Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kenosha unrest shooting 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, 4, 5: 7 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

Wisconsin Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Black Lives Matter Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter 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.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

African diaspora Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms 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.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Kenosha unrest shooting was copied or moved into Thomas Binger with this edit on 17 September 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Skip to table of contents

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.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Say their names - Victim name treatment[edit]

WITHDRAWN

Keep victim names in the second paragraph. Insufficient support to move to first. Dw31415 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposal: Add victim names to first paragraph.

(Note this section was deleted at some point. I'm adding it back because I think removing it was not in keeping with Talk page guidelines. Above is concrete proposal to react to. Below is original section text)

“36 -year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, of Kenosha, and 26-year-old Anthony Huber, of Silver Lake, Wisconsin were killed by a young man from out of state.” Or similar should appear in the first paragraph.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/who-were-the-victims-killed-in-the-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-in-kenosha/2688161/

~~In my opinion this article currently fails the worst criticism of dehumanizing black lives and describing black and white victims in completely different terms.

Is there a Wikipedia policy/goal of treating white and black people equally.~~

(End previous comment)

Note: The victims were white, but I think the question still stands about the weight of victims names vs perpetrator?

Dw31415 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if addding back my section that was deleted is appropriate, but I think commends are supposed to remain and be closed. There's probably issues with my comment but I'll review the article again and respond / close the section if the original issue was addressed. Dw31415 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my section text to include definitive proposal Dw31415 (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for other editors to respond, or keep responding, to talk page comments. The section you added here previously is in Archive 4. It received comments from four editors, who pointed out that that the shooter and those shot were all white, which your comments above do not show as your understanding. The people shot are all identified in the article's second paragraph. (I believe 'who did what' is almost always described before 'to whom'.) An administrator noted an "apparent misunderstanding" of the shooting's sources and closed the former talk section's discussion. —ADavidB 17:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adavidb, thanks for the context. I'll edit the proposal to remove the issues around race. Do you support or oppose adding the victims names in the first paragraph? Dw31415 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with continuing to have those shot identified immediately afterward in the lead section's second paragraph. The NBC source you provided does the same. —ADavidB 18:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adavidb, thanks for the consideration. I had trouble finding the history but I’ll go back and look at the other editor comments in the history Dw31415 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adavidb, so I think we can close this discussion section. I think that’s the proper way (instead of deleting). I’ll do that when I get a chance. Dw31415 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Self defense" (again)[edit]

I've just rolled back an edit by IP user @92.220.250.130 which described the event as "self defence" in the lede. I see there has been discussion of this topic most recently in February, and from my read of it no consensus was reached to use such language.

I rolled this back with AGF but upon further review of the user's edit history it seems they are engaging in edit warring on this page, and other non-constructive edits pushing a political agenda elsewhere.

In any case I will provide the opportunity to debate this further here, though I don't have the energy to engage with this any further myself. I will just offer this take before stepping away: I think it would be highly unusual for any reputable media org. to describe an action that was argued in court as "self defense" with no qualifiers, regardless of the legal finding. If anyone can provide WP:RS sources where this case has been described as such please do share. I would say it is appropriate to mention the trial outcome in the first paragraph, but exactly what wording is suitable I will leave to the legal buffs. Walkersam (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

anyone with two brain cells can just watch any 100% unedited video of the incident and understand it’s self defense I’m left wing and even I think it’s self defense he tried to run away got hit twice before eventually falling to the ground he had to choice but to defend himself and he immediately surrendered to the police 2600:8801:1187:7F00:B4B4:15B4:BF7D:BB (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I agree with you in general but, as the article says, it took the jury more than 25 hours of deliberations spanning four days to reach a verdict of "Not Guilty" on the murder changes. I have not reviewed this but, as I remember it, the jury did not mention "self defense" in their verdict or supply any reason they reached that verdict (I'm guessing that Wisconsin law neither requires or allows that). That said, I'll note here that WP:DUE is an important part of WP:NPOV. Quoting from that: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.[a]" noting in the footnote, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered." It goes on to talk about minority views among RSs vs. more widely held views. I'm not sure myself which view about this are the more widely held views published by reliable sources. Maybe quantity ad prominence of viewpoints about this expressed in reliable sources (see e.g., this) indicates it has sufficient topical weight that there should be a section devoted to it in the article -- possibly a subsection under Acquittal. Just a thought. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Killer Kyle should not be falsely represented as "self defense" when he openly committed murder. Wikipedia should not be offering cover for white supremacists. ExpertPrime (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we go with "Gaige Grosskreutz" or "Paul Prediger"[edit]

Grosskreutz changed his name to "Paul Prediger" after the trial. The article only says "Paul Prediger" in the intro and in a footnote mentioning he changed his name. It uses "Grosskreutz" everywhere else, which reads in a pretty confusing way. I say go with "Grosskreutz" throughout the article - he was Grosskreutz at the time and everyone who remembers the trial knows him as "Gaige Grosskreutz" and only mention the name change in some kind of aftermath section. Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His new name should be protected and stricken from this record. He was victimized enough. This project should not engage in doxing innocent victims. ExpertPrime (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should use Grosskreutz throughout the article, for the reasons you state. His new name isn't relevant to this event, and especially since he has stated that he changed it to avoid harassment, WP:BLP provisions apply. — Goszei (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]