's the ideal lead photo for an article with "protests" in its title. Perhaps we could have this image and an image of some peaceful protesting in the infobox? - MrX 🖋 12:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is called "protests" because it covers an array of events, including peaceful protests, rioting, counter-protests and a shooting that has led to homicide charges. We should not be shy of calling certain of these events "rioting", but the article covers more than rioting and thus has a more generic name. Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for it if you can find it. I've done my fair share of image sleuthing and couldn't find jack. GMG^talk 15:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Pictures

A little montage of pictures for the infobox showing the protests, during the time and the aftermath, would be nice. At a glance I can't seem to find any, especially of during protests, that are freely licensed though (on Commons or Flickr). Anyone better at finding pictures than I am? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: can you help here? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: @Chris.sherlock: Unfortunately the photos I took show the aftermath, and the clean up in Kenosha. It is possible to take a screenshot of a Youtube video if the right license is granted - however, it is tricky, - and if no explicit permission the photo gets speed deleted. I will see if I can find any with correct license. Others with more knowledge about our license policies may also want to give it a try. In the mean time I can see about putting something together from photos I have on commons now. Lightburst (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's pretty slim pickins other than LB's photos on Commons. GMG^talk 14:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: @GreenMeansGo: @ProcrastinatingReader: I may have to take another ride to Kenosha to get active protest shots. I was only there for the aftermath, and after much had been cleaned up. News reports say that the protests have been peaceful for the last four nights, so I perhaps feel comfortable enough to go there in the night (gulp). Maybe tonight. By the way- reports say that more Nat Guard arrived today brining the total of Nat Guard troops there to 1000. Probably safe now - even though Nat Guard likely has no arrest powers, the present a visible authority to bad actors within the protests. Lightburst (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the situation is like over there currently, but do stay safe Lightburst :), that'd be the most important thing. And adding my thanks for the pictures you've already taken (I just noticed the section above), they've added much-needed flavour to the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Which color has your skin Lightburst? If you are black or café au lait don't do it. Trump will visit Kenosha on Tuesday, September 1. Stay safe and take care. --93.211.221.190 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please, please be careful! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A Kyle Rittenhouse supporter in Kenosha Wisconsin standing near Bradford High School hoping to see President Trump's motorcade

I returned to Kenosha today. Sadly I did not know where the BLM protestors were. I later heard they were at the site of the Blake shooting - sorry I missed them. I did get photos of Trump supporters, Trump and Trump's motorcade- also many National guard troops. Kenosha seems under control now, and apologies for the photo of Trump, it was the best I could do, as it was hard getting close for any of these shots, but especially the Trump photo. Got about 20 photos worth keeping and they can be found on commons "kenosha protests" Lightburst (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

National guard troops stand behind barricades in Kenosha Wisconsin outside of Bradford High School

Great job! Thank you for your efforts and stay safe. RopeTricks (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sequence of events from Rittenhouse's point of view

Since this article suffers from serious bias (pointed out yesterday) the sequence of events from the view of the lawyer of the alleged shooter can be found here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What this shows is a bunch of people trying to disarm a guy who is weilding an AR-17. I don’t really consider the NY Post a reliable source. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to using other highly partisan sources because the "journalist" agrees with the preferred version of the events. As usual, Reliable Sources are being misused to push a particular point of view on a current event. But that's the norm and no policy prevents it, since the "reliable sources" agree. This article should use words like "individual" and "person" and not label anyone as a protestor or counter-protester because those terms are subjective and opinion of journalists. It should also lay out as basic a sequencen of events as possible and avoid using any words that apply blame to any individual. Slywriter (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

NY Post is not a reliable source, end of story. If you think there are some other unreliable sources in the article please list them. Volunteer Marek 22:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to American Politics, CNN and NYT should not be considered reliable sources for anything beyond basic facts. The Modern NYT is well documented as censoring itself and changing headlines in response to complaints by it's highly partisan staff. CNN doesn't even pretend to be neutral but gets a free pass. NYPost, on the other hand, is banished to the unreliable source list for the same sins that both of those commit because a community bias exists against "tabloids". Also, a review of the links at perennial sources doesn't actually present a convincing case for community consensus against NYPost. Slywriter (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"NY Post is not a reliable source". Please explain. -- Frotz(talk) 03:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to argue to the wider community that CNN and the NYT are unreliable sources, there are mechanisms available to you. However, this talk page is not one of them. I don’t think you will get far with an argument that they hold editorial control of what they publish, however. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This is covered in the "investigation and legal process" section. Beyond that, we cover things according to the sources; I can't think of a situation where we devoted an entire section solely to claims made by the defendant. And to a certain extent WP:MANDY applies; obviously his denials or defenses are worth a mention, but unless they are given more attention and credence by (non-Fox) sources, we can't structure the article around them to the extent of giving them an entire subsection or detailing every single thing he says. One mention in the "investigation and legal process" section is sufficient. ---Aquillion (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Vacated warrants

Multiple news sources state that multiple arrest warrants were vacated. Why is it important to know what the warrants were for, it seems only necessary to know they were vacated. It seems a violation of Blake’s privacy to list what the warrants were if they were vacated by the police. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We are balancing informing the reader against the presumed privacy considerations of Jacob Blake. In this instance informing the reader seems a more important concern. The existence of this article—Kenosha protests—is inextricably linked to the events leading to the Shooting of Jacob Blake. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, what were the vacated warrants for then? Is that in the public domain? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I concede the point, I just checked that other article and it is already widely detailed. Is there a reason to emphasise what the warrants were in this article? It seems excessive detail. I would think under WP:ONUS we should leave that level of detail for the Shooting of Jacob Blake article. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: the warrants were vacated when he posted bond (normally done in front of a judge). Arraignments happen at the same time usually. The charges still remain afaik ("We have learned today that the warrants for Jacob Blake were vacated, although the charges against him are still pending. ..." Blake's attorneys said in a statement. per [23]). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Good info, but shouldn’t that be in Shooting of Jacob Blake? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

yes! I may have gotten my wires crossed thinking this was the Blake page. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Haha, understandable, I've done that a few times :-) Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rittenhouse's support of Donald Trump

Should Kyle Rittenhouse's support of Donald Trump be included in the article? I'm in favor of including it, simply because, regardless of whether or not his political affiliations had any bearing on his actions, his support of Trump on social media has attracted significant media attention (BBC, Washington Post, BuzzFeed News) and it seems like it was a big part of his social media presence. Benmite (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Unless it can be shown it was because of Trump, by a reliable secondary source, then I would say no. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No. It's WP:UNDUE. It's something for pundits and political wonks to discuss but not relevant here. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE begins Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. This has been prominently reported by lots of reliable sources, ergo it should be in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm very strongly against this, it just reeks of POV. Somewhere political affiliation would be relevant background info is something like the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting, where politics was an obvious motive. This isn't that, and saying he is a Trump supporter before detailing his alleged shooting sounds accusatory, regardless what the RSs say. Anon0098 (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say. Lots of RS are reporting this, so we report it too. If It's something for pundits and political wonks to discuss, then it is relevant here, because what is relevant here is determined by what sources talk about, not by what editors think is appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say for inclusion of information but we have the decision to omit information that is irrelevant or does not improve the article in its own form. That's what WP:ONUS is for. Not everything mentioned by RSs is inherently encyclopedic Anon0098 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with above, Reeks of POV and is WP:UNDUE. Also take a look at WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Editorial decisions are taken on content to include, we do not just include everything RS' do, that's why we have overriding content policies for exclusion of content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is the only listed source reporting this with any emphasis, so I would say no. The other two sources only mention it in passing. It's not especially relevant to the protests. This article is starting to creak from the weight of exhaustive detail about the murders anyway. - MrX 🖋 11:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The matter is reported by Salon, Business Insider, The Independent, the BBC, the Washington Post, The Hill, Snopes, Slate, The Atlantic, The New York Times (in an opinion piece), the Metro, The Guardian, Sky News Australia, USA Today, The New European, and Vox. WP:UNDUE says, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. This clearly meets that criterion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thx Bondegezou, for that article compilation. Social tensions will rise as it was announced that President Trump will visit Kenosha on Tuesday, September 1 -- to meet with law enforcement and to survey the property damage. That's now "Donald Trump's support of Rittenhouse". Harvard Kennedy School professor Cornell William Brooks responds: Trump's making a bad situation worse. Kenosha Shooter RADICALIZED By Trump. --87.170.198.254 (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Youtube talk shows are not RSs, if anything this shows why we shouldn't include it; it's too partisan and does not improve the article with its inclusion Anon0098 (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

International news sources: Le Monde (Paris), L'Obs/Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany's largest regional newspaper, Berliner Morgenpost (Berlin), Süddeutsche Zeitung (Munich), Der Spiegel (Hamburg), Basler Zeitung (Basel, Switzerland), n-tv Nachrichtenfernsehen (German right-wing politics TV channel).

• Le Monde : Manifestations à Kenosha : deux morts, un jeune suprémaciste inculpé, Trump annonce des renforts... "Un militant d'extrême droite américain, Kyle Rittenhouse"...==> Translation ==> Demonstrations in Kenosha: two dead, a young supremacist indicted, Trump announces reinforcements... "An American far-right activist Kyle Rittenhouse... "
• Der Spiegel: Protest und Gewalt in Kenosha - Trump's great America: ==> Translation ==> The militias see themselves as storm troopers of the president - The armed militias, which are increasingly appearing at anti-racism demonstrations in Portland, Atlanta and other cities, see themselves as the president's storm troopers. It is no coincidence that the shooter of Kenosha is a Trump supporter. --87.170.198.254 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We know he was a Trump supporter (but nothing indicates he was far-right as Le Monde claims). We don't know that his actions that night had anything to do with Trump. He was not wearing Trump clothing, he did not say anything about Trump. We don't know his motivation for arming himself and going there, but it looks to me that it was wannabe-police rather than political. In other words, leave it out unless some actual connection is shown. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed my mind. Thanks to everyone for responding! It's definitely better to leave it out due to the lack of direct connection to the shooting, plus POV. Benmite (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Several editors have cited WP:UNDUE and WP:POV policy. WP:UNDUE is part of the WP:POV page. What these policies actually say is Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. We have a large number of reliable sources reporting this, therefore the policy people are citing says we should include it.

WP:POV also says As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. So, if people are concerned, stop trying to remove sourced information and suggest rewriting the passage. Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Propose condensing some material

Sometimes we forget we're an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. I propose that we condense the material under 'Events elsewhere' into 2-3 brief paragraphs without subheadings. It should be sufficient to simply list the cities with other protests, without the detial. The sports shutdowns probably don't need much trimming. - MrX 🖋 11:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. These are tumultuous events that have rocked a nation, whilst a large part of the world has looked on aghast. It is a historical event and I think it is best we record the responses across the U.S. to this event. I disagree we are newsmaking, we are merely documenting the event. We are unusual in that we are able to write an encyclopedia entry in close to real time. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur that the "Events elsewhere" section isn't covering events that have attracted much coverage and could be condensed. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Almost the entire article is bloated with unnecessary detail that makes almost no meaningful difference to the reader. I don't know that it's necessary to even list the cities rather than simply saying there were smaller protests around the country. (A local paper reported 100 people protesting in a city of four million...or...about 45% of the crowd that forms outside of a local bar after last call.)

It's not necessary for us to read the entire coroner's report on the injuries. No one is going to miss the point if we don't specify the pulmonary artery. He was shot in the chest and he died. It's also not necessary to list every hot dog stand and post office box that was damaged, complete with the exact minute and damn near long and lat.

But so it goes with articles on current events. GMG^talk 11:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:Recentism a lot of this stuff is going to be shoved in there because people think it's extremely important when in the long-run it's not. I'd support trimming a lot of this. Most of it is way too specific Anon0098 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• There appears to be far more support for trimming than not, so I've done that. - MrX 🖋 11:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

“We appreciate you guys. We really do.”

Please add: “We appreciate you guys. We really do.” Ref.: https://theintercept.com/2020/08/28/kyle-rittenhouse-violent-pro-trump-militias-police/ --217.234.65.244 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

What aspect(s) of this (somewhat opinionated) source do you believe should be included, in what parts of this article? —ADavidB 14:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I am going to add a paragraph to the "background" section about the presence of armed civilians. (I do have better sources than this Intercept item.) -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That sentence, with what ever context/aspect(s).

"In video footage taken before the shooting began on Tuesday night, Rittenhouse and a few other men carrying weapons and wearing tactical vests strapped to their chests can be seen gathered in the darkness near a cluster of armored police vehicles. One officer, coming in fuzzy over a loudspeaker, orders protesters to disperse. At the same time, another officer tosses water bottles to Rittenhouse and his compatriots. “We appreciate you guys,” he says. “We really do.” Ref.:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/08/kenosha-killings-militia-trump/615775 --93.211.223.218 (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I have added a few sentences to the "Shooting-Background" section, providing context about the "Kenosha Guard", the objections of civic leaders to the presence of such armed civilians, and the supportive treatment they got from individual police officers. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: also, the response of the Kenosha Police Dept. in the aftermath of the shootings may require some more expansion in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What specifically? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Protesters protested in protest

In the "Pennsylvania" subsection toward the end of the article, the first sentence basically reads that 'protesters protested in protest'. I changed the last bit to "in opposition" but the original editor restored the P word. Can we come to agreement on a different wording? —ADavidB 20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We aren't required to call protesters protesters even if they are protesters. I would re-write it as On August 26, many marched throughout Center City in front of city hall in protest of the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! That's much better IMO. —ADavidB 22:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

definitely sounds a lot better Anon0098 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

About the gun

Has anyone seen any information about the gun - whose it was, how he "obtained" it (his lawyer says he got it in Wisconsin although he lives in Illinois), what he did with it after leaving the scene? This seems to be to be rather vital information, with implications such as whether he had help. I'm not looking for speculation, or our theories or discussion, just whether anyone has seen any actual reporting on this question. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the article from Milwaukee, WI's WTMJ-TV's website? https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/attorneys-representing-kyle-rittenhouse-say-he-was-wrongfully-charged-after-acting-in-self-defense It has information from his attorney on what Rittenhouse was doing, that day, in Wisconsin and talks about the gun. ..."Rittenhouse finished his shift as a lifeguard in Kenosha last Tuesday, he decided he wanted to help clean up damage in Kenosha left amid unrest over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. He and a friend went to a local high school to remove graffiti, according to Pierce. Later that day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed, Pierce says. The business owner said he needed help defending his business. So Rittenhouse and his friend armed themselves with rifles and headed to the business. So Rittenhouse and his friend armed themselves with rifles and headed to the business. Pierce added that the weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines." There is also a Scott Olson/Getty Images photo taken earlier in the day that shows Rittenhouse cleaning the graffiti from the school that would backup what the attorney said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.119.66 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly my question. "Armed themselves with rifles" how? There in Wisconsin, when he lives in Illinois? He couldn't have bought them, not in either state; he's not old enough. Whose guns are they, how did he get them, what did he do with them afterward? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Heavy reported two days ago that, according to Rittenhouse lawyer Linn, a friend of Rittenhouse who lives in Wisconsin gave him the gun. There's no mention of the friend's age. The same source article identifies Dominic Black as a friend whom Rittenhouse called after shooting Rosenbaum, though that may not be the same friend who reportedly supplied the gun. —ADavidB 01:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, you are not alone wanting to know how a juvenile could get ahold of an AR-15! The Rittenhouse criminal complaint, released Thursday: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint.html

• His lawyer wrote that Rittenhouse obtained the AR-15 rifle from a "friend" in Wisconsin - meaning that he didn’t transport it with him from Illinois: https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1299353460530384899 - With friends like that, who needs enemies?

• The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) wrote an analysis → https://medium.com/dfrlab/armed-militias-mobilize-on-social-media-hours-before-deadly-kenosha-shooting-1ee5925a035f → "The conspiracy website InfoWars, meanwhile, amplified the call to arms," ... "While much of the thread quickly devolved into an argument, a user named BassmasterFisherDude replied with a threat: “I am on the way with 75 people from Green Bay We have lots of guns. Lots of pipe bombs. Going to cleanse the streets of rioters.” They added in a follow-up comment, “We are White We are above the law.”

• Three Percenters (III%) / Paul Swick, State officer with the TTPO, established collaboration with militia group and posts he has made showed a clear desire to hurt protestors. Please, read want J.J. MacNab, George Washington University's Program on Extremism, posted about the III%: https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/1300440671946452993

• https://www.kqed.org/arts/13885480/why-are-right-wing-pundits-celebrating-the-kenosha-shooter → "Kyle Rittenhouse traveled from Illinois to Wisconsin to join an armed brigade of vigilantes attempting to protect the city from riots; a now-removed Facebook page organizing the group used racially coded language, referring to the protesters as “evil thugs.”"

• https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/08/27/criminal-complaint-against-kyle-rittenhouse-details-prosecutors-version-of-events-in-kenosha-shooting-that-killed-2-wounded-1 → McGinnis [reporter Richard McGinnis (with the Daily Caller/ Tucker Carlson) named as witness in the Rittenhouse criminal complaint] said as he and Rittenhouse were walking south, another armed man who appeared to be in his 30s joined him and said he was there to protect Rittenhouse, prosecutors said.

• https://accesswdun.com/article/2020/8/933115 : Rittenhouse and a friend armed themselves on Tuesday and made their way to a mechanic shop whose owner had put out a call for protection, according to a statement from John Pierce, an attorney representing Rittenhouse. In the attorney's description of events, Rittenhouse had tried to offer medical help to injured people before he was “accosted by multiple rioters," leading him to open fire. ... Wisconsin allows gun owners to openly carry in public, but a person under 18 can’t legally possess or carry a firearm unless that person is hunting or target practicing with an adult or in the military. --87.170.192.244 (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The events of Rittenhouse's day: Bing maps shows a 38 minute drive in light traffic from Anioch, IL to Kenosha. Worked his lifeguard shift then went cleaning the graffiti, at school, with a friend. The reports have been that it was a friend in Wisconsin's gun. No source for the following but it would make sense that friend is probably the same friend he was cleaning graffiti with at the school. That the friend is from the area since the lawyer has stated "...the weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines." I have read too many articles and lost track of one I read that said the friend he was cleaning graffiti with, went to that high school. The high school was definitely in Kenosha because it was captioned in the Getty picture as being next to the Kenosha County Courthouse, which is located in the city of Kenosha. So the friend was from Wisconsin. I think people are getting too hung up on how he got the gun. A lot of people in Wisconsin own guns and not just one. So if the friend, from Wisconsin, loaned him the gun that would not be a surprise. Even if he wasn't old enough to have it that is only a misdemeanor charge. It might not even hold up in court as a person that has passed a hunter safety course can legally carry and hunt independently with a rifle like that at age 14, in Wisconsin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.119.66 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

So, according to his lawyer, he got it from a friend. I'm going to add that to the article, citing the lawyer of course. And presumably he gave it back to the friend after leaving the scene? I hope the police are looking into that. A competent investigation would by now have located and interviewed the friend, and taken custody of the rifle for forensic investigation. We have gotten no hint up to now that that has happened, but we can hope. Also, the friend who loaned him the gun does not appear to have stayed with him for his later activities. At least, he is alone every time we see him. We don't have any idea what he did after leaving the scene of the shooting, or how he got home to Illinois. There is lots to look into here, primarily because of the implication that this wasn't just him; others must have been involved before and after the shooting. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Wait, it's still murky.

• According to the WTMJ article, "So Rittenhouse and his friend (the one he had been cleaning graffiti with) armed themselves with rifles". It does NOT say the friend loaned him the rifle, just tht he and the friend both obtained guns somehow. - possibly possibly both belonging to the friend or possibly from some third person.
• The lawyer later stated in a tweet “the gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident”. That suggests the friend owned enough AR-15 style guns to arm himself and Rittenhouse. I sure hope the police have talked to that friend.
• According to the prosecution complaint, the gun was “later recovered by law enforcement and identified as a Smith & Wesson AR-15 style .223 rifle.” Good, they have the gun, but it would sure be nice to know how they got it. I'm going to add that to the article.
• They have also spoken to the person Rittenhouse was on the phone with saying “I just killed somebody”. We don’t know what if any connection that person has with the case.
• The prosecution complaint sounds like they have not interviewed Rosenhouse. He most likely is refusing to talk to them, as is his right. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

Background addtional information: Rittenhouse had a job as a lifeguard in Kenosha and that was why he was in Kenosha that day. From a WTMJ-TV article on their website https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/attorneys-representing-kyle-rittenhouse-say-he-was-wrongfully-charged-after-acting-in-self-defense. Rittenhouse’s attorney, John Pierce, said “that when Rittenhouse finished his shift as a lifeguard in Kenosha last Tuesday, he decided he wanted to help clean up damage in Kenosha left amid unrest over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. He and a friend went to a local high school to remove graffiti, according to Pierce. Later that day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed, Pierce says. The business owner said he needed help defending his business. So Rittenhouse and his friend armed themselves with rifles and headed to the business. Pierce added that the weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines.” 184.97.119.66 (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a change but additional information should be added regarding Rittenhouse's background that is important to why he happened to be in Kenosha that day. He had a job as a lifeguard in Kenosha and was at his job earlier in the day. He didn't just drive to Kenosha to protect a business from protesters as has been reported. He was in Kenosha for his job.

Agree with request—this is a no-brainer and it's obvious what changes were being proposed. The article goes on about Rittenhouse being a "police admirer"—which likely includes at least 75% of US citizens depending how it's defined—then spends two full paragraphs blathering on about the "Kenosha Guard", a group which there's zero evidence Rittenhouse was involved in. But it completely fails to include much of what he was actually doing that day in Kenosha: working as a lifeguard, cleaning up graffiti, getting pepper sprayed while defending a building, etc. The way the article is written now, the obvious implication is that he heard some call to arms from a "militia group" on Facebook and drove in from another state to take up arms—when in fact he was 15-odd-miles from home at his job, got off work, and volunteered to help people whose businesses were being destroyed by riots. These hot-button articles are increasingly slanted and really do a disservice to Wikipedia by not maintaining a neutral POV in terms of scope. Elle Kpyros (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ekpyros: The purpose of edit requests is request changes when the editor cannot directly edit the article due to protection. Whether the requested edit is adding info, removing info or wording, any editor making a proper edit request should ensure the exact wording is in their request along with any sources needed to support it. An editor processing the request should be able to fulfill the request simply by copying and pasting and/or finding deleting stuff in the article as necessary, while knowing next to nothing about the issue. If you don't come up with an exact wording, don't make an edit request, instead just post normally on the talk page suggesting a change. Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Understood—but rather than denying request, why not help the user make the edit request? I'm new to this, and when I made the same error, someone just very helpfully showed me the steps to take. I would do so here, but am not sure I could do it correctly. Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Do you have a reliable source for this statement? --Aquillion (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK the source for all of this information is Rittenhouse's lawyers. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Also seems that if you try and add anything to the article mentioning why he actually was in Kenosha, it gets deleted. How strange. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN Rittenhouse was identified in court papers (that I post above) as a lifeguard at a YMCA in Lindenhurst, Illinois. Rittenhouse had no job in Kenosha, Wisconsin! --217.234.72.158 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

He was furloughed from his part-time job at the Lindenhurst YMCA in March.[24] Nobody has said who he was lifeguarding for in Kenosha. It's possible that he got a lifeguard job in Kenosha after being laid off in Lindenhurst, but it's also possible that his attorneys are lying. I think this uncertainty is why we aren't saying in the article why he went to Kenosha. Not until we get some confirmatory details like who he worked for. That shouldn't be hard and I hope police or reporters are working on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Both the claim that he was working in Kenosha and that he was "cleaning up" graffiti were included in the article, but were deleted as making Rittenhouse sound angelic. Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course they were deleted. Leaving them in goes against the narrative that he went there with murderous intent. It's the same reason YT, FB, et all, are deleting videos (and removing accounts) of him helping the supporters after they were injured, of him being assaulted, and anyone defending him or asking donations for his legal defence. Liberal media requires him to have mercilessly gunned down BLM supporters, and being factually correct is just an obstacle to that. 2600:6C5A:657F:F417:2D30:FABC:20EA:527E (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Events of Second Shooting

By User:Wikieditor19920 here. There is nothing that supports the text "several protesters who had been pursuing him rushed and began kicking him". Here is the source [25], search for yourself. Likewise the source does not say that "According to video footage, Huber approached and struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard". The source is here. What it says is "Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, was shot in the chest after apparently trying to wrest the gun away from Rittenhouse" and "Huber had a skateboard in his right hand and used it to "make contact" with Rittenhouse's left shoulder as they struggled for control of the gun." Basically the source makes it explicit that Huber was trying to disarm Rittenhouse, who had just killed someone, and was using his skateboard to do so. The text change made by Wikieditor19920 instead tries to give the impression that Huber just attacked Rittenhouse for no reason.

It looks like Wikieditor19920 replaced text which accurately reflected sources with his own idiosyncratic interpretation of events (WP:OR) but retained the sources that were present to make it seem like they supported his own original research. This is a pretty serious misrepresentation of sources and a pretty serious violation of policy. Volunteer Marek 03:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary makes it even worse, as the edit does exactly what it accuses others of doing. Volunteer Marek 03:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The entire thing read like a personal interpretation, yes. The most important facts (and the only ones that are completely incontrovertible) are the deaths and the arrest. Blow-by-blow details are worth covering but can wait until further down in the section, and in any case that version doesn't particularly seem to reflect the sources. Look at the structure and framing in The Washington Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Tribune or The Guardian, for example; we should structure our section like that. None of them fundamentally frame it as a "confrontation leading to a shooting" the way that rewrite does. The Washington Post mentions "the shooting began with an apparent scuffle at a service station" halfway down the article (and says nothing else); the Guardian, Tribune, and CST don't mention it at all, only the shooting. Framing it as a brawl when the sources do not is plainly editorializing. --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:,Here is the sourcing for my supposedly "idiosyncratic interpretation": The shooter is pursued by a number of protesters, including at least one armed with a handgun. When he stumbles, several people rush to try to seize his rifle. One smacks him with a skateboard. But he immediately regains his footing, and starts firing. The Washington Post on August 27, the day after the shooting and after most of the videos had circulated. Photos that also captured the moments leading up to the second shooting scene appeared to show a man kicking Rittenhouse before another man with a skateboard appears to grab at the teen's weapon. The man with the skateboard appears to be the same one lying on the ground not moving in the video. NBC Chicago. What we have here are various otherwise reliable sources reporting slightly contradictory information or emphasizing different details, so let's not pretend that the text reflects my "personal interpretation." Volunteer Marek, the source you cited for a factual assertion about what is shown in the footage itself cites the prosecutor's complaint for that detail, not the video; the WaPo I cited above cites its own analysis of the video/photos. The analysis by a reliable secondary source means much more than does a news source's regurgitation of a prosecutor's complaint, and the text accurately reflected that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You added the text " "several protesters who had been pursuing him rushed and began kicking him""

Please show me where the source [26] says ANYTHING like that. There's NOTHING like in it.

Yes, there's another source which mentions ONE MAN, who "appears" to be kicking Rittenhouse. Putting aside that this is a new source you just added, not the one you used, it most certainly does not say "several protesters ... began kicking him".

Your text did not reflect the sources at all, accurately or otherwise. Volunteer Marek 15:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the blatantly inaccurate edited text in the shooting to correct what the sources have stated. The prior edited version said According to video footage, Huber tried to disarm Rittenhouse and he "made contact" with his shoulder, with a skateboard

• According to the cited source, this attribution gets it completely backwards. The source reads:

Rittenhouse then ran down the street and was chased by several people shouting that he just shot someone before he tripped and fell, according to the complaint and video footage.

Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, was shot in the chest after apparently trying to wrest the gun away from Rittenhouse, the complaint said.

• The source cites the footage as a reference for the people chasing him and, critically, cites the prosecutor's complaint for the assertion that Huber tried to grab the gun from Rittenhouse, not the footage. The Washington Post, as cited above, says that Huber tried to "smack" Rittenhouse with the skateboard and references the video. This is not an easy set of details to summarize, but we need to 1) be correct in not only in-text attributions, but references to attributions made by the sources themselves as where the information comes from. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I do not see an issue in of itself with citing the prosecutor's complaint noting that Huber may have been attempting to wrest the gun from Rittenhouse. I have added this in the updated version of the page. However, this statement needs to be properly attributed, and the cited source states that this detail in their piece comes from the prosecutor's complaint and not the footage. The Washington Post references the footage for saying that Huber "smacked" Rittenhouse with the skateboard.

Lastly, I have revised the title of this discussion thread, which formerly contained a personal and uncalled for accusation and violated WP:TPG. The focus belongs on the sources, what they say, and where they say they get their information from, even if they offer seemingly competing and sometimes contradictory details. This is to be expected for a breaking news event. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You really shouldn't be starting edit wars right after you got caught misrepresenting sources to push your own WP:OR narrative. And this thread is about you misrepresenting sources, not "details" of the attack. There's nothing "personal" in criticizing an editor for violating Wikipedia policies. Volunteer Marek 15:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I provided detailed sourcing for every word I added above. On the contrary, the version you restored is still patently incorrect. The source does not say that "video footage confirms" that Huber was attempting to disarm Rittenhouse, and the fact that you added "court records" does nothing to remedy this problem; it is also misleading. "Court records" sound like objective evidence. It was the prosecutor's complaint, the prosecutor's characterization of events, that supports this version. As for "make contact," the word "smack" (struck or hit is a synonym), appears clearly in the WaPo reporting of events--we don't need to resort to confusing legalese pulled from court documents. To restate, version you restored is misleading and relies on primary documents rather than secondary sources, and summarizes secondary sources poorly. This is unacceptable for a summary of facts that are pertinent to an active case involving a living person. WP:BLPCRIME. I am restoring the previous version. Please identify what specifically you feel needs to be changed and the source in question, as I've done above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You have not done anything like that nor have you yet explained why you added the false text which claimed that the protesters were kicking Rittenhouse when no source, either the original one that you misrepresented nor the one you added later, states that. Like I said, you really don't want to edit war right after you got caught misrepresenting sources to push your own WP:OR. Volunteer Marek 16:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And the source explicitly says "according to court records". Volunteer Marek 17:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there was some problematic WP:OR in this material. You can't take "appeared to show a man kicking Rittenhouse" from a weak local source and turn it into " protesters rushed and kicked him."

Also. AzureCitizen, which of the cited sources say that three protesters were shot when they pursued Rittenhouse? Maybe I missed it. - MrX 🖋 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The WAPO source at the end of the sentence says "The shooter is pursued by a number of protesters, including at least one armed with a handgun. When he stumbles, several people rush to try to seize his rifle. One smacks him with a skateboard. But he immediately regains his footing, and starts firing. Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, Wis., was killed. Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, of West Allis, Wis., was shot in the arm and is expected to recover." While unnamed, the one with the handgun was Grosskreutz, which is covered in the shooting section. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen Rittenhouse didn't shoot all of the protesters who chased him. The first person that he shot was not chasing him. They were involved in a "scuffle". As far as I can tell, it is inaccurate to say "three protesters were shot when they pursued a civilian". Do you have sources that say "three protester were shot when they pursued a civilian"? Not something vaguely similar, but something semantically equivalent to the quoted text currently in the article? - MrX 🖋 17:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just made this edit before seeing your response here (figured it out a few minutes ago when I re-read the material). Does that help? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fine. Thanks. - MrX 🖋 18:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in the prior version was "OR." See below.

• Photos that also captured the moments leading up to the second shooting scene appeared to show a man kicking Rittenhouse before another man with a skateboard appears to grab at the teen's weapon. The man with the skateboard appears to be the same one lying on the ground not moving in the video. Source.
• Video shot by another pro-Trump YouTuber, Brendan Gutenschwager, appeared to show Rittenhouse pursued by several protesters who suspected him of carrying out the first shooting. After he tripped and fell, just a block away from the police, two of those men attempted to disarm him, one by kicking him and another by hitting him with a skateboard. Rittenhouse fired at both of them, apparently killing the skateboarder, Anthony Huber, with a shot to the chest as they struggled for the rifle, and then shooting a third protester, Gaige Grosskreutz, causing a gaping wound in his arm. Grosskreutz, a member of a social justice group who was wearing a hat with the word “paramedic” emblazoned on it, also appeared to be armed with a handgun. Source.
• The shooter is pursued by a number of protesters, including at least one armed with a handgun. When he stumbles, several people rush to try to seize his rifle. One smacks him with a skateboard. But he immediately regains his footing, and starts firing. Source.

On the other hand, you just restored a version that states According to court records and video footage, Huber tried to disarm Rittenhouse and he "made contact" with his shoulder, with a skateboard.

What the source actually says is this:

Rittenhouse then ran down the street and was chased by several people shouting that he just shot someone before he tripped and fell, according to the complaint and video footage. Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, was shot in the chest after apparently trying to wrest the gun away from Rittenhouse, the complaint said.

The source cited for the line you restored does not attribute the "disarm" line to the video footage, it attributes it to the prosecutor's complaint. Describing this as a "court record" is misleading, because it suggests it is backed up by objective evidence. A "prosecutor's complaint" is the state's case and contains allegations that will or will not be proven at trial. The line you restored misses these distinctions and seems to confuse what the source actually said. The lines that I added above supported by each of the sources which were cited in the article. We also should not be deferring to primary sources, i.e. court documents, when reliable sources have offered analysis of primary material. This level of sloppiness is unacceptable for a section of the article touching on WP:BLPCRIME, since it does deal with both recently deceased persons and a still living person who is on trial. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

1. One more time. There is NOTHING in the sources about "protesters rushing in and kicking Rittenhouse". You. Made. That. Up. And then tacked a source at the end to pretend it was sourced. You have NOT addressed this at all in your responses, just kept pretending that the dispute is over something else.

2. Compare " According to court records and video footage, Huber tried to disarm Rittenhouse and he "made contact" with his shoulder, with a skateboard." (our text) with "Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, was shot in the chest after apparently trying to wrest the gun away from Rittenhouse, the complaint said." and, the source that is actually being used in the article which you keep ignoring: " According to court records, Huber had a skateboard in his right hand and used it to "make contact" with Rittenhouse's left shoulder as they struggled for control of the gun.". The present text, which you're trying to replace with your own OR, reflects these sources accurately.

Sorry, but there really is no simpler way to explain it. At this point this is becoming a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Volunteer Marek 20:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for a few days. In general the wiki article has been impressively balanced given the contentious nature of the event. I do want to note a few items.

1. . The court records are the prosecutors alleged offense and should be treated as such. The ABC 7 NY source (citation 79 as of this writing) says "Kenosha County prosecutors said in court records..." Currently the only things in court records at this point would be claims provided by the prosecution or the defense.
2. . The NYT put together a good video and description that could be a source for much of the "what appears to have happened" [[27]]. Per that article, "Six minutes later footage shows Mr. Rittenhouse being chased by an unknown group of people into the parking lot of another dealership several blocks away. [section break] While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene. Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head. " This should all be put into attributed language but it seems rather clear that the NTY felt that Rittenhouse was being pursued prior to the first shooting. The source doesn't answer details like getting hit with a skateboard but other sources state the video shows that. Anyway, it's clear that we have a number of sources that are giving similar but not identical descriptions of the same event. Rather than picking one or the other it's probably just best to use several and in cases where the claims don't align, attribute. For example, in the case of the skateboard it appears that sources vary if this was being used as a weapon ("attacked with" or if this was incidental contact such as the prosecutor's report suggests).
3. . A number of sources have suggested Rittenhouse was a white supremacist or similar. It should be noted in some capacity that no evidence was found. I'm not sure if this is the best source source[[28]] but the lack of evidence was reported by a number of news sources and is DUE for this article. A specific statement that other sources/commentators suggested affiliations would address the question of why that should be in the article.
4. . This material about the ACLU probably shouldn't be clarified. [[29]] When I first read it I assumed it was asking for a resignation in general. It may be worth adding a sentence stating the ACLU was comparing the treatment of Rittenhouse vs Blake.

Regardless of the above, this is an impressively neutral article given the topics. Springee (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Wikieditor19920 that when it comes to Huber's actions the ABC article clearly is not citing the video but only the criminal complaint. And the article makes it crystal clear that the complaint itself only claims that Huber is "apparently" reaching for the gun and/or trying to disarm Rittenhouse. So at the very least needs to be rephrased as ""According to [prosecutors], it appears Huber tried to disarm Rittenhouse". And I even more strongly agree that "court records", while used in the source article, is less specific, clear, and helpful than "criminal complaint filed by prosecutors" or some variant; to insist on using the former is indefensible. When someone alleges X in a lawsuit, for example, it would be grossly misleading to claim that "court records state X"—and that's exactly what's being done here. That a cited source uses an obviously misleading phrase is no excuse for repeating the error in a Wikipedia article. Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Which is why it says "according to court records", just like the source. Volunteer Marek 20:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's clear in context (and from the earlier statement in the article) that the court records in question are the prosecutors statements. They should be treated as such, not as statement of fact that the court establishes after a trial. Springee (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What's clear is that there was never any misrepresentation of sources. The WaPO noted that protesters composed the group that rushed and kicked Rittenhouse. The sources offer competing depictions of Huber's altercation with Rittenhouse; some say, citing the criminal complaint, he was attempting to disarm; others say he smacked or struck him. All of these properly sourced details can be included. I suggest restoring the previous version of this paragraph, at least in part, to reflect all the information that's been reported. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Because Volunteer Marek is still accusing me of somehow "making up" that sources reported the protesters rushed Rittenhouse, here is, again, the quote from the story reporting it: (The footage) appeared to show Rittenhouse pursued by several protesters who suspected him of carrying out the first shooting. After he tripped and fell, just a block away from the police, two of those men attempted to disarm him, one by kicking him and another by hitting him with a skateboard. So it states protesters were pursing him and two of those men attempted to disarm him one by kicking him. This clearly and and unequivocally supports the language that was previously in the article that protesters reportedly rushed and kicked Rittenhouse. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

" The WaPO noted that protesters composed the group that rushed and kicked Rittenhouse" <-- This is a complete falsehood. Here is the WaPo source: [30]. Here is the archived version of the source [31]. Here is the version of the article where you put in the false text: [32]. The word "kick" DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR IN THE SOURCE!. Stop trying to fool people here. All it takes is clicking on the source and checking to confirm that you are simply making stuff up.

Now, you have another quote there. I don't know where it comes from or if it's real since you don't bother providing a link or a citation. Regardless, when you edit warred you were - and still are (!) - claiming that Washington Post stated this. They didn't. Really. Stop it. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek 04:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it was The Intercept. Nothing about that quote is "made up," so why don't you go ahead and click on the link yourself. I provided the correct link next to the quote in one of my earlier comments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post piece linked above includes the line about Huber "smacking" Rittenhouse with his skateboard, not the "made contact" legalese nonsense. Again, follow the links that have been provided and do the reading before making repeatedly false accusations on talk pages, talk headers, and edit summaries. Every single word in the version I restored is supported by a source provided on this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. No. The WaPo doesn't say anything about "smacking" or skateboards or anything of the sort!

You're probably thinking of this source [33], which is the one that is used to source the skateboard stuff. As already pointed out multiple times it says: "According to court records, Huber had a skateboard in his right hand and used it to "make contact"". "Make contact" is IN the source. Do you even read these sources? Do you even read other people's comments? Why does this have to be repeated half a dozen times???

As for your Intercept source, well I guess it's a good thing that you found something (much less reliable than WaPo) which kind of aligns with your text but this is NOT a source you tried using in the article. And EVEN THEN this source says nothing about "protesters", plural, but one guy possibly doing it (this has also been pointed out to you several times). Volunteer Marek 05:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

1) I said it was legalese because it's pulled from a court document by the secondary source. And it is. "Make contact" is a terrible descriptor that wouldn't exist outside a police report or court. 2) We know from the reporting in sum that the Washington Post was referring to Huber when it described Rittenhouse being smacked by a pursuer with a skateboard while he was on the ground, so that is a silly point to argue over. Chicago CBS also described Huber "hitting" Rittenhouse with his skateboard. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And here is the Washington Post article from which the line (S)everal people rush to try to seize his rifle. One smacks him with a skateboard. But he immediately regains his footing, and starts firing. is pulled. It is incorrect to say that the reliable sources reporting on this subject have only used the term "made contact." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody ever said that ALL sources use the term "made contact". But even in this source the context of "smacking" Rittenhouse with the skateboard is that Huber was trying to get the gun away from him.

You are also 100% ignoring the fact that there's nothing in WaPo about "protesters rushing in and kicking Rittenhouse" which is what you were actually edit warring over. Volunteer Marek 15:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yet again you accuse me of "edit-warring." WP:KETTLE, much? You repeatedly restored your preferred version with edit summaries including ridiculous accusations of "making up" sources, yet all of the language in my edits were sourced.

I already acknowledged that when I mentioned the WaPo in reference to the "rushing and kicking" line, I meant The Intercept, another reliable source. WP:DEADHORSE. The WaPo did support the language about the skateboard being used to smack Rittenhouse, and similar language was used by Chicago CBS specifically identifying Huber as "hitting" Rittenhouse with the skateboard. I never objected to the inclusion of reference to disarming; I added additional, sourced descriptions about the confrontation, which in fact included Huber striking/smacking/hitting (whatever phrasing you prefer) Rittenhouse with his skateboard. So we actually agree on at least 50% of the content, yet for some reason you chose to frame this entire thread as attacking me for "misrepresentations" and "OR" despite there being ample sourcing for my edits.

If there are no challenges to the reliability of the sources I have cited (CBS, WaPo, Intercept) I suggest we move forward by re-incorporating both sourced descriptions into the breakdown of the shooting; that Huber was reported as hitting Rittenhouse while perhaps attempting to disarm him. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I did a search for the actions of the unnamed person "kicking" Rittenhouse. I didn't find a RS that described it as kick (or similar). That seems to be a term used by commentators and Rittenhouse's defense team.[[34]] This Chicago Times article described it at "jumped at" [[35]]. The Fox13 article I posed earlier today said "tries to subdue". Anyway, it is probably best to drop accusations of edit warring or bad faith edits and agree to a compromise text. Looking at the videos and some of the descriptions we shouldn't imply the first person was calmly walking up to Rittenhouse by selectively picking mundane descriptions. Regardless, we should discuss here first. Remember, at this point in time there is no consensus version of the text. Springee (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: From The Intercept, Video shot by another pro-Trump YouTuber, Brendan Gutenschwager, appeared to show Rittenhouse pursued by several protesters who suspected him of carrying out the first shooting. After he tripped and fell, just a block away from the police, two of those men attempted to disarm him, one by kicking him and another by hitting him with a skateboard. I think you have been otherwise thorough, but you missed an obvious source that has been posted multiple times on this page. And I agree completely that the bad-faith accusations need to stop—a great place to start would be revising the title of this header to comply with WP:TPG. I suggest "'Shooting' Section." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm dubious about citing an exceptional claim solely to The Intercept like this, especially when it doesn't reflect how the subject is covered in other sources, but we definitely cannot do so without an in-line citation. Per WP:RS/P the Intercept is a WP:BIASED source - it is written from a very specific point of view, and both the things they choose to emphasize and the way they frame them can be colored by this; that's the very definition of the sort of thing that requires an inline citation. When a biased source provides an interpretation (and we are using it, here, to interpret the video), people need to be aware of whose interpretation it is. Since we've established above how few sources frame it this way, if we are going to put specific emphasis on the one that does, it is particularly important to identify them by name - especially since we're using this to make specific BLP-sensitive claims about people who fall under WP:BLP or WP:BDP. Basically, as I see it, there are three choices: 1. Omit it as WP:UNDUE emphasis on something that few sources say; 2. Attribute it to The Intercept, if we are going to use them as the sole source for it, or, 3. find other sources, which means taking their framing and focus into account. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Fortunately, there are other sources available. We need to be careful about omitting key facts reported by multiple outlets and violating NPOV. That some of the pursuers began kicking him is established as a fact of the event, it is neither WP:EXCEPTIONAL nor solely attributed to The Intercept. Exceptional claims are those that are shocking or outrageous. Nothing about the fact that Rittenhouse was chased and kicked by protesters is shocking or outrageous to anyone who's followed this story. Intercept is reliable according to WP:RSP, but it is not the only publication to report this fact. NBC Chicago reported the same. Intercept is seen as having a liberal bias, not one that would seem to impact the reporting here. WP:INTEXT does not require we clutter the description with attributions for every line when multiple RS have reported it. I see you've also cited BLP. I don't know what the basis of that is, but we have 1) multiple sources confirming Rittenhouse was kicked by his pursuers just before the altercation, and 2) WP:DUE is satisfied by the presence of multiple sources reporting this link in the chain of events, and we don't selectively omit key facts. WP:NPOV. In the future, please feel free to add an additional citation if you feel one is necessary--they are easy to find--rather than removing the material and not doing any further research. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be concerned that totally removing the "kick" somewhat underplays what can be seen in the video however, I think this edit goes too far in the reverse direction [[36]]. This could reasonably be read as 3 people stood around Rittenhouse and kicked him as he was on the ground. Certainly the fact that many sources didn't mention this kick means we shouldn't make it sound like it was multiple kicks by a number of people. I would suggest self reverting and working on a compromise text. I think the objective should be to attribute the "kick" in some way. As a starting suggestion, "Rittenhouse tripped. According to some sources the first pursuer attempted to kick Rittenhouse and grab his rifle [sources]". I'm sure that can be improved upon. Springee (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is another timeline source. It's a local station in Memphis that did a NYT like analysis of the videos etc. It was released 1 Sept so it has the benefit of a bit more hindsight and review of other sources as compared to earlier articles covering the same information. The authors seem generally careful about making definitive statements vs using attribution or describing how things appear. [[37]] It has some additional information on the events prior to the first shooting. It also offers a more detailed description of the second shooting events, pulling from several sources including directly from the video.

Others shout that Rittenhouse shot someone. One man takes a swing at the teen, knocking his hat off. Rittenhouse trips and falls to the street. As he lies on the ground, an unidentified man tries to subdue him, the court document states. Rittenhouse fires two shots at the man but misses. “A second person who was later identified as Anthony Huber approaches the defendant, who is still on the ground, on his back,” McNeill wrote. “Huber has a skateboard in his right hand.” In the video footage, as well as still images that have turned up online, Huber swings the skateboard at Rittenhouse with one hand while he uses his other hand to reach for the rifle. “Huber appears to be trying to pull the gun away from the defendant,” the complaint states. “The defendant rolls toward his left side, and as Huber appears to be trying to grab the gun, the gun is pointed at Huber’s body. “The defendant then fires one round, which can be heard on the video. Huber staggers away, taking several steps, then collapses to the ground.” [paragraph breaks removed]

This might offer a bit more content to draw from. Springee (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty good description. Volunteer Marek 15:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback (both of you). Springee (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla, please be careful about editorializing/OR. Neither source you added here [[38]] supports the claim that Trump "suggested without evidence". In fact the source here [[39]] quotes Trump as saying the video showed Rittenhouse trying to get away. Additionally, please use complete citations, not bare URLs. Springee (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

ADL

I think this sentence should be removed. Since there is no previous claim that Rittenhouse was a member of an extremist group, picking an obscure sentence out of a single source to elevate this information strikes me as WP:UNDUE.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, there was no indication from his social media that he had any connections to extremist groups prior to the shooting.

Sources

- MrX 🖋 15:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Pertanent considering the rest of the section paints a somewhat different picture. I could see moving it lower in that section.--MONGO (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What about WP:DUEWEIGHT? Is this something that is being covered by other sources? - MrX 🖋 16:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUE. Reliable source reporting on a well-known organization in the arena of hate speech & extremism. Whether or not he was connected to extremist groups is relevant background info. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm agnostic but certainly don't think it's necessary. If it's in, I would remove "prior to the shooting" unless sources state he's had connections to extremist groups since the shooting. We wouldn't say "he didn't beat his wife before 2007" about someone who's never been a wife-beater. Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I think you're confusing WP:DUE (WP:DUEWEIGHT) with WP:V. There is no question that this is briefly mentioned in one source. - MrX 🖋 18:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe the source provided gives sufficient weight for a one-sentence mention. If it were longer, I would agree with you on the weight issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That's not how WP:DUEWEIGHT works. A single source cannot establish weight by definition. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." - MrX 🖋 16:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely keep it. People always assume, in this kind of situation, that the person might have belonged to an extremist group of some kind. So to have this kind of comment from the JDL is very important to scotch rumors. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Per my comment above I think this is DUE but could probably be done better. A number of sources/commentators have described Rittenhouse as a white supremacist or similar. This Atlantic article is very critical of Rittenhouse [[40]] and says, "Rittenhouse has been called a “white supremacist,” but none of his comments during interviews at the scene mention race.". The National Review noted Congressional Democrats calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist [[41]]. NPR mentioned both the search for ties to groups and the lack of any evidence of affiliation [[42]]. MrX is right in noting that without context that material just floats there and is undue. However, in context of sources noting he has been attacked as such, it makes a lot more sense. Springee (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No Reliable Source has suggested that he has white supremacist connections, and no evidence has been found to suggest it. Given that, I oppose quoting any of the accusations-without-evidence accusing him of such - probably knee-jerk reactions based on partisan stereotyping. We should not dignify such comments or expand their reach by referring to them here. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I see your point and given this is a BLP I can see not quoting such accusations. Even without those I'm OK keeping something in there saying (to date) he doesn't appear to be part of [bad groups]. Springee (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutral to whichever version is better. If having the sentence implies a connection, then it should be removed. If not having the sentence implies a connection, then it should be kept. If both as suggested above, then maybe we need to put it up for WP:RFC or a noticeboard if it is considered more serious. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone object to removing "prior to the shooting" from the article? Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I can see why they included it - they are quite properly expressing the limitations of what they investigated - but it probably isn't needed for our purposes. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RACIST, unless he is "widely described" as a white supremacist by reliable sources, it shouldn't be mentioned at all. I do not see that present here and am removing that portion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely remove it. Why would we include something he didn't have? This type of sentence would only be due as a rebuttal/denial to an allegation and/or claim in the article that he was connected to an extremist group. There's no context given as to why this obscure sentence is significant, relevant, or any way connected to the alleged crimes he has been accused of committing. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This is always the first question asked when there is a shooting. "Did the shooter belong to any hate groups, radical groups, any group that might have contributed to his motivation?" It's part of the quest for a motive. There don't need to be specific allegations. The search for such a connection is routinely done and routinely reported. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that that's always the first question. It certainly wasn't mine. We already inform readers about the Kenosha Guard, so it would follow that we have informed reader of any other groups he's associated with. The ADL merely looked at his social media account. That stands out as giving undue prominence to something that any idiot with an internet connection could do. No one has yet shown that this information is important because of proportionate coverage in reliable sources. While we're at it, we should also remove the primary-sourced ACLU response. - MrX 🖋 16:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think enough sources speculated about disreputable ties that something to the effect that his profile is clean does make sense. I'm not sure it needs to be the ADL specifically but I think something is DUE in this case. I do get MelanieN's concern that we should be careful about listing sources that make the accusation since we are dealing with a BLP and LABELs. Perhaps this is a time to say IAR and include it without including sources that made the accusations without evidence. Springee (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The question was asked and the answer was no, so it went nowhere, and sources didn't think it was significant enough to widely report, as evidenced by that single sentence being cherry-picked from a local news report. WP has different guidelines for inclusion of content, and it shouldn't be included here, giving undue weight to something that reliable sources didn't think was significant enough to widely report on. If there had been a specific allegation of this nature made against Rittenhouse, then yes, I would support inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a point in having this sentence if there is no sentence which makes the charge in the first place. Volunteer Marek 02:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead: Shooting of protestors - needs clarifying

I'm from the UK, so haven't been following this incident. It's not 100% clear in the intro who shot who - I had to scroll down to the main body to confirm that it was indeed an anti-protest guy who shot two BLM protesters. It might be worth putting this in the intro so readers can see at a glance..?WisDom-UK (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not really clear that Rittenhouse was "anti-protest" so much as "anti-riot"/protect the public (in his mind). I agree that the intro doesn't do a good job since it also isn't clear that this isn't a case like the Charlottesville_car_attack. In Charlottesville the intent was to attack the protesters. There is no evidence Rittenhouse wanted to harm vs wanted to protect in at least some way (regardless of how naive he was). Perhaps something like "On August 25, an altercation resulted in the shooting death of two protesters and an injury to a third. Prosecutors have charged the shooter, who claims the shootings were in self defense, with six felonies inclding first-degree intentional homicide." It's a bit longer but it captures that this wasn't a case of someone who opened fire out of the blue and the victims were not random. Springee (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I've made an update indicating that Rittenhouse is claiming self defense. Springee (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

So long as we are talking about the lead, Soibangla, I don't think this is true to the source.[[43]] It suggests that issues that protests were trouble free prior to the arrival of militia types. The article says confrontations between protesters and counter protesters started when... Later in the same section of the article is says the call for armed citizens went out Tuesday (25 Aug, the protests/damaged started on the 23rd). Perhaps a change like, "Property damage, fires and looting, occurred the night of the shooting. After a "call for armed citizens" to protect the city, groups of armed militia members, which Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth described as vigilantes, arrived resulting in additional confrontations." This makes it clear that the initial protests were not peaceful but the NYT felt things went up a notch when armed "protectors" showed up. Springee (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Riots removed from lede

There needs to be some mention of the riots and property destruction in the lede in a way that does not violate WP:EUPHEMISM. I recently added it, and it has since been removed. There has been a disturbing trend of scrubbing protest articles to remove mentions of violence. That is not the job of Wikipedia. Ergo Sum 14:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't removed, just moved up to the first paragraph. Where it was in the second paragraph made it read like the riots were in response to the Rittenhouse shootings. But, since the article came out before the Rittenhouse shootings I moved it up in the lead. [[44]] Springee (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies; should've slowed down in my reading. Thanks Springee. Ergo Sum 15:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Fatal shooting background

One of the shot protestors was filmed daring/taunting an armed man (not Rittenhouse) to "shoot me" earlier that evening. I previously proposed mentioning this, but it was opposed due to the source being from NYPost, which was very recently depreciated. I've since found two more sources that are both credible. Can we add this to the shooting background now? Steverci (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

References

It's also being reported that his girlfriend tried to calm him down after earlier confrontations, but couldn't. Less quotable sources say he may have been on drugs. Pkeets (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

A sentence has been added to the background section to cover it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm slightly inclined to keep this out. Yes, it does suggest that Rittenhouse had a reason to fear the would be victim but we have no idea what lead up to that video. Rittenhouse may have threatened first or may have done nothing wrong. We just don't know. Also, we do need to consider that BLP does apply to Rosenbaum so it's probably best to keep the video out as the context is simply unclear. Springee (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's making an argument for or against motivations, it's just documenting what happened with reliable sources. What on BLP are you referring to? --Steverci (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:BDP applies to Rittenhouse, including on the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

But he's not dead. --Steverci (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BDP (part of BLP), the BLP rules apply to recently deceased as well, thus Rosenbaum. My concern with respect to Rosenbaum is this video appears to show Rosenbaum starting a fight but we don't know anything else about the context around that video. As such I'm worried it may imply something negative that we cannot RS at this time. As such we should err on the side of caution and not present what appears to be very negative information about Rosenbaum. Springee (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The background section contains a lot of information about Rittenhouse being filmed at locations leading up to the shooting and his activities with the armed civilians that were recorded on video. Rosenbaum's interactions with armed civilians before the shooting is currently presented in a similar context and doesn't seem out of place to me as long as what is known is accurate and neutrally worded. If Rittenhouse had yelled provocations at protesters and made comments like "come anywhere near me and I'll shoot you!", we would be including that too. With regard to BLP, Rosenbaum did not start a fight (with the other man on the video), his interactions with the armed civilians took place in a public area where it was lawful for him to be there, and doesn't appear to have committed any crimes in the cited news reports or videos. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That part is fine. Just any negative comments against either from "less quotable sources" is a problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the other content (speculation from low quality sources) should be kept out. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

:I Sorry, I was referring to Rosenbaum and confused Rosenbaum's and Rittenhouse's names. Sorry for the error and thank you for noticing it and to Springee for correcting it. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Plastic bag

This item seems to be very persistent, and is reported by various sources, but I'm not in favor of including it without more information. After all, why would someone throw just a plastic bag? That only raises questions. Nonreliable sources have suggested it was a sling for a missile, first guessed to be a Molotov cocktail and later a brick. Still waiting for a reliable source. Pkeets (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we should see how often RSs mention this. Having watched the video this wasn't like throwing an empty trash bag at someone. Clearly it had something in it. It might have been nothing more than a water bottle in the bag but it wasn't empty. But, Rittenhouse was running away and may not have even noticed. Basically the significance of the bag, if any, is really hard to tell at this time. Thus I would ask if sources typically talk about the bag when saying what happened. If yes, they I would include it. Springee (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

If Reliable Sources say or imply the bag was empty, then that is what we must go with. Remember, WP:BDP applies to Rittenhouse, including on the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

So far they haven't said one way or the other. Having watched the video my concern is "threw a bag" doesn't match with what I'm seeing. What I see is "threw something that was in a bag". However, we can't add "what I see" since that is OR. I haven't seen any RS say anything other than throw a bag so if included that is all we say. As I said above, I doubt the bag entered into Rittenhouse's mind since he was facing/running away at the time. Still, that is OR as well. Ultimately, if we are on the fence I would say leave the bag out until it is shown to be important. If a majority of the sources mention the bag then we follow the leader and mention it as well. Springee (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a really clear video [45] of the event, followed by a slow motion repeat. You can clearly see there's a weight in the bag, and Rittenhouse reacts, hunches his shoulders and turns to look at Rosenbaum at that point, then resumes running and disappears behind the cars. If I understand this witness correctly, he's pointing out another gunman. Rittenhouse's lawyer [46] says Rosenbaum assaulted Rittenhouse from behind. This, plus accounts that Rosenbaum tried to grab the gun, are certainly what set off the first shooting. So far, there's no mention of what the weight in the bag was in reliable sources, but we might consider what might be released in the future. Pkeets (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

We should just attribute the statement. The prosecutor's charging documents say it's a bag. We should not speculate much further. Rittenhouse's lawyer calls it an assault, which it technically can be considered. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

In the NYT video breakdown you can see there is a gun shot behind Rittenhouse at about the same time the bag was thrown. His reaction may have been to the gun shot, not the bag. Springee (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

What you guys "see" in the video yourselves is all fine and dandy, but all that matters is what sources say. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Kindly stop interjecting to lecture and berate other editors. 1) discussion of primary source content like videos published in reliable sources is allowed, 2) everyone's aware that a secondary source interpretation is required for content in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

First, this is a talk page and a more congenial tone doesn't hurt. Second, no one is claiming our opinions superseded RS. Springee (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's a source[47] that mentions the bag appears to have contents, plus a link to the complaint documents that describe it as an "object" later identified as a plastic bag. It appears even the police are looking at the videos, though. Pkeets (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Most RS say plastic bag, so we should say plastic bag. If more RS appear saying other things, we can change what we say. Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a compelling reason to include it as I don't see sources saying how it impacted the events in question. I was simply an easy to identify/describe event in the video. But, I haven't surveyed how many sources do/don't mention it. If it seems to be commonly mentioned when describing events then we should do the same. We should not say anything about bag contents since I don't recall any RSs saying anything beyond "threw plastic bag". Springee (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think there was disproportionate focus early on about the plastic bag because it was the only part of the video where you could see what was going on. I'm not sure this detail is especially important (it might be, i'm not sure), what matters is that there was some sort of confrontation or altercation between RittenH and RosenB that preceded the shooting. More information is sure to come out soon. WP:NODEADLINE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Plastic bag reports: ABC, Washington Post ("appears to be"), WBEZ, New York Times, WSJ ("according to the complaint"), Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Politifact, CNN ("appeared to be"), Republika (Indonesia), FR24 News. There's plenty more. Bondegezou (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Number of arrests in Kenosha

This article may be worth including. The Wiki article talks about how much damage. This one says over 250 arrests with ~1/2 people out of the area. [[48]]. The article formatting on my computer is a mess but it appears to be sourced to the AP. Springee (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The {{Infobox civil conflict}} template does have an optional "arrests" parameter. The source article displays well in my browser and does include AP under the title. After seven short paragraphs, the article includes many aerial photos of the damage. It also includes the cost of damage to city and county property, as reported by police. —ADavidB 14:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If it's included in the infobox, it'll also require an "As of" qualifer. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

As per MOS:INFOBOX, info should only be in the infobox if it's covered in the main article text. Put something in the main article text first. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Representative photo of the protests?

Can I ask for a more 'fair' photo of the protests as opposed to the current photo which depicts the morning after of a burned down car dealership? I realize its difficult to source photos in the public domain, however the current photo seems unrepresentative. If a representative photo can not be sourced, then we should remove the photo from the top altogether. Ledootdoot (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? Anon0098 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the photo is as representative as a single photo can be. The photo of the burned car dealership was used by all sorts of major news networks to represent the days of riots, which were themselves the primary focus of the media. It's always hard to pick infobox photos to represent events, but because this photo has been circulated so much more than any other, I can't think of a more representative photo. Ergo Sum 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that's fair, especially if it's a pretty used photo Anon0098 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Are you positive that you have seen this photo 'used by all sorts of major news networks' as that should be impossible. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this photo (or similar ones of this burnt car dealership) on Fox News and CNN. Ergo Sum 02:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the current image appropriately represents the riots that are the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The burned dealership photo is fine and very representative of what has occurred during the early days of the protests (millions of dollars in property damage to local businesses–riots, a word some editors are reluctant to use). RopeTricks (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This manual undo is fundamentally flawed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenosha_protests&diff=976740908&oldid=976739901

The article is entitled “protests,” not “riots,” so if some want to emphasize the latter rather than the former, the title should be changed.

The source does not refer to “widespread” or related synonyms. That sentence is redundant to the immediately preceding sentence.

There were not “several” days of riots.

We know only the expressed intent of the vigilantes, not necessarily their actual intent.

Ergo Sum’s edit should be reverted.soibangla (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I will go through these one by one.

The article's name (which is up for discussion) is irrelevant. This article covers related events that happened in Kenosha in a specified period of time. Whether we call them protests, riots, unrest, etc. in the title is irrelevant to our accurate accounting of the facts. We don't "emphasize" anything.

Wikipedia is not in the business of lifting language from sources. That's called plagiarism. The fact that a source does not use the word "widespread" but describes widespread protests does not mean we cannot call them widespread. I don't think anyone can accurately dispute that they were widespread. Excising that singular word bears the tinge of WP:POV.

This one really makes no sense. Riots occurred for 2 days, state of emergency was declared, riots continued for a few more days. How is that not "several?"

Expressed is a WP:WEASELWORD. No source has called into question the group's assertion that their intent was to protect the city. "Expressed" adds nothing other than casting doubt in violation of weasel.

Should this argument be unpersuasive to you, I think an RfC would do well to resolve the matter. Ergo Sum 18:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Ergo Sum revert of Soibangla's edit is accurate reflection of the evidence. [49], [50]--MONGO (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• The article's title was the result of extensive discussions; it certainly does matter, in that it reflects our best assessment of the sources (and, therefore, their framing and focus when it comes to the facts) at the time. We have to cover those facts with the same weight and focus they do, and not by what editors personally feel is the truth. An RFC to establish that is fine, but your changes have to go until it's complete; you can't insert a drastic change to an article's lead, then (when people object) call for an RFC and leave the contested changes in there the entire time. We'd also have to hammer out some possible variations to satisfy WP:RFCBEFORE, I think - there is certainly a middle ground between the version of the lead before you started editing (which I agree is incomplete) and your version (which had severe POV issues and didn't remotely reflect the full weight and focus of the sources.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I mildly lean in favor of "protests and riots" vs "riots and protests". I think that is the intent of the first sentence. "Widespread" is probably a qualitative word that would need some support. I agree there is no reason to mention riots in the second sentence since it was in the opening sentence. Do we have evidence that the rioting was confined to only one day? How do the sources describe the intent of those described as vigilantes. Also, when describing the intent are they speaking of those described as "vigilantes" or something like "outsiders with guns"? My concern is if we have one source saying the people with guns are vigilantes and a separate source saying people with guns say they intend to protect the city we don't conflate those two points, ie "vigilantes intend to protect the city". We should be very careful about describing the armed people as vigilantes in Wikivoice. For example, this sentence in the lead, "In response to several days of riots, groups of armed vigilantes arrived with the intent of protecting the city" cites The Indenpendent [[51]] and the NYT[[52]]. The Independent calls the armed people, "armed people". It quotes the Kenoba sheriff calling them "militia" and "like a vigilante group" (“They’re a militia,” Mr Beth said. “They’re like a vigilante group.”). The NYT only says Rittenhouse was part of a vigilante group, not that all the armed men were vigilantes. From the next sentence the WP uses both "vigilantes" as well as "people who took up arms against protests that have occasionally turned violent". We should use the more neutral "armed people" or similar and save terms like vigilante for attributed statements. While "expressed intent" doesn't appear in any of the sources, it does reasonably summarize the NYT. The NYT attributed the claim of "here to protect". I don't really like the "expressed intent" phrasing but it is accurate in my opinion. BTW, really we shouldn't be dissecting sources from the lead. All of these sources should be in the article body and the lead shouldn't need even a single source as it summarizes the body. Springee (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your distinction between vigilantes and armed groups. It seems the sources are referring to the same people by those two terms, rather than as two different groups of people. Armed groups with the stated intent of protection is a vigilante, no? As for "expressed intent," intent is psychological. Wikipedia routinely describes people's intent in plain terms (assuming it's backed up by sources) without adding dubious qualifiers. Ergo Sum 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The Independent only calls them "armed people". They quote the sheriff calling them vigilantes. The WP uses both terms at different points in their article. My concern is the association with things like vigilante justice. If I'm seeing a distinction that isn't then perhaps this isn't worth worrying about. Springee (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Ergo Sum says: The article's name (which is up for discussion) is irrelevant Well, I just really disagree. And wasn't the rename proposal closed anyway? That's called plagiarism Note that I said neither widespread nor a related synonym is in the source. Is there evidence the "widespread rioting" extended across the entire city, into residential areas, or was it localized in a specific area? "Widespread rioting" suggests the city was being burned down, including homes. We need to be more precise. And here on Talk you call them widespread protests, which is likely more true than widespread riots, because during such episodes there's more people marching and chanting than throwing Molotovs. Let's not fall for "if it bleeds, it leads." I don't see that the article chronology supports riots continued for a few more days. I disagree that Expressed is a WP:WEASELWORD because a full reading of what is going on in this country right now is that there's lots of people who would like to assault/kill people they just don't like, and some are looking for an excuse to do it, and two people were shot dead in Kenosha. As an aside, "my" google news yields 107,000 results for "Kenosha riots" and 322,000 for "Kenosha protests." Finally, I believe the lead as written — placing riots before protests in an article about protests, concluding with "There were also peaceful protests" — bears the tinge of WP:POV soibangla (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• In any case, it looks like Ergo Sum has fairly drastically rewritten the lead over the past few days with little discussion, so I've hard-reverted entirely for now to before their edits to it. Let's go a bit more slowly and cautiously. Riots is fairly WP:POV language, which requires strong and fairly unanimous sourcing; the naming discussion already went over the sources and didn't really find much support for it - yes, sources exist that use the term, but it's not the primary description. This also extends to the framing and structure of the lead - I feel the rewrite placed WP:UNDUE emphasis on a few sources and downplayed many others; "there were also peaceful protests" is a bit absurd when so many sources place that aspect front and center. Likewise when it comes to the clashes, we have to be cautious how we term people and attribute descriptors (hence which Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth described as vigilantes.) The purpose of the lead shouldn't be a bloated blow-by-blow of everything that happened; it should cover the most significant and heavily-covered points. Ergo Sum, given how controversial this topic is, maybe seek consensus for specific changes before drastically rewriting the lead? A few small additions or tweaks is one thing, but this was too much, too fast. --Aquillion (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Should the lede section more closely reflect this version or the current version? Ergo Sum 15:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Temp comment: I don't think this is a properly formed RfC so I've commented it out for the moment. A more definitive description and a clear example or question would be very helpful. Asking people to evaluate a diff with no other description isn't really useful. This comment can/should be removed once resolved. Springee (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Summarizing the diff: 1) having a sentence describing the significant property destruction (USD $50m and 100 buildings) and 2) that the destruction was the result of riots (supported by sources).

Summarizing the current: omitting reference to riots and property destruction.

Taking off my neutral RfC proposer-hat, it seems in my humble opinion manifestly clear that option 1 is the correct one. Wiki is not about censoring uncomfortable facts. Ergo Sum 23:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• [summoned by bot] - I started to respond to this, but the RfC is just too poorly framed. The subsequent summary doesn't help much, either, since it highlights particular elements rather than particular versions. If you want an RfC on those elements, present it that way. It also refers to "the current version," but requires us to check the timestamp of the RfC and cross-reference that with the version of the article at that time. Assuming I got the versions right, neither is ideal. Ergo Sum, your non-neutral summary seems to be arguing to summarize an article that mentions rioting exactly twice (in the heading "protests and riots" and in "events elsewhere") with a lead that refers to riots/rioting/rioters four times. That ... doesn't scream NPOV. The "current" version removed all mention of "riot" which doesn't seem in line with the sourcing/article either. Given these shortcoming (and others, like saying in Wikipedia's voice that the vigilantes were there "with the intent of protecting the city" while quoting them directly and/or sources that say "protecting businesses"), in lieu of !voting one way or the other I've just gone ahead and made a bold edit to what seems reasonable to me. IMO it's still not ideal, because it's a very long article that should have a more thorough lead (especially with regard to the not-yet-spun-out rittenhouse shooting still here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Prefer Rhododendrites' version shown here. This version, current at the start of the RfC, frankly is a POV whitewash for failing to mention rioting at all. There is no valid justification for that when sources consistently talk about riots, violence, and/or looting. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Prefer Rhododendrites' version. As I said above, I recognized the older version did need some improvement and was hoping we could find a middle ground before starting an RFC, but this version is fine and was thankfully proposed shortly after the RFC started; this version mentions the aspects Ergo Sum wanted included without placing undue emphasis on them. --Aquillion (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Prefer Rhododendrites' version: I think it’s the most accurate representation of events of any version thus far. soibangla (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Grosskreutz , hands in the air

The source provided for this statement is an AP report, which reads "Court records said Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, appeared to be holding a gun when he approached Rittenhouse after he shot at Huber" . It is highly inappropriate to replace that with "Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his hands in the air, though he also seemed to hold a gun at some point in the confrontation according to footage and court records." without , at a minimum, providing sources that say this. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we get a separate Rittenhouse article?

That part of the protests is more covered in reliable sources than the rest put together. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

↑ #Split proposed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Word riot.

I understand removing riots from the title, but why remove the word from the article completely? Tens of millions of dollars worth of damage is not just a protest, the word riot should be mentioned in the lead. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 10:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Expressed vs. actual intents

Feds Charge ‘Second Amendment Militia’ Members Who Allegedly Wanted to ‘Pick People Off’ During Kenosha Protests. soibangla (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you proposing? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I am simply providing some evidence that suggests some “vigilantes” may not have been there for the reasons they said they were, hence my inclusion of the word ‘expressed” in the lead, which had been removed. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Expressed is in there now. I added it just based on the sources already in the article without seeing it had been there before. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional Footage - what are the rules on these sources?

Hi,

I'm new to editing on wikipedia so I'm not sure how the rules on sources work here. Multiple additional (what I assume to be cellphone) videos have surfaced which might offer some additional context to the Rittenhouse shootings. These include, for example, a video of Rosenbaum pushing a lit dumpster which is put out with a fire extinguisher shortly prior to him being shot; footage of a brief exchange of words between Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse as well as someone yelling out asking for Rittenhouse to be "craniumed" in the moments after Rosenbaum was shot.

Are videos like these considered to be reliable sources? Would they even be considered relevant to the story? I read that twitter (one of the sources of this footage) is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia but I'm not sure how that applies to video footage as opposed to tweets.

--156.62.34.1 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)