Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
Line 57: Line 57:
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Self-defense is already mentioned in the first paragraph. <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Self-defense is already mentioned in the first paragraph. <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:By that reasoning the jury verdict in the Scopes trial forces Wikipedia to say evolution is false. -- [[User:M.boli|M.boli]] ([[User talk:M.boli|talk]]) 13:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
:By that reasoning the jury verdict in the Scopes trial forces Wikipedia to say evolution is false. -- [[User:M.boli|M.boli]] ([[User talk:M.boli|talk]]) 13:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think that is logically sound and comes off a bit as attacking a newbi. In this case the jury wasn't asked to rule on scientific fact. The view that Rittenhouse acted in self defense is very reasonable and we shouldn't treat the view that the lead underplays the self defense aspect as unreasonable. It certainly is reasonable to assume that the combination of a self defense claim and an acquittal = "acted in self defense". However, since many RSs reported in a way that doubted that claim it's best to stick to the facts we know to be true, that he testified that acted in self defense and that the jury, at minimum, had reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 13:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:57, 14 April 2024

cause célèbre

I suggest we change "Rittenhouse's prosecution attracted widespread media coverage, and became a cause célèbre for right-wing organizations and media." to "Rittenhouse's prosecution attracted widespread media coverage, and became a cause célèbre for organizations and media on both sides of the political spectrum". Seeing as the case became a politizised cause célèbre for both the left and right, it seems misleading to single out right organizations/media for this in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.220.250.130 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Subject’s book

Under the “Media projects” section, Rittenhouse’s 2023 book Acquitted should be mentioned, along with reviews and sales. It was written along with Mark Richards and Michael Quinn Sullivan and was released on Kindle on November 19, where it reached number 510 on the Kindle Nonfiction book rankings on December 2 (source here). By December 5, it had fallen to a ranking of 557 (source here). Autographed copies sell for $59.99 (source here). General sources covering the book are here, and here, among many others. —2601:8C0:380:35C0:F0A3:D34F:C26E:1CB3 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update article to mention self-defense.

Hi,

This article needs to be updated noting that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense after being attacked by 3 men who chased him for 800 yards and tried to beat him with a skateboard and other objects, and had an illegal firearm pointed at him.

Update this article for accuracy immediately. 2600:6C5E:14F0:9BC0:B94C:B55A:286:EC7A (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

– Change busineses to businesses

The first sentence says: "In late August 2020, 17-year-old Rittenhouse traveled from Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin to help protect local busineses..."


– Adjust sentence for clarity

Currently reads: After a man chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, the youth fatally shot him. His name was Joseph Rosenbaum.

Suggestion: Shortly before midnight, a man named Joseph Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot. When Rosenbaum reached for his gun, Rittenhouse fatally shot him.[1] Mayifixthatforyou (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Irltoad (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

The first paragraph intentionally obfuscates the fact that Rittenhouse acted in self defense. The only mention of self defense is within the final sentence: "He testified that he had acted in self-defense." This verbiage is uncommon and nonsensical outside of an article discussing an ongoing trial. The question of whether or not he acted in self defense has been settled in a court of law, where evidence beyond his own testimony was presented. As a result, I suggest the opening paragraph be changed to:

Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003) is an American man who shot three men, two fatally, in self defense during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, when he was aged 17. Rittenhouse was acquitted at his trial in November 2021. CodingApe (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Self-defense is already mentioned in the first paragraph. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning the jury verdict in the Scopes trial forces Wikipedia to say evolution is false. -- M.boli (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is logically sound and comes off a bit as attacking a newbi. In this case the jury wasn't asked to rule on scientific fact. The view that Rittenhouse acted in self defense is very reasonable and we shouldn't treat the view that the lead underplays the self defense aspect as unreasonable. It certainly is reasonable to assume that the combination of a self defense claim and an acquittal = "acted in self defense". However, since many RSs reported in a way that doubted that claim it's best to stick to the facts we know to be true, that he testified that acted in self defense and that the jury, at minimum, had reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense. Springee (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]