Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kyle Rittenhouse article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 July 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Illinois Mid‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wisconsin Mid‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

protect businesses

the idea that this man travelled to kenosha is order to protect businesses is presented as a fact. Almost nobody beleives this, so "allegedly" is necessary 2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:6319:1E5E:D49F:61A6 (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question is sourced to The New York Times and CNN articles. CNN writes that Rittenhouse "took a weapon and ammo and went to downtown Kenosha to try to protect a car dealership". The CNN article also refers to "a rise in amateur armed paramilitary groups at protests nationwide". The content here should be based on reliable sources, not what most people believe. —ADavidB 10:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally everybody who watched the trial knows that's exactly what he did. 2600:1700:5DB0:1040:19FC:3E23:C508:B8C1 (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two seemingly undue lead inclusions

The following two sentences are the last in the lead section:
1. Rittenhouse's likeness has been used by fans to sell products, especially T-shirts.

2. In 2022, he announced a video game, Kyle Rittenhouse's Turkey Shoot, to raise funds to sue media outlets for defamation.

I feel like neither of these are lead-worthy, particularly the second one (the project seems to have gone nowhere; no suits have been filed; no further coverage). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the first case, there's a ton in the article about use of his likeness. In the second, you're right it probably doesn't need quite as much detail. After seeing this, I took a pass at just starting over with the lead to make it roughly proportional to the body of the article. Curious about your thoughts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note about the updated lead. Rittenhouse didn't travel to Kenosha with a rifle. The rifle was already in the state. The updated lead reads like he brought it from home. I'm also not sure that adding the police interest so early in the lead makes it read better but that's a style vs factual issue. Springee (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Looks like FFF already fixed this. As for the early interest, I was just trying to include a reference to the 4 paragraph section on early life, of which 3 deal with interest in law enforcement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the treatment of “the Kenosha unrest shooting” as a proper name, when in fact that title is descriptive. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. The name is one Wiki editors agreed to. I don't know that it's an official name anywhere. Springee (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it’s a descriptive title for an article about an event, we should invoke it descriptively, as in the previous lead that hyperlinked the article to the text "shot three men". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to suggest that an article should not be linked by its name. Perhaps the problem would be eased if the preceding "the" were changed to "a"? —ADavidB 05:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not odd at all—it’s very typical. We call it a piped link. “a Kenosha unrest shooting” would make no sense. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The oddity is not (ever?) using the unrest article name to link to what it's about, not piping in general. The thought was that "a" would remove the problematic proper name treatment. Do you have other suggested descriptive linkage words besides "shot three men"? —ADavidB 13:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with "shot three men"? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor removed that link when reworking the lead, as mentioned early in this talk section. If the Kenosha unrest shooting article is linked (with agreed-upon wording) in the first sentence, I see no need to link to the same article again in the next sentence for a mention of the three men shot. —ADavidB 18:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we’re misunderstanding each other, which makes sense as we’re discussing wordings of past, current, and prospective drafts. I’ll try and edit. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general direction is good but I think more people associate the shooting with Kenosha vs with Blake. For that reason I would put Kenosha in the first sentence vs the second. Springee (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about this wording:

...for shooting three men in Kenosha, Wisconsin—two fatally—in August 2020, amid protests following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse had traveled to Kenosha during the unrest, and joined a group of armed people who said they were there to protect businesses.

—ADavidB 02:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good! And good note @Springee ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I missed my chance to endorse before the change was made but I also agree with this change. Springee (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made this change. —ADavidB 03:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Education and family straits

Springee (talk) Springee: You failed to notify me that you had reverted my and the article's most recent edits. You've posted scores of times to the article and at its Talk page. Unless you've been appointed Wikipedia's chief grammarian, I fail to see any authority or logic in why you restored a semi-colon in a sentence that clearly should be split. Ditto with the worldwide coverage of the complaints of his sister ignoring her pleas for $3,000 so that she (claiming substantial illness as the cause for the family's indebtedness and the impending eviction of herself and his mother from their home) can avoid the immediacy of homelessness. You also claim that the source for the edit I made, Raw Story, is "low quality" and the issue "undue." The source is non-deprecated, so I fail to see what authority you've employed to pan it. I suggest that you restore my edit as appropriate using one of the many solid worldwide sources that contain the same or similar information about the situation, including the Hindustan Times, Yahoo New Zealand, Newsweek, MSN, etc., etc., etc. By the way, Wendy Rittenhouse's Go Fund Me account solicited $6,000, and it was just a few hundred dollars short of receiving that as of a few hours ago. Thank you. Activist (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference provided is not considered reliable, see WP:RAWSTORY. A quick scan of other references seems to show that they all simply summarize and quote from Faith Rittenhouse's go fund me posting. (At least one said they tried to contact Fatih R.) Absent reliable sourcing, and absent any reason to belive this rift in the Rittenhouse family is encyclopedia-worthy, I think it was properly deleted. -- M.boli (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]