Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Convicted Felons

Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz were all convicted felons at the time of the incident. I think this information needs to be included on this site for public information. Grosskreutz is not legally permitted to own a gun ever again as a convicted felon, and he pointed one at Kyle. 108.18.222.140 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, their backgrounds should be listen in section 1 as well as Rittenhouse. 142.136.62.203 (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

See previous discussions about this. If you have a source on Grosskreutz, that might be worth mentioning. The backgrounds of the victims though do not matter re: this shooting. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Is that why Rittenhouse's interaction with the police prior to the incident is listed on there? Or are you just going to admit to bias? 142.136.62.203 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

New Title "Kenosha riot self-defense case" 91.152.200.72 (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. WP:COMMONNAME, the shooting was self-defense, but it was still a shooting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree to renaming the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrisonkrank (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Typo

The sentence before citation 25 should be in to rather than into. It reads as though he transformed himself into the police. 173.81.33.179 (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek: "ADA Thomas Binger pointed the gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger"

Source for that quote: https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-live-updates-lawyers-deliver-closing-arguments-1649260

This article from NBC has a photo of it:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/closing-arguments-begin-kyle-rittenhouse-homicide-trial-rcna5584

Also, the official video from the trial shows it.

He violated all of the biggest rules of gun safety:

• Always assume the gun is loaded.

• Never point the gun at anyone you aren't willing to shoot.

• Never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

This is notable, and should be included in the article.

Baxter329 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that doesn't warrant any mention in an article about the shooting. VQuakr (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The article isn't just about the shooting. It's also about the trial. The article has a big section on the trial. And Associated Press also just published the same photo. That's in addition to the NBC News link of the photo that I posted above. And the quoute from Newsweek.

https://apnews.com/article/why-did-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge-d923d8e255d6b1f5c9c9fc5b74e691fb

Associated Press, NBC News, and Newsweek have all verified this. That meets wikipedia's notability requirements.

Baxter329 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If those sources (the reliable ones, not Newsweek) thought it was relevant to discuss Binger's gun safety, they'd have mentioned it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"Notability" applies to articles. The shooting is obviously notable. The answer to your question is one of WP:WEIGHT, along with our editorial discretion regarding the massively tangential nature of this. VQuakr (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• exclude This article is about the shooting, not the trial. That binger used poor discipline during the trial is not relevant to the shooting. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Theres a section in the article on the trial. DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The point about the article being about the shooting, not X is legitimate. I made a similar argument for cutting out the claims related to Rittenhouse and claimed parole violations. A legitimate question might be how do we bound what is/isn't included here. Springee (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Include in body I'm not strongly leaning in this direction and would suggest we hold off until some of the post trial commentary and possible interviews with the members of the jury are completed. A number of sources have mentioned this but they are typically sources editors don't like to use. Let's see how things shape up when the trial is over. Springee (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude The lawyer demonstrating with the firearm is irrelevant to the shooting & the trial. ― TaltosKieronTalk 18:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude Your statement about gun safety is correct but not a basis for its inclusion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

no mention of Dominick Black dating Rittenhouse sister

Why is this not mentioned? A lot of media has mentioned it.

Also which of the two sisters was it? The 16yo one or the 19yo one?

Reports also don't seem consistent whether Dominick was 19 or 20 at time. 22:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Why would this matter at all? EvergreenFir (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"causing him to die shortly afterwards.'

"causing him to die shortly afterwards." What do you mean, "killing him"? I think you mean "killing him" and yet for some reason you're obscuring the meaning. 216.66.127.136 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove locations of the people who attacked Rittenhouse

I don’t see how the locations of those who attacked Rittenhouse is relevant to the article 146.168.19.117 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Grosskreutz's claim that Rittenhouse was an active shooter in the lead

There was a back and forth regarding including Grosskreutz's claim that he felt Rittenhouse was an active shooter in the lead [1]. Rather than debate if this is DUE or not in the lead or if this is NPOV or not in the lead, perhaps a better question is if we all discuss what sort of content should be in the lead? How long should the lead be? <pb>Personally I think the length of the lead is pretty good. I would rather see it be 3 paragraphs but the overall length seems reasonable. As for what goes in, I would suggest we stick with basic facts and largely agreed facts (perhaps facts where both the defense and prosecution are in agreement). Grosskreutz's claim regarding his motive I think is one that should be left out. I suspect it's true but is it critical? Grosskreutz also testified he was worried about Rittenhouse's safety [2]. This gets into a murky area of motive. Since Grosskreutz isn't being charged with a crime I don't think his motives are due in the lead. I would put them later in the body. Beyond this example, I would suggest we keep the details in the lead relatively sparse and as clinically NPOV as possible. Also, it would probably be a good idea to discuss potential changes here rather than make live edits to the article when things are likely to change significantly in the next 24 hrs (or perhaps 48 if deliberations last a long time). Springee (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Springee could you fit your comment into #Active shooter statement - repeated removal of RS content above? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, I did comment above. However, I think it would be helpful if we as a group have some agreement about what generally should/shouldn't be included. I used a specific example but I think a more generalized discussion might help here. Springee (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll add another example, I think we should keep information about race out of the lead. It's likely due later in the article since some sources are making claims regarding racial motivations. However, in the lead it tends to confuse the basic facts of the case and can imply motives that aren't clear in non-commentary sources. Springee (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there's too much detail in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, we could probably remove them entirely but at the very least I think

1. Remove 'xxx resident' from every person who's mentioned (in the whole lead)

2. Remove the details of Rosenbaum's injuries.

This would get us closer to beign able to condense them into one JeffUK (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think these details are a minor portion of the lead, and should therefore be kept, since the lead is the proper length for a highly-publicized and relatively complicated issue compared to most murder trials. Bill Williams 02:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually I removed the unnecessary details about where Rosenbaum was injured and moved it to the body, but the "resident" parts of only total ten words out of 359 in the lead, and give important information about each. Bill Williams 02:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I wasn't sure on #2 (that's why it's #2) I do think it makes the lead a bit harder to follow, but if there's reason to think it's important to know where they are all from I'm ok either way.. JeffUK (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2021

At the end of subsection "Rittenhouse trial" change

Rittenhouse's AR-15 is 35 inches long with a barrel length of 16 inches, and Judge Schroeder believed that the jury could only convict if prosecutors proved the overall length is shorter than 26 inches barrel length is less than 16 inches.

to

Rittenhouse's AR-15 was 35 inches long with a barrel length of 16 inches, and Judge Schroeder believed that the jury could only convict if prosecutors proved the overall length was shorter than 26 inches with a barrel length of less than 16 inches.

to fix some grammar issues. 2A02:A467:F771:1:12C:F62F:CBF8:664A (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence needs re-working, I'll take a look JeffUK (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I inserted a sentence with more details which cited supporting sources here. I'm not following this article edit-by-edit, but that seems to have been removed sometime since. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Did the judge really measure the gun? I think that the judge took out measuring tape and prosecutor said that they do not oppose the fact that it is not a short-barreled rifle, so the judge dismissed the charge based on his interpretation of the law (so that the exception applies). 193.25.7.133 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I was watching the proceedings when this came up. I don't remember the judge taking out a measuring tape but I do remember him saying something like, "why don't we just measure the barrel?", followed by a bit of back & forth which I didn't note. The next time I saw anything about this, that charge had been dropped. Neither my recollections nor yours are pertinent, though, in deciding what goes into the article -- proper sourcing is needed (see my comment above). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there's plenty of detail about what happened in there now. Who measured what and what the exact criteria are for short vs long guns are not really important; "He was charged with this but it was dropped" is all we really need. JeffUK (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll defer to regular editors of this article. I'm commenting here only because of my prior related article that edit I mentioned above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@JeffUK: This charge was dropped, from my understanding, because the judge did not agree with the law. One of the defense attorneys said point blank to the judge "That's not the law." That seems rather relevant to me. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't say why the judge dropped it but many people pointed out that the law was clear that someone 16-17 years old could be in possession of a long gun. All the short barrel rifles stuff seems to have come up because the prosecution suggested the exception for 17 year olds might not apply if the gun in question were a short barrel rifle. As I noted in a different thread, short barrel rifles are title 2 firearms and require a background check similar to that needed to own a machine gun. The prosecution was trying to say the defense didn't prove the rifle wasn't a short barreled rifle and thus the charge should be left to the jury. Once the prosecution admitted they didn't believe the short barrel rifle restrictions applied the judge agreed the exceptions to the primary rule (must be 18 or older) no longer applied to Rittenhouse. The wording of the rule is muddled but the judge did follow the text of the law. Legal Insurrection wrote about the law prior to the dismissal but the logic is still sound and makes it clear the law's text didn't apply in this case[3] but a generic jury instruction with the law didn't include several exceptions. Thus a quick read of the statute and the included instructions suggested Rittenhouse was in violation of the law. Further reading of the law showed the exceptions that applied in this case. If you read the AP article it suggests that the judge held off because he was willing to allow the prosecution to see if a higher court would clarify if the rule was being read correctly in this case[4]. Springee (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I was only refering to the wording of the article that said that judge measured the gun - I remembered that he did not do that. I think I must have imagined the tape measure in his hand when he suggested measuring it. The wording has already been corrected with editor that wrote in description: "trying to make the possession statement better, it wasn't measured in court; the prosecution did not challenge that it was short barreled". As the editor wrote - the prosecutors did not challenge the facts, but had difference of opinion about interpretation of the law, so when judge suggested measuring they knew it makes no sense.193.25.7.133 (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It was me! The defense attorney used the tape measure to measure 4 feet from the jury box. He mentioned when he used it that they he bought the tape measure in for measuring the gun, but didn't actually use it for that! JeffUK (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Active shooter statement - repeated removal of RS content

Grosskreutz testified that he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter. This was reported on by:

• Wisconsin Public Radio [5],
• Reuters [6]
• Kenosha News [7]
• Politico [8]
• ABC News [9]
• USA Today [10]
• BBC News [11]
• CBC News [12]

(among others). An editor has repeatedly removed reliably sourced content w/ the active shooter statement made by Grosskreutz here: (Diff 1, Diff 2) and Diff 3

The edit summary from diff 2 states "removed part about him thinking Rittenhouse was an active shooter, because again the other four people who shot or were shot did not list their reasons for approaching Rittenhouse". Well, two of them are dead.

Reflecting what RS state about Grosskreutz is not contingent on an absence of information from people who cannot testify because they are no longer here. Of the four individuals repeatedly named by RS in the event of this shooting (Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz), only two have been able to testify. Grosskreutz's statement is relevant to the Kenosha unrest shooting event, which is the actual subject of the article, not Rittenhouse. A statement reflecting Rittenhouse's perspective is already listed in the first paragraph of the lede. As the other living named individual involved in the shooting, Grosskreutz's view is DUE. The article states "Rittenhouse said he was in Kenosha to protect a car dealership from being vandalized, and to provide medical aid." A corresponding statement from Grosskreutz should be restored in the article. Cedar777 (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Concur with Cedar777. starship.paint (exalt) 14:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we could include his testimony of what he was feeling, but I think we should keep such content to the trial portion and not in the events portion. In essence I think the events sections should be what physically happened, such as a person said this, did that, and so on. The trial portion could contain the testimony that person testified they thought this, or felt that. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This material is already in the article, isnt it? DarrellWinkler (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Per my comments below I don't think this should be in the lead. It should be in the body along with other Grosskreutz statements such as he feared for Rittenhouse's safety[13]. Springee (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not in the lead. Yes, a brief mention of why Rittenhouse was there is in the lead, but that's because he shot three people and is the main subject of the article, causing incidents at multiple locations, while Grosskreutz was only involved in one, and briefly so. Bill Williams 02:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz each had an interpretation of the unrest in Kenosha and what their presence could provide.

• It was Rittenhouse's interpretation that several individuals wanted to take his weapon and use it against him. Rittenhouse determined that he could help deter crime and protect property as a visibly-armed presence, and that he could offer medical services due to his first aid certification.

• Grosskreutz testimony also reflects his interpretation of the unrest in Kenosha and what his presence could provide. Grosskreutz determined that he could attend this protest as a legal observer for the ACLU,[14] while providing medical services as a licensed paramedic with prior experience as a licensed EMT.[15] It was Grosskreutz's interpretation that Rittenhouse was an active shooter that should be disarmed.

RS have underscored that the trial is being closely followed by Americans who are divided on the matter.[16]

Including both interpretations in the lede is warranted. Cedar777 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Skateboard HE WAS HIT IN HEAD, NOT SHOULDER!!!

He was hit in head, wiki is leaving info out!!! Chestershaba2 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The sources say shoulder, but if you have a reliable source that says otherwise, please provide it. Wikipedia doesn't take anything on hearsay. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrong to call names

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.

---

Its extremely left wing and unprofessional to lable him as a white supremacist. 192.253.212.187 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that proves he isn't a white supremacist, or that he has never associated with or recieved support from actual white supremacists, feel free to add it and request an edit. As far as I can tell, and as far as the sources go, all of that is true. The article has never labeled him a white supremacist either so I'm confused to why you take that as calling him one. 2603:8080:F605:4078:91E7:F261:A9A3:9DC0 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The label was added to the article earlier today, but it was quickly reverted. clpo13_(talk) 00:25, 18 November 2021 (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.

Title Name

The acts in Kenosha are classified as a riot, not unrest. There was a police shooting, fires on trash cans and vehicles, and assault towards people. When someone has to put up a sign that says “Kids Live Here,” that’s more than unrest. Change the title to what it should be. I’m tired of people saying they were protests or unrest. It was a riot. 148.78.252.2 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope you get some rest soon. The first place to start such a discussion would be at Talk:Kenosha unrest. Firefangledfeathers 15:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Response by politicians

In September of last year, then Democratic presidential nominee Biden criticized incumbent President Trump on Twitter for refusing to condemn anti-BLM actors as “white supremacists.” The tweet text was accompanied by a video which showed an image of Rittenhouse’s face. [17] It looks like Rittenhouse he was the face of white supremacy for a presidential candidate (who also became president), that's how much impact this incident had, therefore I think this info should be added in the article too. Barecode (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this should not be in the article. repeating that he was 'the face of white supremacy' (rightly or wrongly) would be a massive BLP issue beside not really being relevant to the shooting. The assertion that 'he looks like he was the face of white supremacy ' is not supported by the article you linked to either. JeffUK (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand how this can be a BLP issue. To me it really looks like Rittenhouse was the face (or one of the faces) of white supremacy for Biden and his team. Or else why Biden included his face in the video about white supremacy? You think Biden was showing Rittenhouse as a victim of white supremacy then? Rittenhouse's face was on Biden's tweet about an extremely hot (electoral) topic and that's not relevant? Sorry but I can't believe that. Even today, Rittenhouse is the villain for many of the Biden's supporters - and for the liberal media. How is that not relevant? Since when the biography of a person can't mention the public perception about that individual? Barecode (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I also think it's a bad idea to include this. I could be persuaded by some reliable sources that discuss it. Do you know of any? Firefangledfeathers 21:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

So the central person involved in the incident is mentioned in the hottest topic of the presidential campaign, and that's not relevant? He is the villain for some half the voters and that perception is not relevant? I just can't understand that. I don't know what you consider reliable sources and if they discuss it well enough for you but I noticed this incident was largely reported by the media [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

How is the response of authorities relevant but the response of the then-future president not relevant? Barecode (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This is relevant, notable and should be included. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The response of the future president may be appropriate, if it's neutrally worded and supported by the sources. Why don't you add this information to the article and we can see if it stands? Note that most of the sources listed above are about the defamation claims not about Rittenhouse being some 'face of white supremacy' I think more weight should be put on the refutation than the claims, basically. JeffUK (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There are dozens upon dozens of faces shown in the video, none of them are presented as "the face of white supremacy". Kyle's was and still is an obvious choice to represent the "violence we saw in Kenosha". Perhaps Kyle's presence in the future President's tweet and video bear mentioning in the article but not with such an obviously skewed take on them.--Wlerin (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the tweet should be mentioned in this article, not my conclusion about it. To me, those faces shown in that video represent, in Biden's view, faces of white supremacy. My point was that Rittenhouse obviously was seen as as villain by Biden and his team (and by his voters) and therefore the tweet deserves to be mentioned in the article. It's everyone's job to decide why Biden was showing Rittenhouse's face in that clip - as a face of white supremacy or as a violent person, or as a victim of white supremacy (it seems like an attacker called Rittenhouse the n-word), or a random face or w/e else. -- Barecode (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Then mention the tweet in the article! JeffUK (talk) 12:26, 18 November

I wasn't following this back then (Sep 2020) except, probably, to sometimes notice mentions on TV news. I've probably heard the tweet mentioned, but hadn't seen details. It seems to me that the Nov 15 Yahoo News article linked above is OK for mention in the Responses section (where there is currently mention of a tweet "liked" by Trump). The article reports that Biden criticized Trump on Twitter for refusing to condemn anti-BLM actors as “white supremacists” in a tweet accompanied by a video which showed an image of Rittenhouse’s face, It doesn't say what the text of the tweet was, but includes an embedded video ([27]) -- presumably the video tweeted by Biden. The close-captioned audio (apparently of Chris Wallace addressing candidate Trump, as moderator in a pre-election debate) is, "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities, as we saw in Kenosha, [...]", The audio is cast as a voice-over narration of the video, which shows a clear and identifiable image of Rittenhouse during the "as we saw in Kenosha" phrase. The connection with the "face of white supremacy" tag-line is easy to make, but I'm not clear on where that comes from. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)2021 (UTC)

The term "face of white supremacy" is probably strongly worded, especially if Rittenhouse is found not guilty, and therefore the phrase "face of white supremacy" can look like a virulent accusation towards Biden. My point was that, for Biden and his team, Rittenhouse was someone who represented very well the white supremacy. I never thought about adding such wording into the article. This is not math - where you are actually allowed to add your conclusion (the result) in the article. Barecode (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what change, if anything, you're proposing here, why don't you add the wording into the article that you think should be added to the article? Then we can be clearer about what you're suggesting should be added. JeffUK (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Responses

Does it not seem unbalanced to have a 'support for Rittenhouse' section under responses but not a section about those who condemn him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.144.77 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to add. My very best wishes (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Confusion About Edit

[28] all I edited was a couple words in the lead, no citations, but for some reason my edit added 6K characters and a bunch of citations in the body? This happened to me on another article as well. Bill Williams 00:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion at WP:VPT#VisualEditor duplicating named citations about this. It looks like it's due to a bug in the VisualEditor. clpo13_(talk) 00:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Why call them protestors?

By the time Kyle Rittenhouse's actions become important this was a riot not a protest. At the moment all the people involved are being referred to in this article as "protestors" when they were clearly rioting. All three men that he shot had lengthy criminal records and weren't engaged in protesting anything when they tried to kill Rittenhouse. I think that deserves correction to clarify what was going on when he defended himself from rioters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrixinterface (talk • contribs) 06:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did Rittenhouse get the money for the rifle?

The article said that he used a coronavirus stimulus check to buy the rifle, linking to the CARES Act (I just now altered it to be more vague and unlink it). However, it's unclear if it was a CARES Act check.

The NBC News source says Rittenhouse said he "got [his] $1,200 from the coronavirus Illinois unemployment", which is vague but implies it was an Illinois program. We could assume Rittenhouse was mistaken, but I think that needs some more evidence.

The WaPo source just says it was a "government stimulus program" (although I just looked at the original link, this might've said something different at the time of the archiving, which I didn't look at because my school blocks archive.org).

Could we get it cleared up on where the money came from?

QoopyQoopy (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Does it really matter enough to be in the article at all? JeffUK (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why it matters. If he was entitled to the money he got it goes into a general pot and he takes from that general pot to buy things. Springee (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think this needs to be in the article. Springee (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and remove that bit now that a couple people have chimed in. It doesn't need to be in the article, but if we can nail down where it came from, I think it'd be fine to put it back in. QoopyQoopy (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"We", who? Relying on what cited authority? See WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I speak loosely on talk pages. If a Wikipedian can find a reliable source that says how Rittenhouse got the money. I doubt one exists, since it would likely ultimately have to come from Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse was being vague about it. QoopyQoopy (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

New sources

Are any of these articles considered viable sources? I believe a section describing the opinion of the trial's critics is expected given the intensity of the situation. These articles are in oppisition of the defense and chalk up to calling the trial a sham.

https://www.themarysue.com/kyle-rittenhouses-trial-is-an-absolute-sham/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/11/11/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-prosecutors-crash-and-burn-america-watches/6390215001/

https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-crying-crocodile-tears-1648297

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2021/11/5/22765491/kyle-rittenhouse-jury-self-defense

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/1049458617/kyle-rittenhouse-victims-arsonists-looters-judge-ruled

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict/

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/trial-of-far-right-poster-boy-kyle-rittenhouse-begins/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10191575/Rittenhouse-walks-does-reputation-smears-Biden-Libs.html

https://www.salon.com/2021/11/19/dont-be-shocked-if-kyle-rittenhouse-goes-free--thats-the-system-working-as-designed/

2603:8080:F605:4078:DD30:6CF3:837F:840A (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Info about criticism of the trial would most likely be added to a separate article about the trial itself. X-Editor (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Most of those are opinions, see WP:RSEDITORIAL. Significant views should be included, but per WP:NPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we need not and should not include every columnist in the peanut gallery. The Newsweek piece is lazy summary of Twitter hot takes (and see WP:NEWSWEEK). The view of Jonathan Turley in USA Today is probably a view worth including. The Daily Mail piece is from a deprecated source (see WP:DAILYMAIL). The Mary Sue piece seems to come from a non-expert and niche source. Op-eds from mainstream left-leaning outlets like The Nation and Salon.com can be considered, but should not used to drown out significant right-leaning perspectives. The best sources to use would be eventual third-party sources that comment on the reactions somewhat distanced from the fray ("conservative commentators tended to say X, while liberal pundits often claimed Y") rather than relying exclusively on the reactionary pieces ("this is X!") themselves. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

time correction

Please change 11:49 to 11:48 p.m., according to what is written in the article. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Assuming you mean the 11:49 in the infobox, that's what it says in the in-line cited article JeffUK (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Rifles "never crossed state lines"

The Background → Kyle Rittenhouse section states that

At the time, Rittenhouse lived in Antioch, Illinois, about 20 miles from Kenosha by road. Rittenhouse and his friend Dominick David Black "armed themselves with rifles" and went to Kenosha to help defend a car dealership business

That makes it look like the rifles were brought in from Antioch, but the source provided specifically mentions that that was not the case:

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.

Chamie (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this into the 'sequence of events' section because that's where it belongs, hopefully this also separates it from 'Kyle's house' so clears things up a little? JeffUK (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That looks much better now, thanks. Chamie (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the wording was misleading and factually incorrect. A more accurate account is: According to Rittenhouse, he drove to Kenosha on August 24, and spent the night at the house of his friend Dominick Black. On August 25, Black and Rittenhouse brought rifles to downtown Kenosha to help defend a car dealership business. The rifle Rittenhouse used had been legally purchased by Black the previous April, with funds given by Rittenhouse, and kept in Black's Kenosha home until August 24. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Section for Lies and Corruption

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.

---

it's no secret now that the prosecution was not in the right during this trial, as well as a number of falsehoods pushed by the media. In light of a verdict that is supported by evidence, I believe it's necessary to make it apparent what was proven to be a lie court and which media establishments pushed it. 142.136.62.203 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Impossible, since Wikipedia relies entirely on media as a source for information. So unless the media reports on itself having lied - and only those specific media organizations Wikpedians have deemed "reliable" according to WP:RSP - this will not be included in the article. Perhaps not fair, but this is the rule of Wikipedia. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:11C1:1AB5:4E8C:E203 (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense, all one must do is link an article with the false claim (example: Rittenhouse brought a gun over state lines) and refute it with the trial itself. A section showing all of the corruption is absolutely necessary to ensure no misinformation can be gleaned from the article. 142.136.62.203 (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be considered original research or synthesis, as you would use both the media's claims and the information from the trial to produce information - that the media has lied - which is not stated in either of those sources. How sensible these rules are is dubious and an argument could be made that such strict adherence to news media claims is a flawed way of building an encyclopedia, but those are the rules. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:11C1:1AB5:4E8C:E203 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2021 (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.

Courthouse vs courtroom

Responding to this edit by Wtmitchell for the record as I do have an NYT subscription & could check. I can confirm that NYT specifically states "Judge Bruce Schroeder called it an “extremely serious matter” and said he was banning anyone affiliated with the cable network from the courthouse.". --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

NYT article uses both "courthouse" (several times) and "courtroom" (towards the end of the article). The KenoshaNews.Com article I added has a link to the video, and Schroeder doesn't use either term. He says "this building" which presumably refers to the courthouse, but does a judge have the authority to ban media from another judge's courtroom in the same courthouse? Maybe we should quote Schroeder directly and say "this building". BBQboffin (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2021

Can You please The middle initial “H.” To Kyle Rittenhouse’s Name? His Initial was mentioned when he was acquitted 64.237.85.136 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Why? It's not like he will be confused with any other "Kyle Rittenhouse". He is no John Smith. WWGB (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity at the moment. Love of Corey (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP discussion on listing the criminal records of the dead

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kenosha_unrest_shooting is the place for this discussion if anyone wishes to have it. Dream Focus 18:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit needed

When talking about the weapons charge being dismissed, it says Kyle’s rifle was under 16 inches but it’s supposed to say rifle barrel Calebh98 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit has been made. --DirkDouse (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of superfluous information

"Blake was shot after he opened the door to an SUV and was leaning into the vehicle. As a result of the shooting, he became paralyzed from the waist down. The police shooting was followed by protests as part of the Black Lives Matter movement, which saw a resurgence in the wake of several other high-profile killings by police officers in 2020. The Kenosha protests included rallies, marches, property damage, arson, and clashes with police."

This part here while explaining the background is not needed in the article as it is already explained in detail in the main Jacob Blake article. Thus I vote for it to be removed as it detracts from the Kenosha shooting article and only serves to confuse wikipedia readers.--Thronedrei (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Say their names - Victim name treatment

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.

---

“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. Does the word victim apply? The first definition I found includes people harmed by crime, “event, or action” Dw31415 (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There is probably a better article for the disparity. This is the first one I found but applies to female victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome Dw31415 (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The victims are named in the lead. We cannot put everything into the first paragraph. Knowledge of the victim names does not assist the reader's understanding. We are not here to memorialise the dead. WWGB (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"dehumanizing black lives and describing black and white victims in completely different terms. " Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz were all white. They are all mentioned by name in the lead. JeffUK (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

None of the killed or injured in the described incident were black, so I don't understand the objection about unequal treatment. Besides, the first paragraph is the summary of the summary, so at least this one is written quite well. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Your own source says "Rittenhouse is white, as are the three men he shot", and even if you didn't read that far, the video still shows Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz, who look almost like brothers. I suggest this section be closed as the only responses can possibly be "they were actually white". Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2021 (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.

Racial issues section

I feel like the article should include more information about racial issues(e.g., persons shot, jury). See this Newsweek article [29]. Is there enough material for separate section?--Nowa (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Not really, but as a criticism, it definitely deserves some place. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Should mention all three he shot were white. Dream Focus 18:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Also true. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

More political opinions needed

We only have a snapshot of reactions from politicians, which sound too narrow. There are more decisive reactions (Jerrold Nadler, probably some others) as well as proposals for internship from Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Matt Gaetz and Madison Cawthorn. There was also Trump speaking, along with some other pundits. Please expand the section. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Disagree that this content with specifically named politicians belongs in the lede. Better to keep it in the body of the article. Cedar777 (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I've pointed to the section to be expanded. The lede already covers the reactions well. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose We really should have fewer, not more. Other than playing to their political base why would we care what various politicians (for or against) say about the case. It's important to say the responses were divided and that various people commented but their specific comments/quotes aren't meaningful. If nothing else it would be better to see what legal scholars say. Do they feel this was an example of the justice system working or not? The problem with opening this up to various quotes is soon it could swamp the article and the actual facts of the event would get lost in the volume of opinions. Springee (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Which is why a separate section outlining legal scholars' opinions, when these appear, should be in place. Other than playing to their political base why would we care what various politicians (for or against) say about the case. Because this trial, as Chauvin's trial, or any other trials where the Second Amendment, racial tensions, or both, appear, is hell of a political game and is notable not necessarily for simply being a shooting but also for the political reactions to it. All of these opinions are IMHO notable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Policeman fired for supporting Rittenhouse

Lt. William Kelly, who worked in internal affairs for the Norfolk Police Department, was terminated after he expressed support for Rittenhouse and made an anonymous $25 donation to his defense fund. [30]. I think that should be mentioned in the article in the section "Responses by authorities". Barecode (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty trivial, tangential, and doesn't belong. Sucks for the cop, but this article isn't about the cop. NBC News is a news website that gains ad revenue by printing news of the day regardless of long-term significance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and not everything verifiable is warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Animalparty This article is not about the cop, just as it's not about Facebook nor Twitter nor Rittenhouse's defense funding. Why do you think the reaction of Facebook and Twitter are notable, and the amount raised for funding Rittenhouse is notable but in the same time being fired for supporting Rittenhouse is not notable? How is that trivial and tangential? The authorities consider that financially supporting a person involved in the incident is intolerable - and that's not relevant for this article? Sorry to disagree but to me this fact is very relevant for the article. Barecode (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

In a case that has drawn national and international attention, there will be lots of tangential, trivial news items. A random cop was fired for donating 25 US dollars. If you think this act warrants inclusion, you should also be championing mention that actor Ricky Schroder donated hundreds of thousands of dollars towards Rittenhouse's bail, and took several selfies with Rittenhouse, and the MyPillow Guy also donated funds, as did "a paramedic in Utah and an engineer from the famed Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco." [31][32] Do you think there should be a "response by celebrities" section including the views of George Takei, Lizzo, Josh Gad, LeVar Burton, and basically anyone with a Twitter account? [33][34] --Animalparty! (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In context this could be due. In a section related to how the public was polarized on the case or how support for Rittenhouse was treated differently vs negative information about him or those who supported him. Basically this is a supporting fact for a larger subtopic. It shouldn't be treated as DUE if it's not tied to a bigger picture point. Springee (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Springee - There is already a section named "Support for Rittenhouse". In my view this information fits there. Later, the section can have a sub-section about the polarization of the support - or a section about public view about Rittenhouse. There is also the section "Responses by authorities" and this was quite a strong response of the authorities.

Animalparty - The information is not about the cop but it's about the reaction of authorities who believe that support for Rittenhouse is intolerable and they act accordingly - swiftly and vigorously. You think it sucks for the cop but there are a lot of people who think it actually sucks for Democracy. They see it as breaking the right to privacy, an abuse of the authorities, an oppressive, authoritarian and totalitarian reflex - to quickly disable those who do not share the same views. Imagine for a minute that authorities fired a government worker for supporting Gaige Grosskreutz. I'm quite sure it would have been a huge national scandal, with authorities accused of enforcing white supremacy and oppressing those who disagree. To those many people, the response of authorities around this incident reminds them of North Korea where you are not allowed to disagree with the dear leader. You think they are wrong? That's fine. However, for some half of the voters, this incident is just another relevant piece of the puzzle, along with prosecution asking a witness to change his statement [35], providing a blurry image to the defense and presenting it to prove that the defender is guilty for starting this violent and tragic incident [36], hiding the identity of the attacker Maurice Freeland from the defense [37] and a journalist of an important liberal media outlet allegedly stalking the jury [38]. You can invent excuses for not allowing such information in the article and that would further convince that public that Wikipedia articles are written to comply with the views of the liberals. Barecode (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be more fitting in a section about the polarized reaction to the case including the way some of the tech gatekeepers were favoring one version of events vs another. What is notable isn't that an individual tried to support the group. Rather it was how he was treated by various groups when his private contribution became known. Springee (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious for me how the reaction to the case was heavily polarized - depending on political preference. Democrats hate Rittenhouse and Republicans love him. Such a section would be very welcomed. However my observation is irrelevant and I can't find reliable sources to describe the polarization. Until such sources can be found, the article can actually show - based on sources - the parts that build that picture. However, it was a strong reaction of the authorities. It was not based on evidence, but it was based on their biased view of the facts, a view based on their political preferences. For the authorities Rittenhouse was a white supremacist, for them Rittenhouse was the aggressor who killed innocent people. A view that is not supported by evidence, as the jurors observed. So it's quite a relevant reaction of the authorities, a reaction heavily connected to the incident, a reaction of suppression, oppressive - since it was not supported by evidence - and therefore, in my opinion, for the moment, this information very well fits in to the "Reaction by the authorities" section. Barecode (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

One’s place of employment can limit one’s exercise of one’s First Amendment right to “free speech” even if one’s employer is a governmental agency. What we have here is an honest disagreement as to where the line ought to be drawn, but it is tangential to the article. Pommer 03:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Undue detail for background

Cedar777, you reverted my edit which I believe was wrong. The background section is basically a summary of Shooting of Jacob Blake and Kenosha unrest which are already linked in the hatnote. That Kenosha Guard posted something on Facebook which Kyle Rittenhouse actually did not see--per the cited source--or that the post was redistributed by Infowars/Alex Jones is largely unrelated to the subject and gives WP:UNDUE impression that somehow Kyle Rittenhouse or this incident was related to Infowars/Alex Jones. Normchou ^💬 21:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Social media distributed information about several key aspects of this series of events. The shooting of Jacob Blake was caught on video by bystanders and swiftly distributed to a national audience via Facebook - intensifying the outrage. Similarly, the call to arms by civilian militia was distributed by Infowars which expanded the audience and participation by those outraged by the property destruction at night during the protests. Both of these actions are significant and arise after asking the question: how did this event in a relatively small community (100,000 residents) get so heated so quickly? to the extent that the name Kenosha is now widely known as the center point of debate between Americans?

This isn’t a biography of Rittenhouse, but rather the shootings that occurred during the Kenosha unrest. RS address the questions of: Why was there unrest in Kenosha? What made this town on this date such a volatile situation? The article reflects what these sources have pointed out. Cedar777 (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Well . . . it did until it was removed. The distribution by Infowars was noted by several RS:

• The New York Times (Oct 16, 2020) [39] Infowars, the website that traffics in conspiracy theories, amplified it, as did local right-wing radio stations.
• The New York Times (Oct 26, 2021) [40] The Guard event, boosted by a write-up by Kristan Harris on the website of “The Rundown Live” that was recirculated by Infowars, reached 3,000 R.S.V.P.s.
• NPR [41] The Kenosha Guard page boasted of news coverage in the "national" media — specifically, the far-right website Infowars.
• Reuters [42] Militias organized rapidly on Tuesday on Reddit and Facebook, where users shared coverage from Infowars, a right-wing conspiracy site. Infowars in turn amplified the Kenosha Guard's Facebook post and said the groups were "recruiting citizens to patrol."
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [43] The large presence of armed men Tuesday night in Kenosha has been linked to a local militia group known as the Kenosha Guard, which created a Facebook event called “Armed Citizens to Protect our Lives and Property.” The invitation was re-posted by the far-right website Infowars. and The heavy involvement of armed militia members among protesters has added an element of volatility to this week's protests in Kenosha. While small pockets of armed men have gathered at protests in Milwaukee throughout the summer, the shooting of Jacob Blake by a Kenosha police officer has drawn more people — with more guns. Combine that with lesser-prepared police in a smaller city and national attention that's drawn demonstrators from out of town and the risk of violence increases.
• The New Yorker [44] Mathewson’s post caught the attention of Kristan Harris, a streamer whose work included conspiracy content of the Pizzagate variety. All summer, he had been live-streaming protests, calling himself a “citizen journalist.” Harris wrote a blurb about the Kenosha Guard, which got picked up by Infowars. On Facebook, thousands of people indicated interest in joining Mathewson at the courthouse. Mathewson posted an open letter to Kenosha’s police chief, calling himself the “commander” of the Kenosha Guard and warning, “Do not have your officers tell us to go home under threat of arrest.” Mathewson’s “Armed Citizens” post elicited such comments as “kill looters and rioters.”

Cedar777 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with your point regarding Why was there unrest in Kenosha? What made this town on this date such a volatile situation?, but these questions are only indirect to the subject (i.e., shooting by Rittenhouse that night and its consequences) and should instead be included in the main articles of the background section, whose links are in the hatnote. These questions are WP:UNDUE for this article and border on WP:COAT no matter how many RSes you have listed. Also, disagreed that WP:BLP wouldn't apply here even if This isn't a biography of Rittenhouse per se. It is clearly marked at the top of this talk page that "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." Normchou ^💬 00:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Alex Jones can be trimmed as unnescessary as most of the sources only list Infowars itself as instrumental in spreading the word from the Kenosha Guard. However, these are quality sources (New York Times x 2, New Yorker, Reuters, NPR, and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) and there is no BLP issues with restating a fact that RS list as significant on the date of the shootings. Cedar777 (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Persons shot

Here's more on the persons that were shot. [45]--Nowa (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, more information on those shot could be illuminating to the reader ... or has it already been deleted? Haven't paid attention to this article before the court verdict. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

In general I would leave this sort of background information out of the article. The problem is if you include it then you open the door for both the flattering and unflattering parts and ultimately it's not overly important to the full article. I think the NPR article did a nice job of covering both negative and positive content but honestly, I feel like that is just too much info and out of the scope of what this article should cover. Springee (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The article should at the very least outline how those shot ended up on that road at that time. Were they on the way home from a night shift? Were they taking part in the protests? A Thousand Words (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A whole sentence should not be parenthetical

At the end of the second to last paragraph under "Republican", we have an entire sentence surrounded by parentheses, "...similar to what Rittenhouse had done earlier.[190] (The FBI said that there is no evidence for Antifa's involvement in the attack).[191]" I propose we either remove the parentheses and let it stand alone as a sentence, or remove the period before it and have it as a parenthetical at the end of the previous sentence.JMM12345 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Done. Cedar777 (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

3 confrontations is not correct

The article is written as if there are 3 confrontations, which I don't feel is true. The shooting of huber, at Jump Kick Man, and Grosskreutz all occured within a few seconds of each other, while Rittenhouse was on the ground and didn't move from that location. The trial described it as 2 events, and it seems most logical that way as well. To the degree that something happened in the middle, the only event was Grosskreutz talking to Rittenhouse on video for a few moments, before falling back.

The current article makes it sound as though Huber was shot, THEN grosskreutz spoke to him and was shot, which is not chronologically correct. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the second and third “confrontations” were essentially a continuum that took place at nearly the exact same location. Second and third confrontations should be combined into one chronological section for the second location to include jump kick man, Huber, & Grosskreutz. Cedar777 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

"Second and third confrontations" (sic!). But describing the exact timing is of course important. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I think I put everything in the right order. No text changed, just the two sections combined and sentences swapped around for chronology. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have changed some text. Moved the 'ran away' to the end of the first confrontation, and trimmed a few sentences that had 'According to some source...' because I think they stand alone as facts supported by references, we don't need to treat them as opinion; left some where it is more contentious JeffUK (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Since there are edits in the area, I would suggest we should say the skateboard hit or attempted to hit (or strike or similar) the shoulders and head. Initially we were cautious about saying head since a number of sources said shoulder. However, I think that is no longer the case. Here is ABC news [46] saying, "swings a skateboard at his head and neck". Springee (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Add the Weapon of Grosskreutz to Weapons

Under the point Weapons, you should add that the "AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle" was used by Kyle Rittenhouse and more importantly you should add the pistol used by Mr. Grosskreutz. Sources proving that Grosskreutz had a pistol: GoIdenburg (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Was the pistol used in the shooting? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

No, I think the pistol by Mr. Grosskreutz should not be included per Template:Infobox_civilian_attack. "Weapons used in attacks (this field should not be over-used)". Mr. Grosskreutz did not shoot. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this as it is a very significant part of the reason as to why he was shot. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support As it is a very significant part of the reason why he was shot, it absolutely should be included. To not include it would be purposefully leaving out very relevant information. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not think the behavior by Mr. Grosskreutz was described in RS as an "attack". Not at all. He only wanted to disarm Mr. Rittenhouse. But perhaps one should use another template here, something like a "criminal case" rather than a "civilian attack". My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Those were Kyle's exact words, "he attacked me". You cannot utilize self-defense against a disarming that is not an attack. This has been established in the case. The only reason he was acquitted of that charge and under the plead of self-defense is because it was an attack. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Rittenhouse's words are irrelevant. It was not an attack according to RS. Jibal (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The crime that was prosecuted (and acquitted) was due to people being shot with the rifle. The handguns that are part of this story, the one fired before Rittenhouse fired, and Grosskreutz weren't used in the commission of the crimes charged here. For that reason I would not put them in the info box. I think it would tend to confuse the reader rather than clarify which is the purpose of an info box. Springee (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

He was shot with the rifle because he pointed his Glock at Rittenhouse. This was established in court - combined with reaching for the rifle. The Glock's presence is quite significant in the shooting. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not relevant, as Springee just explained. And "was established in court" is not an RS. Jibal (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per the infobox that's now being used. Love of Corey (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• conditional support If we are talking about just the infobox, if the ar15 is listed, the others should be as well. If the ar 15 is not listed, then the others should not be. the firing of the pistol by Ziminsky and the possession and possible pointing of the gun by Grosskreutz are discussed in many reliable sources, and were brought up repeatedly during the trial. They are important context to the events in question ResultingConstant (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - If we're going to list a weapon in the infobox we should list the weapon that was used in the shooting, not every weapon that was nearby but not used in the shooting. A rock was used as a weapon, as was a skateboard. None of that belongs in the infobox as a weapon. I'm also not convinced the weapon used needs to be in the infobox either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. the only reason Grosskreutz was shot was because he pointed a pistol at Rittenhouse. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's not relevant Jibal (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Grosskreutz's pistol does not conform to the purpose of the infobox ... it was not a weapon used in the attack by the attacker that this page is about ... this page is about a shooting; the gun was not fired. -- Jibal (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

NPOV and BLPCRIME

I read the whole article. It was so much biased against Rittenhouse. Abheygpt1 (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You should start a new section, this is irrelevant to the section it's under.

Regardless, if you think this violates NPOV, either point out here which parts violate it, stick a template on it, or fix it yourself. QoopyQoopy (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that Rittenhouse was acquitted I think we should consider if some of the material violates the general idea of BLPCRIME. Much of the content from the time after the shooting but before the trial should probably be removed. Springee (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: it's not immediately clear to me why that would be. BLPCRIME says we presume innocence, so in theory nothing should change from a POV standpoint. To state another way, if it's a BLP violation today, it was a BLP violation yesterday. What specifically were you thinking should be removed? VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The removal of "victim," which appeared several times, is a good example of the type of cleanup that should be done. It was likely a BLP violation before, and certainly was after the verdict. We should be on the lookout for similar language that remains in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"Victim" literally means "one who was harmed or killed". That's not in dispute and isn't a BLP problem. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think "victim" should be retained in the case where the ACLU was being paraphrased. I presume they used the term and we can use direct quotes to avoid issues with attribution. We shouldn't imply they felt the people were anything other than victims even if the legal system ultimately didn't agree. Springee (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The legal system made no judgment as to whether people were victims. They were victims by the dictionary meaning and have been and continue to be described as such by RS. Jibal (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

'Victim' would presuppose some sort of criminal or moral wrongdoing. Reflecktor (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't; that's simply not what the word means. You can be a victim of cancer, for example. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of definitions of "victim," but in this situation it's pretty clear that the jury decided it was due to their own actions that they were shot, so labeling them victims certainly seems disingenuous. I agree with Springee that if we're quoting or paraphrasing someone, the use is fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Only by a misunderstanding of the meaning of both "victim" and "disingenuous". People shot legally, including accidentally, are routinely labeled as victims. Jibal (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

If we're talking about human interaction then that's what 'victim' refers to. Reflecktor (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

My concern is we had a lot of noise in the pretrial sections that ultimately had nothing to do with the trial. My general feeling is things related to Rittenhouse's actions on the night of the crime are generally in. The trial is clearly due but material that wasn't part of the trial (including disputes where the jury was out of the room) and didn't impact the events of that night should largely be moved out or greatly deemphasized. Incidentally I feel the same way about anyone trying to insert things about others involved in this incident. For example, if "jump kick man" has been acknowledged as identified we can say as much but I would not include his name in this article. I would not include the backgrounds of any of the 3 people who were shot unless it was specifically emphasized by a number of RSs and was part of the trial. My feeling is we really should err on the side of less controversial claims/information related to BLP subjects in basically all cases. Springee (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds more like BLPPRIVACY than BLPCRIME but potato, potahto. I suspect there is sufficient material to break the trial into a separate article, but I think we should wait for things to settle for a few months first. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You are spot on with the suggestion that we all wait and see how things how shake out! Absolutely! Springee (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"I read the whole article." -- irrelevant fact. "It was so much biased against Rittenhouse." -- irrelevant opinion. -- Jibal (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021 (2)

In the beginning, the is a statement about Kyle shooting three people "On August 25, 2020, amid the unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after the police shooting of Jacob Blake, Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois, shot and killed two men and wounded another during confrontations at two locations in Kenosha."

I think that the "shot and killed two men and wounded another during confrontations" part should be changed to "shot and killed two men and wounded another in self-defense during confrontations" 91.152.200.72 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The jury verdict would stand as the consensus on it's own. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not how consensus works here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess I needed an emoji. Anyhow - the point is - this has been ruled self-defense, and is heavily referenceable. To not state that as fact now in the article is deliberate obfuscation - which detracts from the validity of the article as an encyclopedic reference. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The shootings have not been "ruled self-defense" by anyone. That may be an implication of the jury's not guilty verdicts, but it is not a stated fact. WWGB (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not even an implication of the the verdict ... that verdict only implies that the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof in the eyes of the jury. Jibal (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You needed not to state a falsehood. Jibal (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the shootings being considered self defense should be the defacto position on this as he was found not guilty on all charges. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't based on someone's opinion of what should be the de facto position, it is based on reliable sources. Find an RS that says that he shot them in self defense and it can be included. (Note that an inference that he shot in self defense because he was acquitted not only is original research, but it isn't legally sound because an acquittal only means that the jury did not find that the prosecution met its burden of proof.) Jibal (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wisconsin law re Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions, reproduced here, says:

State's Burden of Proof

The State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense.

Jury's Decision

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all ____ elements of ____ have been proved and that the defendant did not act lawfully in self defense, you should find the defendant guilty.

If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.

There's a note in the linked source re the underlined blank spaces there. That's quoted from a primary source, but it's citeable in support of straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge (per WP:PRIMARY).

I haven't seen a RS which would support an assertion re the jury's reasons for acquittal on any or all of the counts, though. There may be one out there somewhere, but I have not seen one. 20:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but we obviously can't use that in the article per WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"Unanimous Verdict"

Seems that several users in the recent edit history object to the use of the term "unanimous" verdict / mentioned that sources do not specific that the verdict was unanimous. Here are some sources that state that the verdict was unanimous:

• https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-jury-verdict-divided-20211120-qweepyvqyve7xcjyc7d2uiyici-story.html
• https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/11/19/rittenhouse-verdict-n2599154
• https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/582382-jury-finds-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty-on-all-counts
• https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/what-they-re-saying-politicians-react-to-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict/ar-AAQV0x8

However, the jury was required to reach a unanimous verdict (otherwise would be a hung jury), which means that the statement is true by definition. Not sure if really necessary to mentioned that it was or was not unanimous, but it is accurate to say that it was.

--DirkDouse (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to say it was an unanimous verdict, because it had to be. QoopyQoopy (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems strange to me, as is, even though it is technically correct. In its present form, it reads "The jury acquitted Rittenhouse, unanimously, of the remaining charges."

I suggest the following addition of deliberation length (from the "the hill" source) and removal of some commas. Proposed: "After three and one-half days of deliberation, the jury acquitted Rittenhouse unanimously of the remaining charges." Semitones (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't all verdicts presented to the judge in those courts have to be unanimous? Willondon (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, in the US and most common-law systems. QoopyQoopy (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Not all "common law systems". Australia, for example, has majority verdicts in some cases. It might be just as well to keep this one word for the sake of those unfamiliar with the American legal system (including Americans).--Jack Upland (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I vote “unanimous” be removed. In the US, by definition, reaching a verdict is a unanimous agreement. Adding “unanimous” makes it sound like it was some higher level of acquittal. Dw31415 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, remove it. ɱ (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Media coverage?

Has anyone done an overview of the differences in media coverage from different sources? Like, not just far right and far left, but overall? I saw both of them stating things that clearly did not actually happen in the videos... TYT and Mr. Jones are not reliable sources! XD However, even when not falling along party lines, there was clearly a lack of fact-checking. 47.221.248.223 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead mentions that "public sentiment of the shootings was polarized and media coverage both polarized and politicized." Kleinpecan (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

How to handle the YouGov poll

@TheXuitts and JeffUK:, it would probably be helpful to discuss the YouGov pole information here since it has been added and removed a few times [47]. First, it looks like YouGov would be a primary source for the information in question. Do we have any 3rd party sources that discuss the information. I found a Politico article that seemed to touch on some of the information [48]. This content might work well integrated into material talking about the media framing of the topic. Most people probably have not looked at this topic carefully and much of the media reporting has proven to be inaccurate. This is an Op-Ed (thus not likely to make it into the wiki entry) that notes areas where what was conveyed in media reporting and facts at trial diverged [49]. Anyway, I think the paragraph simply reiterating what YouGov has said probably should be removed and replaced with 3rd party RSs that discuss the data in context. Springee (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I was waiting to see whether the editor saw fit to discuss it here or re-added it. It's just not relevant to the actual shooting, nor the outcome to the trial, and it's not a 'response' to the trial as it was from a survey conducted while the trial was ongoing; before much of the evidence was known. It's basically indiscriminate data. I think 'Despite a plurality of Americans personally believing that Rittenhouse is guilty of homicide' is also synthesis (That is not stated in the source, and the data says they think he should be found guilty, not that they thought he WAS guilty.) It's basically unfounded defamation, and needs to be much, much better sourced. "A plurality of Americans think he should have been found guilty' is WP:ORSYNTH as it's not mentioned in the source. There's also a bias here as there's no mention of the fact that 'A plurality of Americans thought that Kyle would be found not guilty' nor that a simple majority of people who heard a lot about the trial thought he would be. As a BLP I'm removing it boldly, again. JeffUK (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I will add that to the lead where it says "the coverage was polarized". Citing partisan divide is germane here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a better fit, I've changed it slightly to more closely reflect the wording in the poll. JeffUK (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

JeffUK: I actually specifically mentioned that most Americans thought he wouldn’t be found guilty. You just didn’t read what I wrote. And it IS mentioned in the source that a plurality think he should've been found guilty… that was literally the question in the poll. You just want specific narrative pushed here and it’s clear that’s your intent. TheXuitts (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheXuitts: please refrain from making such accusations, absent evidence.

@JeffUK: the edit Springee mentions is all right and I do not share any of your concerns, being basically stretched in my humble opinion. To explain why:

It's just not relevant to the actual shooting, nor the outcome to the trial, and it's not a 'response' to the trial as it was from a survey conducted while the trial was ongoing; before much of the evidence was known. -> well, the evidence was known for quite a long time because most of it was already published on the Internet. And even that is irrelevant because we don't restrict polls to those that assume that a respondent has profound knowledge of the situation. What matters for us is to give public perception thereof. If you know a better poll, suggest one.

Despite a plurality of Americans personally believing that Rittenhouse is guilty of homicide' is also synthesis (That is not stated in the source, and the data says they think he should be found guilty, not that they thought he WAS guilty.) It's basically unfounded defamation, and needs to be much, much better sourced -> I wonder how many people you've met who would say "yeah, he hasn't committed the crime but let's convict him anyway" (it's semantics, really); plus the opinion is attributed to "the plurality of Americans" - we aren't saying he was guilty.

"A plurality of Americans think he should have been found guilty' is WP:ORSYNTH as it's not mentioned in the source. It is: 45%-32% ratio for all people, 50%-42% for those who've heard a lot of the trial.

There's also a bias here as there's no mention of the fact that 'A plurality of Americans thought that Kyle would be found not guilty' nor that a simple majority of people who heard a lot about the trial thought he would be. Per WP:PRESERVE, add relevant info that you believe was not mentioned but should be there instead of deleting other valid info and ask others to add this fragment too (in fact, that's the only piece I don't believe should be there, because this does not show the public's attitude to Rittenhouse but rather to the justice system in general, which some, particularly progressives, see as biased against racial minorities).

I don't see what the poll has to do with BLP, because we are only citing opinions of the public, which does not influence the facts. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the BLP issue is this is basically still hints at guilt, that most people think he should have been found guilty I think is bordering on suggesting he did something wrong 'despite' being found innocent in court. As I believe it is a negative implication against Rittenhouse, I'm holding it to a very high standard. Using 'A plurality think he should have been found guilty' is slight synthesis of data because none of the sources report on it, you can split results of a poll until the cows come home, unless people report that this particular element of the results are significant then I don't think it belongs. You could just as easily say "Most Americans do not strongly believe he should have been found guilty" by aggregating 'No' and 'Don't know' (or the opposite, etc.)... all of this interpretation of the polling results is inappropriate; we should leave it to reliable secondary sources. Per WP:Preserve, I do not believe an opinion poll has enough weight to be included in the way that it was, let alone giving it even more space; it's a criminal trial not an election. JeffUK (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the BLP issue is this is basically still hints at guilt, that most people think he should have been found guilty I think is bordering on suggesting he did something wrong 'despite' being found innocent in court. I believe that's an overinterpretation. If we say, suppose, that "75% believe 9/11 response was right, according to poll X" doesn't mean that Wikipedia somehow endorses the 9/11 response. It's true that Wikipedia endorses majority opinions in some cases, but only if these opinions are voiced by respectable researchers and scholars, not some random people as in this poll. We do not imply that the people's will as reflected in one poll should be the verdict. If someone reads between the lines and comes to that conclusion, instead of reading the text plainly as written, it has to do with the reader and not Wikipedia. Our job is not guessing how readers may perceive the fragment but simply appropriately present it.

Using 'A plurality think he should have been found guilty' is slight synthesis of data because none of the sources report on it The YouGov source does, I've even indicated where. The poll itself doesn't make the distinction of strongly/rather/weakly, but simply reports Yes/No/IDK results. The overall result is 45-32-23 and 50-42-8 for those who've heard the trial. We don't need secondary sources to define "majority" (50%+) or "plurality" (<50%, but most chosen), and neither do we need them to simply state: option A garnered X percent of support. WP:PRIMARY may be used for that purpose.

The suggestion that the poll is WP:UNDUE for whatever reason is also beyond me, because it shows clearly the polarization along political and racial lines (which analyses are already present in RS, and which the numbers simply confirm). That is the best context to put the survey into. Again, you may move it somewhere in the text but please do not delete it. For comparison, a similar survey is included in the Trial_of_Derek_Chauvin#Opinion_polling article, made by CBS News. The Economist is also an RS, and YouGov is a respected pollster. Why not doing it here? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this content should be largely removed from the leed. A mention in the leed is due but not the extensive coverage. As for the pole in the body, remember the pole is a primary source. We need a secondary source to talk about it for us. Springee (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do we? The foremost criteria are reliability and balance. Primary and secondary distinction in this case only serve as an additional warning against WP:OR but is otherwise a perfectly valid source. (Though I agree the place for the poll is in the body, while the poll merits one sentence at most in the lede). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The fundamental difference in the Chauvin article, is that Chauvin was found guilty in a court, and the poll was in agreement with this verdict. I don't think it's particularly weighty there either but it's a totally different situation. BLP requires us to take particular care when adding information about someone that is negative, saying that most people think he should have been found guilty is negative. JeffUK (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

is that Chauvin was found guilty in a court, and the poll was in agreement with this verdict That's not really a difference. US Supreme Court accepted some rulings that polled badly. That's not a reason to exclude a poll. It should be obvious for a reader that the judiciary and not polls decide guilt or constitutional matters (if it isn't for some reason, either this article is trash or the person would rather remind their civic education classes).

BLP requires us to take particular care when adding information about someone that is negative Yes and no. What matters in these cases is not whether the information is negative (it can be), but that it's not libellous (that's what BLP was created for in the first place) and not covered disproportionately. The fact that a plurality of people believe Rittenhouse should be in jail is not disputed, and is not libellous, either. The question is thus only if the inclusion of info makes the negative balance skewed against someone and is thus unwarranted. The thing is, it simply reflects the opinion of the society, which does not, however, override the verdict. If anything, the poll would, in the light of the recent ruling, mean that Rittenhouse's acquittal is not popular, not that he's guilty. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, WP:NPOV says we cover aspects based on how they appear in secondary sources. The survey is a primary source. Going into such detail without a secondary source violates NPOV. Strictly speaking, if no secondary sources cover it we shouldn't include it. Springee (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't see the formulation you quote. In fact, the text says Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject (emphasis original). It says nothing about being secondary. The only mention of WP:SECONDARY is in WP:BALANCE, but this provision only applies if when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence. It's hard to guess how this could possibly be the case when we have only one poll. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. I suspect we can find sources that talk about this pole. Also if we are going to mention poles we should see if more than one discussed the matter. Finally, we shouldn't give too much emphasis to poles because they are not reliable for deciding the facts of the matter. Citing this pole to show that people were divided on the matter is fine but the level of detail as well as inclusion in the lead gives this pole more weight then it should have. If this pole is that important then we should be able to find secondary sources discussing it's results. Springee (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Among sources covering the poll, if you insist on secondary sources, is a student newspaper outlet from Indiana. Nothing more to be sure.

There's another poll published post-trial, about whether the verdict was just: Morning Consult

As a side note, probably some info should be added about Rittenhouse interview to Fox News. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Gun description in lead vs. body: type vs. full make/model

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the gun in general terms listing that the gun used in the shootings was a semi-automatic, AR-15 style rifle, it is also described by some RS as an assault rifle - and some RS state the precise make and model. The lead of the article (and the infobox) are meant to be a summary of the article and they should state what type of gun this was in general terms and later, within the article body, list the specific manufacturer and model. Many readers of the encyclopedia simply want to grasp the basic info when reading the lede . . . is it a handgun, automatic weapon, or semi-automatic weapon. The general terms should be restored to the lede.

One could easily make the case that it should be called an assault or assault-style weapon and source that to RS example 1 AP News, and example 2 GQ magazine. Instead of using the descriptions less frequently listed by sources, Wikipedia should stick to the general terms most used by reliable sources: a semi-automatic, AR-15 style rifle. Cedar777 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I think semi-automatic, AR-15 style rifle is fine. I don't see much value in putting in a specific brand since there are so many, largely interchangeable brands of riles based on that design. It's a bit like arguing that we need to be sure it is Kleenex brand tissue vs just a kleenex. Springee (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant to your point, but in the latter case, wouldn't we say "tissue"? QoopyQoopy (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your proposed description seems fine to me. I haven't done a skim through RS to verify that it's present in the overwhelming majority, but (anecdotally) it pops up frequently in the articles I've read. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

As I write this, the lead has a Smith & Wesson M&P15 to describe the rifle, not even using the word rifle. This was recently restored from AR-15 style rifle, which had been changed from the M&P15 description earlier. Most readers will not be familiar with "Smith & Wesson M&P15", or even know it is a rifle. I would be in favor of a AR-15 style rifle, the Smith & Wesson M&P15, though I am not so sure "Smith & Wesson M&P15" is needed. Seems to me part of the overall picture of this incident is that Rittenhouse used this type of (controversial) weapon. The lead should speak to a broad audience with as much context as possible, in a succinct way; the precise model of weapon is not essential information to this story. Bdushaw (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

as an AR-15 Style Rifle is by (Wikipedia's) definition 'Semi-Automatic' I don't think we need both. JeffUK (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The term AR15 is a loaded term that anti-firearms activists use out of context to describe any semi-automatic rifle. The firearm was a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle. Just because some journalists intentionally misidentify something for political reasons, does not mean an encyclopedia article should repeat the same error.69.165.145.133 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Many readers have very limited knowledge of or interest in the specifics of firearm types and brands. Many non-US readers are also learning the basics of the Kenosha unrest shooting event via the English Wikipedia by first reading about the controversy elsewhere.[50] Furthermore, it appears much too promotional of a specific manufacturer, to list the make and model anywhere other than the body of the article. The wikilink for Smith & Wesson M&P15 leads to a page that is flagged as a problematic article relying too much on primary sources. This page (Kenosha unrest shooting) should stick to what the majority of RS use to describe the gun: a semi-automatic AR-15 style rifle. It should help a global readership to quickly understand the basics about the general type of gun and why it is the subject of controversy in the USA, without promoting and marketing a needlessly specific brand name. It makes sense to include that info if it is sourced but not for the lede or infobox. Cedar777 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

We must report what reliable sources are saying though, lest it be original research, which is forbidden. This essay is worth a read. But yes, Wikipedia reflects the biases etc. that are found in reliable sources by the very nature of how tertiary sources work. That is sadly unavoidable. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

What about the handgun, should it be referred to as a "semi automatic pistol" commonly used by protective forces all over the world? Tepkunset (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO, we should generally echo what the source cited in support of article assertions call it. The article does that in the instances I looked at, generally saying "handgun" and saying "Glock pistol" with support in one case. In one case, though, the article says "handgun" and cites only this source which describes it as "gun" and "pistol"; there, I think "handgun" and "pistol" are synonyms. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Intentionally misidentifying any rifle as an AR15 is highly promotional. You might as well say that a Dodge Charger is a Honda Civic style car. It sounds like a Colt AR15 salesman is editing this article to promote a firearm that was never even used, nor was any Colt variant of an AR15 used. Yikes!69.165.145.133 (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

In case it matters, I see that this NBC News article identifies the rifle specifically as a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2021

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 result of the move request was: WP:SNOW not to move to the proposed title (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Kenosha unrest shooting → Kyle Rittenhouse shooting incident – I have never heard of this mentioned as a the "Kenosha unrest shooting". Also any coverage of this shooting always revolves around Rittenhouse and his role, as does the content of this article. Therefore, it makes the most sense for the name to reflect Rittenhouse's involvement. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: neither the current name nor the proposed title have a claim to WP:COMMONNAME, so "I have never heard of this mentioned", while true, has little sway here. The current title actually has more Google News hits than the proposed version. I agree that the shooting and Rittenhouse are practically synonymous in the national/international media, but that's also true of Kenosha. Firefangledfeathers 22:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The alternate title would have BLP issues. This article is also a child article to Kenosha unrest; titles are to be consistent per WP:TITLE. VQuakr (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Shootings are usually named by location, time (St Valentine's Day massacre) or victim. "Rittenhouse" goes with "case" and "verdict" but not "shooting". Agree with all previous Oppose reasons as well. Sesquivalent (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have never seen a shooting article named after the shooter. The proposed title does not make clear whether KR was the shooter or the shot. WWGB (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment on the premise that the coverage is about Rittenhouse. The coverage was initially of the Kenosha events, then after KR was charged, of the Rittenhouse case. The defense never disputed that KR shot the three men, but until that became clear in the legal proceedings, responsible media had to be careful to not use terms like "Rittenhouse shootings" or "killings". Even less will they do that now that he has been acquitted. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Shootings are usually named after the location of the shooting, not the shooter. 67.80.108.160 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kenosha unrest is the parent article, not Kyle Rittenhouse. The word "unrest" is through the article, and more so through the references. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name is more accurate considering not only did Kyle Rittenhouse shoot, but so did Ziminski. Additionally, Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were all involved in the incident as well, so naming the article solely after Rittenhouse is not representative of the incident. I think that splitting the article into the Trial of Kyle Rittenhouse would solve the issue of not having an article with Rittenhouse in the name, and having additional information on Rittenhouse there. Bill Williams 03:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As I believe someone above mentioned, splitting the section about Kyle Rittenhouse's trial into a separate article (which I would support) would solve this concern. Joe (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don’t think the trial warrants a spinout. At the moment, the coverage is news primary sources. It may be controversial, but I speculate that very little detail of the trial itself will be the subject of ongoing comment. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2021 (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.

Slow motion edit war

Bill Williams, you have repeatedly overwritten neutral language that referers to the sequence where Ziminsky fired a warning shot, after which Rittenhouse turned towards Rosenbaum by insisting in the lede that Ziminsky caused Rittenhouse to turn and shoot, i.e. that Ziminski was responsible for RH's actions. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3

It is problematic to use the word "caused" in wikivoice (Ziminski fired a shot that "caused" Rittenhouse to shoot Rosenbaum) as it caries a negative implication of blame that simply isn't necessary to convey what the sources actually say. Wikipedia should be very carful to attribute a person's actions to them alone, as the source does, and to avoid any possible perception of blame. Ziminski made a choice (he is soley responsible for his behavior) and Rittenhouse made a choice (RH is solely responsible for his behavior). Ziminski fired a warning shot, after which (2.5 seconds later according to a detective)[51] Rittenhouse fired at Rosenbaum.

The Wikipedia article later states that "At least 16 gunshots from other sources were heard on video during the time that Rittenhouse was on the ground." Did these 16 gunshots or warning shots cause other individuals to open fire or result in other fatalities? Nope.

Here is how sources describe the sequence:

• CNN "Rittenhouse then heard a gunshot behind him, he said. Police detectives testified earlier in the trial that Ziminski fired that initial shot in the air, and Ziminski has separately pleaded not guilty to three charges related to that night. Seconds after that gunshot, Rittenhouse turned and saw Rosenbaum, 36, coming at him with his arms out front, he said. "I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun," Rittenhouse testified. He then shot Rosenbaum four times, killing him. [52]
• AP News On Tuesday, the jury watched drone video that was zoomed-in and slowed down to show Rosenbaum following Rittenhouse, and then Rittenhouse wheeling around and shooting Rosenbaum at close range. [53]

The word caused needs to be removed from the article and replaced with some sort of neutral language ASAP per NPOV . . . Cedar777 (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that Rittenhouse turned immediately after Ziminsky fired the shot, and Rittenhouse claims that is the reason why he turned, and this is not disputed by any source in existence, so how exactly is this not neutral? Bill Williams 08:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Also please do not claim that I have "repeatedly overwritten" something when all I did was make I made an edit that you disagreed with, which you then reverted, and then I reinstated my edit in a different manner and included some of what you wanted in it. That is not "repeatedly overwriting" anything. Bill Williams 08:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cedar777. I've implemented a change to the wording in the lead. ––FormalDude ^talk 08:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude how is the way I phrased it now? I changed "and" to "then" since regardless of what caused Rittenhouse to turn, sequentially he turned after the shot was fired by Ziminsky. Additionally, the citations were in an awkward place, so I put them at the end instead. Bill Williams 08:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks! ––FormalDude ^talk 08:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rittenhouse is White Hispanic

Kyle Rittenhouse is actually far less white in every conceivable way than the men he shot. Can it be acknowledged that he's White Hispanic or Half Hispanic instead of otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:5520:2800:F920:1A14:C6CD:5F5D (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No, not without a reliable source. I've looked into this claim, apart from one or two obscure online tabloids this is not presented anywhere as fact. Snopes has an explanation of the source of this rumour, if anyone's interested. Is Kyle Rittenhouse’s Race Described Differently in Separate Court Records? JeffUK (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

As JeffUK said. For those who don't have the time to read the link, a police officer [...] recorded him as Hispanic based on his appearance, it is not a self-identification. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The prior offense involved a stop for a traffic violation, not an arrest. —ADavidB 15:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, in my jurisdiction it can be both at the same time, it was not my intention if this has broken WP:BLP. Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the statement from here and replaced it with [...] just to be on the safe side! No harm done JeffUK (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

MSNBC banned from courtroom

an employee of MSNBC apparently followed the bus carrying the jurors and was cited then banned from the courthouse. NBC alleges that this reporter did not photograph the jurors etc, but it seems to be an important detail. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be appropriate for an article about the trial but not on this one about the shooting EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO everything relevant about the trial definitely belongs in the Rittenhouse trial section, which will probably be split off eventually. QoopyQoopy (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - not including this very relevant information from the trial section is detracting from the article's status as an encyclopedic reference. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not even remotely "important". And "apparently" is a personal opinion. -- Jibal (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't be as important if the jurors were unaware of the incident, but because the judge informed them, it becomes very important. Same with the Nov 9 videotaping of the jury bus: https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/11/09/rittenhouse-jury-videotaping/ which resulted in the judge "instituting new procedures" to protect juror privacy. I'd like to see that added back in (I was reverted and then the page got protected). BBQboffin (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Separate article for trial?

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.

---

The trial is certainly notable and has been widely covered by all US news outlets. Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 20:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Split The trial itself could easily outgrow this article and will probably need it's own. And there are definitely going to be enough sources in a few days time, if not already right now. ― Levi_OP^Talk 20:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wait. After reading the below comments and considering WP:NOTEVERYTHING, waiting would probably be better. Although there may be plenty of sources about the trial, as I stated, the articles will most likely be reactionary rather than facts about the trail and it's proceedings that could be used to write a good article. ― Levi_OP^Talk 20:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Split The trial section does not contain enough info and splitting it into a separate article would result in more content about the trial on Wikipedia. X-Editor (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wait per comments below. X-Editor (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wait a couple of months for things to settle down. The day/week/month of the verdict is not a good time to be trying to break this up. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. The article should probably encompass both the shooting and trial, which are directly and intimately related. A comprehensive rewrite and critical consolidation should be warranted per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROPORTION and WP:RECENTISM (see WP:10YEARTEST). However, Wikipedians collectively and in general lack the creativity and willpower required to craft a single comprehensive article, and can't resist piling on daily news drivel and "reactions" (see WP:PROSELINE) with meticulous detail solely because news outlets do it. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait While I think the current article should probably combed over once things settle down a bit my instinct is this is not too long and the article isn't likely to get significantly longer. Springee (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait, and maybe if we're lucky, the trial section will be tightened up to a paragraph or two. Then we won't even have to think of splitting. Imagine a world in which the section was just The trial started on $date, and lasted for $days. After $hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all charges. That's what we're doing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Probably no, currently the trial section is WP:Proseline that could be condensed into a few sentences JeffUK (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. In my opinion, the highest value to the reader is to have all of the information in one place, at least at this time. To focus an article only on the trial would divert readers' attention from the facts of the shooting(s), in my opinion. Just wait to edit the trial down to a concise capsule version rather than all the media blather/circus/blow-by-blow/WP:NOTNEWS that is going on now. If in two months' time the trial section is still bloated, then split it out but keep a capsule version here. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split, in contrast to other folks' opinions I think the trial section will grow over time as things settle down and we can get together a coherent, detailed account of what happened. I'd absolutely be fine with waiting though. QoopyQoopy (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. Since the article doesn't exist for the person, despite meeting the criteria for WP:NOTE and WP has taken a position of not recognizing that notability - then everything about the entire event, including the trial all falls under one umbrella - soup to nuts. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not at this point. If the trial section gets too large, yes.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait - This seems like the largest subplot, for a lack of better terminology, to come out of the Kenosha unrest. We've still got the shooting of Jacob Blake as the main topic. We'll see where the aftermath takes us. IMHO, Rittenhouse himself seems primed to get an article of his own, especially if he becomes a political figure of some kind. Love of Corey (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait per comments by Softlavender above. Cedar777 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Split. Separate articles for the Blake shooting, the unrest, and the trial. Electrons are cheap. BBQboffin (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Split (?) The section is not 'that' large currently, but if content is added discussing the aftermath of the trial, etcetera, then it would seem to be sufficient content to warrant a full page. --DirkDouse (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wait for now; if in a few months there needs to be a split, if anything a new article on Kyle Rittenhouse may be needed if he stays in the spotlight. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split - Article is over 100 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• No split. There is nothing so special about the trial, only whole story is notable. But the story is highly significant. The context: [54]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Don't split it's all one event. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• No - It all goes together. Other high profile incidents are combined where the article has the event and the aftermath and/or related trials - no need for separate articles. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split. There seems to be enough coverage of the trial to write a fuller detailed article that goes into the trial itself in more depth than would be appropriate for inclusion in the article on the shooting. Since articles are written in summary style, it would be more appropriate to narrow down the listing of legal proceedings in this article and to link using a {{main article}} template to a main article for the trial. If the holdup is a neutral title, then "State v. Rittenhouse" or something along those lines could suffice temporarily until a better title could be fleshed out; I don't see this being an issue that should hold up a split. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. The proper treatment of the Kenosha killings deserves Wikipedia’s best efforts. Even the language used will be unsatisfactory to many. It’s easy to picture an edit battle. I recommend the trial and acquittal remains a section here until sufficient material is available for an independent page. Dw31415 (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What material, in your opinion, does not currently exist that is needed to justify the creation of an independent page? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until the article gets sufficiently expanded and more stable, but I agree in principle with the idea. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split I think a split at this point is appropriate since it's such a notable trial. I would say the trial itself has similar RS coverage as the Trial of Derek Chauvin. Also I agree with the notion that this will expand over time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Don't split it all goes together. Dream Focus 21:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split The trial and the unrest were two separate events and should have two separate articles. We should also have a page for Kyle Rittenhouse himself. Joe (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split the trial had numerous aspects that would be way too long to include in the article, and many of them are unrelated to the shooting, since the trial was not only about the shooting but also what occurred beforehand with Black and Rittenhouse and also what occurred afterwards with his extradition back to Kenosha etc. Bill Williams 23:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait It's one event, the Legal proceedings section on this article doesn't take a disproportionate amount of text, and the article size is reasonable at 31KB prose. feminist (t) 08:09, 22 November 2021 (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.

Who were the barristers?

Who were the barristers defending (or prosecuting) Rittenhouse?

I know Lin Wood and John Pierce started, but were fired and replaced with three barristers, one of them Mark Richards.

The prosecution was by Thomas Binger and a "Mr Krauss".

Who were the others, and what were the full names? I believe Lin Wood and John Pierce are notable persons of general interest and (in)famy?

The Judge was a Bruce Schrœder and he is described as the most experienced judge in Wisconsin?--2003:C8:4713:4700:45C7:64AA:F496:763B (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, the replacement defense team was Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi; see here and elsewhere. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Minor point- Usually in the US, we don't call lawyers barristers because unlike some other common law countries we don't have a distinction between barristers and solicitors. We just have lawyers.JMM12345 (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Also, Natalie Wisco was another attorney for the defense, but she was mostly just handling evidence. JMM12345 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

References

Hey all, please keep discussions focused on how to improve the article, not for general chatter about aspects of the subject, per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK#TOPIC. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Please include a section about Lin Wood, John Pierce and Mark Richards, Corey Chirafasi and Natalie Wisco in the article, as they are seen in numerous videos and pictures from the trial. Also, Mark Richards said Wood/Pierce were fired after they set up a meeting with what later was determined to be Proud Boys (the infamous pictures that were discussed in NewsNation by Rittenhouse himself and Ashley Banfield in a later commentary).

So I think the lawyers are notable enough to be included into the article. --2003:C8:4713:4700:CCA6:AA3F:34C0:80BF (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Attorneys, not lawyers.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure they need naming to be honest, the prosecutor got some detailed coverage for his interactions with the jury and the judge, but the others were just playing their parts, of course they got a lot of screen time but their identities don't have enough weight, especially as the article is about the shooting and the aftermath. JeffUK (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

Previous: 'Rittenhouse said he was there to protect a car dealership from being vandalized and to provide medical aid.[9]'

Suggested Edit: 'Rittenhouse was there to protect a car dealership named Car Source, owned by Indian business owners, from being vandalized and to provide medical aid to protestors.[9] 2601:640:C580:5580:5104:37E1:1FB1:E32E (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Support: I feel this a good change with helpful details. Icrmowun (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree in view of no support having been offered and in view of the present article content saying, "Accounts differ as to whether Rittenhouse and Black's help was requested by Car Source." Related source-supported assertions follow that. Also, related to this, this NY Times article not currently mentioned or cited says that Dominick Black testified "that someone from their group told Mr. Rittenhouse to go protect the lot where he eventually shot Mr. Rosenbaum." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

We're not saying he was there under instruction from the owners, only that this is why he went. He may have been there to protect it entirely of his on volition, or there to protect it believing the owners requested it, whether or not they actually did JeffUK (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

Change Rittenhouse was followed by Rosenbaum and journalist Richard McGinnis to Rittenhouse was chased by Rosenbaum. Journalist Richard McGinnis followed Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse. GigglyBits (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Source 1

Source 2

It’s also in the article itself that Rittenhouse testified to this version of events — Preceding unsigned comment added by GigglyBits (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I find "chased" more specific and accurate than followed. I found the additional sources that use this same terminology.

Source 3 Shortly before midnight, he was chased by Joseph Rosenbaum, who had come downtown that night and joined the crowd, into the parking lot of a car dealership. Source 4 A detective testifying in the ongoing trial for Kyle Rittenhouse said the defendant shouted "Friendly! Friendly! Friendly!" as he was being chased by a man whom he later fatally shot, as Rittenhouse’s attorney described the confrontation as a "classic ambush." The video, played for the 20-person jury of 11 women and nine men, also shows the man running after Rittenhouse and throwing a plastic bag at him. Kenosha Police Detective Martin Howard agreed with defense attorney Mark Richards that Rittenhouse had repeatedly shouted "Friendly!" as he was being chased and that Rosenbaum appeared to be gaining ground on Rittenhouse. [55] Afraid, Rittenhouse took off running and Rosenbaum gave chase. Source 4 The defense then played a video of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse into a parking lot, with Hernandez testifying that he heard someone shouting “fuck you” just before shots rang out. Source 5 Rittenhouse continued to move in the same direction he was moving previously, and Rosenbaum starts to chase Rittenhouse. Videos taken of the scene from other witnesses show Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse but he was otherwise unarmed. Source 6 Just before midnight, he shot and killed Rosenbaum as Rosenbaum chased him across a parking lot. Icrmowun (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Chased is much more accurate for what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:AC68:1567:2FF8:94DC (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Name of Article

I had a question, Why do we call it the Kenosha unrest shooting. We have articles called the Watts riots, 1992 Los Angeles riots, King assassination riots, New York City draft riots, Crown Heights riot and others. Why don't we call it a riot as well? BlackAmerican (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The name of the base article, Kenosha unrest, was determined here. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Jump Kick Man

The article currently reads "He tripped and fell to the ground after being hit in the head, then fired twice at an unidentified man who jump-kicked him." Note that someone is now being named, but so far none of the sources meet Wikipedia standards. I suspect that will change, with people trying to insert it before or after a proper source is found.Outdatedpizza (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

We have a strong presumption to exclude per WP:BLPNAME. VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

[someone] apparently admitted to being "jump kick man" recently. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

According, so far, to only the Daily Mail which is definitely not reliable and `Wisconsin Right Now` (their emphasis, not mine) which doesn't appear reliable JeffUK (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Now reported by FOX. Likely not a good enough source since it is political, but it is going to come out in sources now. Deal with it how you want, but it is going to be included sooner or later. https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-identity-of-mysterious-jump-kick-man-revealed Outdatedpizza (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM- Wikipedia is not a place to air grievances

By that logic, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, CBS, PBS are all not good enough. Fox calls itself entertainment, has a political agenda that determines its content, was founded as a mouthpiece for the GOP ... none of those news organizations you mention is anything like that. -- Jibal (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Wait, you're saying with a straight face that The Guardian has no political agenda? No wonder Wikipedia is becoming a joke when sources from one side of the political spectrum are considered ok while the ones in the other side are all banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:AC68:1567:2FF8:94DC (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC) SomeRandomGuy 10:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC) You Cant be serious??? CNN is not political??? MSNBC???? I cant think of one major "news source" that isn't political. 22:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC) 2601:5C4:4301:217C:E480:9F0C:8409:151F (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC) You're focusing in on the word "political" for some reason. What Outdatedpizza likely meant is Fox is not suitable as a source for political coverage, as per WP:RSP. This is because editors perceive Fox News to be biased and opinionated. CNN and MSNBC have a history of factual accuracy and as such as considered reliable by a majority of Wikipedians per WP:RSP. ––FormalDude talk 04:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC) SomeRandomGuy 10:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC) The word "political" should be focused upon, because Jibal who I was replying to made it such. Nearly all "news" sources are highly politicized, and Wikipedia unfortunately has become as well. Nearly every wiki page on politics bashes conservatives. CNN and MSNBC have a long history of non-factual one-sided political advocacy - how many of their shows even pretend to be news? Was CNNs coverage of Nicholas Sandman, Kyle Rittenhouse or Huter Biden's laptop "reliable" or "accurate". It's not Fox News that's biased, its the folks who have hijacked wikipedia. The page you point to shows that Wikipedia excludes all non-liberal sources (Fox, dailyMail, NYPost, etc., etc.) that I know of, which speaks volumes about wikipedia's reliability. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:AC3F:7AA6:DD0F:B40C (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Agree 100% with this. Wikipedia is becoming a joke because of this. Who is making the decisions some sources are political or not? My guess is, one side of the political spectrum is doing this and it shows in how biased many articles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:AC68:1567:2FF8:94DC (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC) If in fact he has been identified, I'd imagine an appropriate source will emerge eventually. Yes, there is a lot of garbage hurled out there by the media. The cool thing about Wikipedia is it can filter through the noise, if editors are willing to put in the effort to identify the worthy material. Complaining about the world on article talk pages eats up earnest editors' time and does not help further that goal. The real reason this can't be sourced correctly is probably far more boring and innocuous than you would think. 2600:1012:B061:4E2A:E99E:E1E1:4628:27CC (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Jump Kick Man Is Not Unidentified

If we're not going to put his name, at least put like "something-year-old (place) resident". Saying he is "unidentified" is untrue. HumanHistory1 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The best source I could find for him is this. Others are worse. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, let's wait on this. There's no consensus on the reliability of Fox News political coverage. Normally I'd think it's fine for basic facts like this, but this is a contentious article and every other source from a cursory Google is either worse or something I've never heard of. QoopyQoopy (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• not yet We have an allegation from unreliable sources, and then a statement from the prosecutor saying he things the state knew. Even if we consider Fox reliable, this is insufficient to state in Wiki voice that JKM is identified. At most we could say that Richards said that the state knew. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• not yet Better source needed. Fox News by itself is insufficient for a claim that is a potential BLP violation for Wikipedia. See WP:RSP. Really, this entire article should be purged of Fox News as a source for claims due to the politicization of the subject and the lack of consensus among editors on the reliability of this publisher. Until the identity is confirmed and picked up by better quality sources it has no business being in the article. Cedar777 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Fox is fine for this content. First, for politics Fox's reliability is contested, not "unreliable". Second it's a stretch to claim this is politics vs news reporting. That said, I agree with your removal at this time. Springee (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Eh. I disagree with the above that Fox News is not a reliable enough publisher for this; Fox generally has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in its crime reporting, which the identity of an individual who is pictured in a video plainly falls into. However, I think that the specific report alone actually isn't enough to establish this here as due. Fox News notes the source of the man's identity as one that defense attorneys revealed to Fox News. The Fox report then cites an anonymous source familiar with the discussions between the prosecution and jump kick man as a means to verify the identity. This seems to be enough to satisfy basic elements journalistic rigor—there are multiple sources making the claims and there isn't a clear issue with circular sourcing. However, given that one of the sources is defense attorneys and the other is anonymous, it's not a report that deserves a tremendous amount of weight when making BLP-related claims including allegations of criminal conduct. Jump kick man seems to be a low profile individual, so I don't see the rationale for including his name. At the same time, it's not clearly the case that he remains "unidentified". I've seen a Maine affiliate of Fox include a brief portion of the story on their website, and that local station is clearly a WP:NEWSORG, but the mention is so brief that I don't really think it counts as WP:USEBYOTHERS. Law and Crime also has reported the name of the individual and his age. That website has a published masthead and is currently used in 246 articles. Law and Crime has some backing from A&E Networks, which in my mind lends it some additional credibility to the claim made. As a result, I don't think that stating that he is "unidentified" in a continuous present tense is the best thing to do.

It'd probably be better to say that jump kick man was "then-not publicly identified". This avoids the BLP issues with naming him, while also accounting for subsequent reporting that indeed has publicly identified him. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with that explanation. I believe the best way to go is to attribute the finding to the defense attorney, as I've just done. Besides, the article itself does not cover something out of order, so that's the situation I'd allow it to be used as a source, even if, in a broad sense, it is related to politics. Contentious means someone disagrees with the coverage, but other media have sadly simply ignored it, and not for the best of reasons. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wait So far we have limited information on this. I would support hedging our statements to say something like "unidentified during the trial" which is true and will stay true even if this changes in the future. Not many sources are talking about this and it seems most sources from here out want to talk about politics and the reactions of public figures who were not a party to the case so we probably won't see much more about this. If a few more sources pick this up and if they state it more definitively then perhaps include (Fox was careful to attribute the claim). Springee (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:BLPNAME. VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @VQuakr: I think that there are suggestions that we keep the name excluded but also don't say in wikivoice that the individual has not yet been identified. What do you think about those? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: yes, that went without saying. :) VQuakr (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Await further sourcing - NBC News currently terms Jump Kick Man an unknown person, whereas Rittenhouse asserts to a Fox News Channel host that on Nov. 7 his defense team had learned his I.D. from prosecutors.

  "[...W]e went into the Judge's chambers and the prosecution said, we identified jump kick man, and the prosecution threw a fit a little bit. They didn't want us to interview him. They were like, well, he's a victim, and didn't want my investigators or my attorneys to interview him or ask him questions. They just wanted to do it private, non-recorded, and the Judge said, no, no, no, it's going to be recorded. And then a couple of hours later, they say, oh, he asked for immunity and we're not going to give it to him. So we're not going to be calling him as a witness."

  --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I think what is happening is only some media entities have access to confirmatory material, and they happen to be the sympathetic ones following Rittenhouse, and ones with reliability issues on Wikipedia. I don't think anyone actually cares about withholding Jump Kick Man's identity. Someday the name will be jump-kicked into the public domain. 2600:1012:B061:4E2A:E99E:E1E1:4628:27CC (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Reactions - subsections titles

The reactions to the verdict are split into "Republicans" and "Democrats", which may be second nature in a polarized two-party country, but do we know that every person listed there is officially D or R? Most are politicians, which is easy, but do we know baseball player Aubrey Huff is a registered Republican just because he has established right-wing views? Do we know that Derrick Johnson is a Democrat, when he is the spokesperson of a non-partisan organization, the NAACP? I think these subsections should be retitled something like "In favor of the verdict" and "against the verdict". Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and will do; Splitting it by party lines seems very strange.. especially considering "Far right activists" sit under 'Republican' too. I think the 'Democrat' one reads a lot like a random list of everyone who's commented and risks growing even more. To be honest I think having a section called 'Pundits' just begs for gossip and trivia to be added from anyone who has decided to comment... JeffUK (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think removing 'pundits' and leaving it with JUST politicians removes a lot of the fluff, and restricts the scope, I think the titles are right, the content could be changed to fit the titles not the other wy around. JeffUK (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It is notable that far right pundits support him. It is also notable that an overwhelming majority (if not a totality) of both activists and non political mainstream public figures believe the verdict is unjust. Yes, the coverage of this case, and the reactions to the verdict is polarized, but it's important to outline where the divide is, and who are on each side. This isn't a Republicans versus Democrats kind of polarization. The divide is between the mainstream and the fringe right. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"A broken clock (the fringe) is still right twice a day." or... "A ticking clock (the mainstream) can be off." Maybe this is a combination of the two? 2600:1012:B061:4E2A:E99E:E1E1:4628:27CC (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability isn't the question, I don't think 'what people felt about the outcome of the trial' is relevant to the shooting, and barely relevant to the trial. This is a trial in which a person was found not guilty of any crime. This is not a political campaign where 'support' for one side or the other has any relevance. Where that commentary is very widely reported (such as the President of the United States!) then it becomes more relevant, self-published commentary by pundits is much less so. This shouldn't become a list of 'everything anything has said or written about the trial' . JeffUK (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It is also a trial that has been heavily criticized. Reliable sources and legal experts have brought attention to unusual behavior on the judge's part that imply bias (though that belongs on the article on the judge, now that he has one). Far Right partisan outlets and "influencers" also paint a drastically different picture about the facts of the case and the ruling than what reliable mainstream sources say. It is important to bring attention to who is criticizing the ruling in the case and the fairness of the trial, and who is satisfied with it. The coverage wasn't simply polarized. Mainstream media and public figures were fairly consistent all across the board. Only fringe right wingers went against the general consensus. This may be a trial and not a political campaign, but the far right has made it political by presenting an image of the shooting and the subsequent trial that goes against the official mainstream reporting and pushing conspiracy theories about "far left bias" in the mainstream media. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you cite any sources for this? I'm sure some sources have made such claims but are they even remotely qualified to make the claims? Springee (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've heard the judge be called eccentric, tough on defendents, and seeking to be fair. The only real criticism I heard from voices that mattered was when he applauded the veteran who was a witness. The other soundbites were his (righteous) angry reactions at the prosecution violating his order, possibly maliciously, and violating Rittenhouse's right to silence. Other reports seemed to be more associated with his eccentricity than his ability to be an impartial judge. I disagree that it was "heavily criticized" by impartial and knowledgeable observers. If your information environment is dominated by narrative-pushers in politics and the media, then I can see how you would think the trial was heavily criticized. Quite a bit of criticism was leveled at the prosecution, for its tactics and inefficacy, though. 2600:1012:B061:4E2A:E99E:E1E1:4628:27CC (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

That isn't really a good characterization. Many of the right leaning sources and many legal analysis blogs (regardless of bias) noted the evidence pointed to a strong self defense case. Many of the conservative sources noted that much of the mainstream media coverage either got facts wrong or emphasized aspects that could mislead readers. Examples of getting the facts wrong are that Rittenhouse shot African Americans, crossed state lines with a gun, couldn't legally poses the gun (Politifact got this wrong then claimed the were right even when the charge was thrown out![56], NYP talking about it [57]). The emphasis on crossing a state line without noting that Kenosha was only 15 miles away from his house and that he had a number of family and other ties to the town suggested he went to an area specifically because he was looking for trouble. Thus many conservative sources and legal bloggers noted that the difference between what many people understood to be true and the facts of the case (generally the facts that the prosecution and defense agreed upon) were very different. The catch here is finding "reliable" sources that will note these failures. Springee (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, just because a right wing talking head claims a mainstream source is wrong about something, doesn't make it so, especially when that source has a good reputation for fact checking (which MSNBC does) and they don't. If maintream reliable sources got details wrong, there's evidence of that in other reliable sources that contradict their reporting, or them issuing a retraction. We cannot just throw out reporting by reliable sources on the words of some blogger.

As for your other question, MSNBC and other reliable sources have interviewed multiple legal scholars and civil rights activists on the political implications of the trial's outcome, and the message it sends to white supremacist extremist groups. Parallels have been drawn with people of color being shot by the police without consequence, or being sentenced for less egregious offenses than what Kyle was accused of. Another element that was criticized was the exclusion of Rittenhouse's outing with members of the Proud Boys, and a prior video which has been interpreted as him expressing intent to shoot people, despite the prosecutor making a strong case that those videos show a pattern of behavior that suggest some level of premeditation - the emphasis on crossing state lines is part of the same argument.

I find it ironic you bring up MSNBC as some sort of paragon of anything good that is relevant to this. They were unceremoniously admonished and banned for following the juror bus to "not take photos". 2600:1012:B061:4E2A:E99E:E1E1:4628:27CC (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

And one way or another, this is a heavily politicized case, and that is how mainstream media has treated it and reported on it since day one. 46.97.170.115 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, provide some sources supporting your claims. Springee (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Even then, that some people think that the media reporting on the trial has been biased is a stretch for relevance so would need a LOT of reliable independent sources discussing it. That people on the other side think the judge was biased is a serious accusation that we should also treat very very carefully, and probably wp:fringe. JeffUK (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

After Trump's election, mainstream media collectively had a sort of moment where they said, "We've missed a lot of pain in this country and we will strive to do better." Whether that was a genuine overture or not, this was the last time I felt as cynical as I do toward the news media, across the board. They either maliciously or incompetently covered this, in my opinion. The reason I bring this up, I think it makes writing a "reaction" section so difficult. It's not that we're taking a rorschach test, it's that we're taking different ones. If it's possible to de-emphasize the reaction material for now, I'd advocate for that, because it's on the level of factual disagreement, and it's ongoing, as there are expected to be many defamation and civil lawsuits flying for some time. 2600:1012:B061:4E2A:E99E:E1E1:4628:27CC (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

21 Wikipedia pages with the term "Kyle Rittenhouse"

Please correct me if I am wrong. It is unprecedented that a term in Wikipedia appears in 21 pages of English Wikipedia and yet there is no page with this term. There are 21 pages with "Kyle Rittenhouse" in them. Weird and contrary to the 20+ year history of Wikipedia. Wikipedia would benefit if readers of these 21 pages could click on the term, and quickly read what this term means. These blue links are the essence of Wikipedia. I suggest re-thinking (without personal emotions and bias) whether Wikipedia should have a page "Kyle Rittenhouse" or "Kyle Rittenhouse trial". --Topjur01 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be a matter to be dealt with in those 21 articles, not in this one. MOS:UL says, "In general, links should be created for[ r]elevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully [...]." A Kyle Rittenhouse article currently exists as a redirect to the mainspace page for this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

On this page, the text 'Kyle Rittenhouse' appears 268 times. The page is clearly about him. What is the motivation behind the decision not having in the page name the person who appears 268 times in this page, and also appears in 21 other pages? --Topjur01 (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of this situation is that Rittenhouse is notable because of this shooting and trial, and only that thus far in his life. If his life had other notable facets, such that he received significant published coverage otherwise, a separate article would seem more appropriate. Why not read about what makes him notable in the shooting article? —ADavidB 23:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Independent of this event Rittenhouse is not notable thus it makes sense to discuss the person as part of this article. Springee (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:SUSTAINED appears to be a guideline applicable here. That says in part, "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.", wikilinking to a policy section at WP:BLP1E. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Kyle Rittenhouse should just be a redirect. Not notable outside of this specific incident. Not sure what an artlce about him would even contain besides a brief bio and a link back to this article about the shooting. If he becomes relevant for other reasons later can add a new article at that time. DirkDouse (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Murder

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.

---

I've brought this up before and I will again. We need to stop classifying murder based on a failed justice system, nor what weak lawsuit-avoiding terminology the press uses. This case exemplifies this again. ɱ (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You know darn well we can't without Wikipedia opening itself to lawsuits. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Cultural change is not part of Wikipedia's remit, Ɱ; and not because of lawsuits, either, despite what the Fir says. We don't editorialize here; we use the terminology our reliable sources use. To this Wisconsinite, obviously it's murder, but that's not what the jury called it, and we are not here to Right Great Wrongs™. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This is probably a discussion that would need to happen via a broader RfC, given that this was determined via RfC last year: Special:Permalink/994658134#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Its not murder, the jury was unanimous on this. It was a justifiable homicide in self defense regardless of what any talking head on TV or Twitter says. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

What an absolutely brilliant idea to change facts because of what some guy on Wikipedia believes the facts to be. Why not let these guys edit Wikipedia to say they don't agree with the result of an election? Nothing bad at all can come of this idea. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The people commenting here are not refuting the valid points in my original comment, only providing their own opinions, many of which excuse, defend, or ignore the issue of this teen's ending the lives of two people. ɱ (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ɱ: What exactly do you wish Wikipedia to do, and specifically, what in this article? Are you venting frustrations or asking for an edit to be made? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to engage in irresponsible WP:OR labelling of this event, I'd like to advocate for calling Rittenhouse the victim of felonious and irresponsible vigilantes who chased him and of a lynching of his image by the media and some slanderous politicians, who actually think he had a duty to curl up in the street and die. If you don't like what I just said, please don't advocate for your own perspective here, because it's irrelevant. We have to reflect what reliable sources say, and in the case of contentious labels like the one you used, make it very clear who said it, instead of incorporating it into the article in WP:Wikivoice. 2600:1012:B068:D777:3172:6FCB:3354:9A46 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That is an extreme way of putting it, but neither Rittenhouse and the people he shot should be described in some insulting or praising manner, since that would violate NPOV. Bill Williams 23:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to illustrate how charged words matter here by giving an alternate way of viewing the events. I did indicate that I considered that characterization irresponsible; personally I consider the entirety of this a multidimensional display of stupidity and tragedy; somewhere underneath the tension of dueling narratives, semantic debate, etc. is what this article should seek to responsibly cover, e.g. both the events and reactions, properly and dispassionately. Debates over calling it "murder" at this point is not what wikipedia is supposed to be about. 2600:1012:B068:D777:3172:6FCB:3354:9A46 (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Can this libel be removed and the perpetrators banned? This isn't a forum, and not a place for spreading libel and disinformation. 67.174.115.222 (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

So, who is going to decide what is a murder? You? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:1B3E:A064:38E6:3B39 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the article be titled "Kenosha unrest killings"? Seems like that is more in line with policy. ––FormalDude ^talk 12:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You can't go using a blanket phrase like "failed justice system" then accuse everyone of merely responding with their *opinion* to your "valid points" FormalDude it's right, the objective term to use is 'killing' Joshrav (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please close this blatant WP:NOTFORUM dead-end discussion? The OP seems to have had an axe to grind and vented inappropriately, this is a waste of editor attention. 2600:1012:B061:4E2A:E99E:E1E1:4628:27CC (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2021 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

After the verdict, "fatally shot two men and wounded another in Kenosha" Should be changed to

"fatally shot two men and wounded another in Kenosha in self defense" Cylamar (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure this exact fix is correct but since the first sentence says Rittenhouse shot these people, within the second or third we should say he was acquitted on grounds of self defense or similar. Currently that critical fact is way down in the 4th paragraph of the lead. As a suggestion it could be added as a third sentence.

"On August 25, 2020, Kyle Howard Rittenhouse,[1] a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois, fatally shot two men and wounded another in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The shootings occurred during the protests, riots, and civil unrest that followed the shooting of a black man, Jacob Blake, by a white police officer.[2][3] At trial Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges related to the shootings on grounds of self defense. Rittenhouse and the three men he shot were white.[4]

I could see editors having an issue with Cylamar's suggestion because it states in wiki-voice that the shootings were in self defense. We should respect that the legal verdict isn't a proof of self defense, only that the state didn't prove they weren't in self defense. Regardless, that information absolutely should be in the first few sentences. Springee (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Your suggested prose looks decent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I also agree, springee's proposal is better Cylamar (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Added to opening paragraph. Springee (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we say that the acquittal was on self defense grounds? Certainly there's been RS coverage about self defense law, but I am not sure they are making such a declarative statement of fact about the jury decision. Firefangledfeathers 21:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Here, I've removed that unsupported assertion from the lead section. If it is supportable (which I doubt, barring reports by a RS of a juror statement to that effect), that detail ought to be in the body -- not in the lead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure there's more than enough sourcing for that. Maybe mention he used an affirmative defense, claiming self defense, and was acquitted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

At trial Rittenhouse used an affirmative defense, claiming self defense, and was acquitted of all charges. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added that, and now there is no claim in wikivoice that he was acquitted due to self defense. Who knows, could have been jury nullification because they didn't believe murder should be illegal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Firefangledfeathers 18:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that was not in self-defense. He carried around a large weapon and the moment when protesters attempted to disarm him, they got shot. (Redacted) MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

An observation added at this point was removed because its wording made it a possible BLP violation. The gist, though, was to question why there was no conviction for the crime of manslaughter; that question seems reasonable to me as an exploration of a possible improvement to this article (I don't think it would lead to improvement, but it seems reasonable to consider that). Anyhow, I'm no lawyer, but my understanding from here is that what was termed Manslaughter there is called Second-Degree Intentional Homicide in Wisconsin and the reason there was no conviction conviction for that crime is that it wasn't charged and the jury was not permitted by the instructions given to them by the judge to consider that as a lesser included offense. If the jury had been permitted to consider that, my understanding from the Voluntary Manslaughter Examples section in that off-wiki source I linked is that the decision by the jury regarding whether or not to accept a self-defense argument on that would depend on the details of the circumstances involved and, considering that, whether or not they believed that the amount of force used was reasonable in self defense in that situation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if you were following along during the trial, but the judge did instruct the jury to consider some lesser included charges (second-degree intentional homicide was one of them). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That was a lesser included charge in the case. In the case of Huber, a lesser included charge of second-degree intentional homicide instead of first-degree intentional homicide would mean the jury would still have to find that Rittenhouse intentionally took Huber's life but that he did believe he was acting in self-defense.[58] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I remembered that, but I relied on the list of charges in the Charges section now in the article for info about the charges; I did not and still have not looked at the multiple sources cited in the article to support that list. I've done some googling and found this source which does list Second-Degree Intentional Homicide as a lesser included offense the jury was allowed to consider re Anthony Huber's death. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

He was not charged with the lesser included offenses, they are just included as possible choices for the jury based on the evidence offered in the case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Saying "Texas Senator Ted Cruz" in the politicians section is misleading.

"Texas Senator Ted Cruz" should be changed to "US Senator Ted Cruz". "Texas Senator" makes it sound like he is a member of the Texas Senate, when in reality he represents Texas in the United States Senate. If you want to make it clear that he is from Texas, I guess you can say "US Senator Ted Cruz (Texas)"JMM12345 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

@JMM12345:  Fixed. ––FormalDude ^talk 22:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Black and his role connecting Rittenhouse to rifle in the lede

I agree with modifications to correct the statement that Rittenhouse "took" the rifle from Black by Bdushaw here and Wtmitchell here. To say he "took" it implies that he potentially stole it when the reality is much more nuanced as he had an arangement with both Black and Black's father. It makes more sense to save that complexity for the body of the article, perhaps being best located in the Before the shooting section. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that the connection between Rittenhouse, Black, and the rifle really needs to be spelled out in the lede at all. Most RS concentrate on RH, the larger cultural context, and the three men who were hit by the bullets when sumarizing this event. The NYT article cited states that Rittenhouse had joined a group of armed men in Kenosha who said they were there to protect businesses - it does not include Black. I support moving content about Black from CNN (including added content that he was stationed on the roof of the dealership) back into the body of the article. Cedar777 (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I would agree as well. How he came to poses the rifle could be a murky mess if done poorly in the lead. Probably best just to leave it as something to the effect of, he had it. No reason for the lead to say where it came from. Certainly agree that the arrangement with Black could get complex. Those details do matter but should be in the body. Springee (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not simple to write the Black connection in a brief way, as the lead may require. It occurred to me that much of the text that has been used could be read that Black bought the rifle as a gift. But it seems that Rittenhouse had the money for the gun he wanted, was underage so he couldn't buy it, so he got Black (all of 18 years old) to buy it for him. In short, as I write this, I am in favor of dropping Black from the lead. This issue of the rifle has certainly engendered some strange edits of description; it seems that some would prefer to call the rifle a "modern sporting rifle". I view the issue of teenagers conspiring to buy this rifle then taking it to a violent riot as vigilantes as being a key element of this sad story. Bdushaw (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Your comment makes it sound as if you think that they went and bought this rifle to take to the riots. This rifle was purchased before the shooting of Jacob Blake. It was purchased and owned by Black, using money that Rittenhouse provided. Rittenhouse was unable to own the rifle or purchase it because of his age, but was old enough to possess it. They agreed that Black would purchase the rifle, and it would be stored at Black's step-father's residence (unsure if Black was living with his step-father). Then when they went shooting at property owned by Black's family in northern Wisconsin, they would take the rifle for Rittenhouse to use. They also agreed that since Rittenhouse provided the money for the rifle, that when Rittenhouse turned 18 and was legally allowed to own the rifle, that they would transfer the rifle to him, and Rittenhouse could then take it to his home in Illinois.73.109.140.184 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

First Confrontation section

Several suggestions for changes to this section.

"...and other protesters were moving toward Rittenhouse..." should maybe make reference to Joshua Ziminski being one of those other protesters. That seems to be very relevant later on when it is stated that "A bystander named Joshua Ziminski fired a shot into the air". When in fact Ziminski was one of those protesters moving towards Rittenhouse and not just some bystander.

It seems like the placement of "Rittenhouse testified at trial that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill him." makes it seem like it was at this point that Rittenhouse says Rosenbaum threatened to kill him. It was before this confrontation, on two separate instances that Rittenhouse and others testified that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse and others.

Contents of Rosenbaum's bag were a matter of dispute during the trial. I would probably say something like "...threw a plastic bag with unknown contents at Rittenhouse." The bag was never collected, and it was just speculation on both sides as to what it contained.

Second paragraph should probably have something after it says that Rittenhouse turned and "...aimed his gun at him to deter him from pursuing him further", that says that Rittenhouse then turned and ran again, and was again pursued by Rosenbaum.

Maybe mention that the four shots were in the space of 3/4 of a second. Also, hand, groin and back are listed but not the grazing head shot.73.109.140.184 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions of changes to Second Confrontation section

Should probably be mentioned that Huber struck Rittenhouse with his skateboard between the person hitting Rittenhouse in the head with the rock/concrete in his hand and Rittenhouse falling to the ground. Order of attacks are rock/concrete in hand to head, skateboard to head/arm, falling to the ground, jump kick, skateboard to head/neck, Grosskreutz with handgun.

The section about Grosskreutz having an "expired concealed carry permit" is irrelevant. If you do not have a valid permit, you do not have a permit. Also, further investigation since the incident shows that most likely Grosskreutz permit was not "expired" but was revoked due to previous criminal activity by Grosskreutz. And there is no mention of him having it concealed, so why mention that he had an expired permit to conceal carry?

The gunshots from other sources were not only heard when Rittenhouse was on the ground. They continued as he got up and made his way to the police car. He testified and you can see from video that he turned back around looking in the direction that they were coming from, to make sure that there was not someone there shooting at him.73.109.140.184 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you create an account, then use your sandbox to put together some suggested replacement prose with sources. That would make it a lot easier for us other editors to comment on the changes you'd like to make. If you look a couple sections up where you brought up the change from follow to chase, you'll see I've gathered some sources. That's good editing works on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for Arguments and testimonies

First paragraph should probably not state "...after one of them pointed a gun at him...". That is an allegation that Rosenbaum made. During testimony, there was no testimony of someone actually pointing a gun at someone, and instead a laser pointer used at many Antifa protests was pointed at some protesters by people on the roof of the building.

Should also be made more clear that Rosenbaum was the one that was yelling "shoot me, nigger"

Should be more in the first paragraph besides just saying that Rosenbaum taunted them. Three witnesses testified that Rosenbaum made threats to kill Rittenhouse and those with him. That is more than mere "taunting". The former marine said that he did not take Rosenbaum's threat seriously by the prosecution. But when asked by the defense if he would consider Rosenbaum a threat if he confronted him, and tried to take his weapon, he said something like "a deadly threat" or a "serious threat". So basically prosecution gets him to say that he did not consider him a threat, basically because they were in a well lit area, with multiple people around. But that if he encountered him later on alone, and Rosenbaum was attacking him, and trying to take his gun, he would at that point consider him a very serious threat.

I would put something in the paragraph about Grosskreutz about how he said that he was never trying to kill Rittenhouse, even though he had chased him down with a handgun in his hand.

Third paragraph says that Rittenhouse broke down on recounting those events, making it seem like he broke down recounting the threat by Rosenbaum. But it was while recounting the confrontation with Rosenbaum right before the chase started that Rittenhouse broke down.

This whole arguments and testimonies section is quite sparse. 73.109.140.184 (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Controversies section

it should be noted that the prosecutor twice made reference to Rittenhouse remaining silent. The first time, the judge sustained the objection, and warned the prosecutor, and then minutes later the prosecutor brought it up again, resulting in the judge removing the jury from the court room and admonishing Binger.

Also, Binger began to solicit testimony on a subject that was ruled out of bounds by the judge during pre-trial motions. Again being admonished by the judge.73.109.140.184 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

suggestion on change to verdict section

The last sentence could just say "The jury reached unanimous not guilty verdicts on all other charges after more than 25 hours of deliberations spanning four days"73.109.140.184 (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Multiple info boxes

The article has an existing info box and there is no consensus (see talk page discussion above) to split the content into two or three pages. It seems confusing to have a second info box imbedded half way down the article - so I removed the new one. Perhaps multiple info boxes are common on certain pages of the wiki? As far as I can recall, there is always only one - located at or near the top. Cedar777 (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. Springee (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a note for other editors that the discussion mentioned above regarding a potential split of the article with no consensus has since been archived and can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting/Archive_4#Separate_article_for_trial? Cedar777 (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Multiple people testified that Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse

The article says that Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse. From trial testimony, at least three witnesses testified that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse and others with him. Saying that Rittenhouse said that he threatened to kill him, while ignoring the other people that testified to that, including a prosecution witness, makes it seem like Rittenhouse was making a self-serving statement during his testimony with no corroboration. This should be changed to say that multiple witnesses stated that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse and others, to make it clear that it was not just Rittenhouse making that claim to justify his shooting of Rosenbaum. 73.109.140.184 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide secondary sources that discuss this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Two are already referenced in this article. One being Rittenhouse, and the other Ryan Balch. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580184-witness-testifies-shooting-victim-lunged-for-rittenhouses-gun Joann Fiedler also testified to it. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-complex-task-facing-the-kyle-rittenhouse-jury73.109.140.184 (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The Hill article states: Before the shooting, Rosenbaum had attempted to set fires, Balch said. He testified that while Balch was trying to set the fire, he had threatened Balch and another man within Rittenhouse's hearing, saying, "If I catch any of you guys alone tonight I’m going to f---ing kill you!” Pretty sure they meant to say that Rosenbaum was the one trying to set fires, not Balch. Seems strange that The Hill would not have caught that and corrected it by now. It also states that Rosenbaum addressed Balch and another man, not Rittenhouse, but that RH essentially overheard.

The New Yorker article states A defense witness, JoAnn Fiedler, another Car Source volunteer, testified that Rosenbaum vowed to “kill us motherfuckers” and to “cut our hearts out.” (When the prosecutor asked whether there was video evidence of this, Fiedler replied no.) This does not make clear if Rosenbaum had addressed Rittenhouse, only that he had addressed Fiedler.

There is a distinction that while several others testified that Rosenbaum had threatened them, specifically, they did not state that they had observed Rosenbaum threatening Rittenhouse directly. The existing wording in the article is accurate and should not be modified. It is also true that Balch and Fielder testified that Rosenbaum had threatened each of them. Cedar777 (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

suggestions for changes to After the shooting section.

Make note of that when he got to the police car, not only was he pepper-sprayed but one officer drew his sidearm and pointed it at Rittenhouse, telling him to get away and go home73.109.140.184 (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC).

 Not done - Please provide reliable sources for the changes you wish to make. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Quick note: Due to renewed disruption, I have semiprotected this page for three days and revision-deleted part of its history in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. I apologise to any constructive IP editors affected by this. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I do have to note that I did get a chuckle out of ScottishFinnishRubbish. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Name of Article

Wouldn’t it be better to name this Kyle Rittenhouse Trial instead of Kenosha unrest shooting. Kaleeb18 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It's about the shooting, of which the trial is an offshoot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, its about the shooting. With the trial being more of an official account of the details. Eruditess (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Possession

Under background, we say that Rittenhouse was "too young to purchase and possess a gun." Considering that the possession charge was dismissed based on the judge agreeing with the defense's interpretation of the statute that he would only be prohibited from possessing a short-barreled rifle, I propose that this should be modified to "too young to purchase a gun." We are bound by WP:BLPCRIME, and to say that he was too young to possess the gun that he indisputably possessed when the court ruled otherwise would seem to be close to the line on that.

I understand that the CNN article cited does say verbatim that he was "too young to purchase and possess a gun" and that CNN is a reliable source, but the same article also says later on, "The 941.28 subsections state the illegality would only apply to those armed with a 'short-barreled rifle,' which is also defined as 'a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches' and 'a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.'" which suggests to me that maybe the earlier statement was just the reporter being a little bit impresise with language about the legal minutiae (not specifying at that point in the article that the sort of gun that he was too young to possess was the kind defined under 941.28, even though they later went into that). If CNN wants to be loose with their language, I guess they can, but I think we should be very careful with how we word things on a controversial topic like this and not get too close to the line on WP:BLPCRIME.JMM12345 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Agreed with proposed change. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

CNN's statement appears to be incorrect (RS's can get things wrong from time to time). It would be correct to say he was too young to possess the rifle in Illinois but not in Wisconsin which would explain why the rifle was left in Wisconsin. Springee (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The above assertion that "the CNN article cited does say verbatim that he was "too young to purchase and possess a gun'""is literally true, but gets it wrong by quoting too small of a snippet. the CNN article says (quoting a larger snippet), "Rittenhouse was too young to purchase and possess a gun, but he agreed to pay Black for the firearm, Black told jurors." CNN reports there what Dominick Black told the jurors -- It does not report there analysis by CNN. The other source cited there also makes it clear that what it reports is (their paraphrase of) testimony by Black. If this is to remain in the Background section of the article, perhaps it ought to be reworded to say something like, "Dominick Black later testified at trial that [...], per WP:NOR. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess it is not clear which part CNN is attributing to Black telling jurors. Is CNN stating as a contextual fact that he was too young to possess a gun before going into Black telling jurors that Rittenhouse agreed to pay him for the firearm, or is CNN attributing to Black the whole thing of Rittenhouse being too young to possess a gun and agreeing to pay him back? My initial interpretation was the former, but the latter may be correct on second thought. If the latter, I think that there is even less of a reason to have it in there because Black's personal interpretation of the law is not really relevant.JMM12345 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

JMM12345, It's true that this is issue has been describled multiple ways. I added two sources to the article to support the content as it occured to me as well that the ruling in the trial (Wisconsin) seems to contradict what both CNN (Nov. 19) and Milwaukee Journal Sentenial (Nov. 2) relayed about the reasons Black said he that purchased the rifle for RH. Here's MJS's content: Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15 style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one. and Black said they discussed knowing it was illegal, but agreed Rittenhouse wouldn't get the gun himself until he turned 18. Black's testimony seems to suggest that he did not know of or if the 'short-barreled rifle' clause applied to their situatioin at the time of purchase. Once purchased, Black's stepfather kept it in a locked safe until RH turned 18. Kenosha News (Nov 9) appears to support that as well.

From a later MJS article (Nov 23) not currently cited on the Kenosha unrest shooting page: Dominick Black, 20, of Kenosha, was charged last fall with two counts of providing a firearm to a minor, resulting in death. He bought an AR-15-style rifle for Rittenhouse in May 2020, when Rittenhouse was too young to legally purchase a gun. It only addresses the legality of purchase, not possesion. MJS goes on to state that Black's case has not been thrown out due to the short barrel clause but instead delayed until January. (It may well be thrown out then). I agree that the article would be improved by some sort of modification on this subject. Black's testimony about his understanding of the law at the time of purchase should be attributed to Black and not in wikivoice. How Wisconsin law applies to an Illinois resident seeking to purchase and possess a gun is a bit more complicated and RS inevitably will cover the details if they have not already.

I agree that its best to be careful in how the actions of those involved in this event are described and to refrain from oversimplification of complex problems. Cedar777 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is the gun never left Wisconsin, so Illinois law is 100% irrelevant and doesn't warrant mention in this article. Given that the minor in possession charge was thrown out by the court, I think we have good sourcing (not just Black's testimony) that it was not unlawful for Rittenhouse to possess a long gun in Wisconsin. Straw purchases are illegal regardless of whether the recipient of the firearm is over 18. VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I modified the content to address some of the concerns raised in this discussion. Cedar777 (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the wording now stating that he was too young to purchase but no mention of possession. Bill Williams 02:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Rosenbaum was chasing, not following...

In the second paragraph it says that Rosenbaum was "following" Rittenhouse into a parking lot. That is a mischaracterization of what happened. it was testified to that he was "chasing" Rittenhouse. Big difference between following someone and chasing someone... This should be changed.73.109.140.184 (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for that EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources describing it as a chase. The question is what the weight of high quality sources call it. [59][60][61] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, here are several, what I would consider high quality sources calling it a chase. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/20/1057571558/what-we-know-3-men-kyle-rittenhouse-victims-rosenbaum-huber-grosskreutz https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/enhanced-drone-footage-shows-first-two-fatal-shootings-kyle-rittenhous-rcna5094 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/explainer-what-charges-does-kyle-rittenhouse-face-for-kenosha-shooting "high quality sources" could be difficult for some of the facts in this case. Several mainstream media came out and reported things that were proven to be false during testimony. If you used any story from CNN or MSNBC, this entire article would be completely different with all the spin and false things that they were reporting... That is why I find it strange people are saying that Fox news is not a reliable source. They got this story much closer to the truth that most of the other big name media sources.73.109.140.184 (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe Fox News is considered generally reliable for factual reporting, but less so for political reporting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Some of us would like to forget this unfortunate example of tabloid-like reporting from Fox News but memories like these tend to linger . . . https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/ and by Forbes here Cedar777 (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the fact that "chasing" is the most accurate description, as described by reliable sources[62][63][64] that are left-wing, unlike Fox. "Chasing" is a subset of "following" which is why some sources just stated "following" but chasing is more specific and accurate. Bill Williams 02:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

And some of us would like to remember that all media jumps the gun, makes mistakes, lies, uses altered media, and shows political bias. Fox News is hardly alone in the camp of generally reliable sources that have made mistakes and show bias. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Are there any objections to changing following to chasing, using some of the sources provided above? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I support the change. Chase is clear based both on the sources and the trial. Springee (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the following language has already been edited out, as far as I can tell. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources on subject

November 17, 2021 Rittenhouse Testified He Drove Himself to Kenosha Without Weapon FactCheck.org

November 17, 2021 Rittenhouse Jury Has to Decide If the Men Who Tried to Stop Him Were Heroes or Villains The Intercept

November 19, 2021 Rittenhouse shooting survivor disappointed by verdict, attorney says

December 1, 2021 Viral Post Misrepresents Facts in Rittenhouse Trial FactCheck.org

. . . Recent sources that may have useful info. Cedar777 (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Provocation per Wisconsin law

User Bill Williams removed content in this edit regarding how the legal concept of Provocation applies to Wisconsin law. The text stated "Judge Schroder ruled on November 12 that the jury could consider provocation, where, under Wisconsin law, individuals are required to exhaust all other options before using deadly force in self-defence if it is determined they have provoked a confrontation." This brief explanation (in green), reliably sourced to the quality publisher Al Jazerra (see WP:RSP), is succint and concise regarding the specifics of what the ruling meant in this context in this particular US state. While the wiki link to the concept of provocation is useful, it is not nearly as good as the summary due to the provocation wiki article being far more broad, technical, and hard to apply to this case. The simple explanation is waranted and should be restored in the article along with the source. No explaination was given for the removal of the provocation content/source. Cedar777 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

My replacement text stating "Judge Schroder ruled on November 12 that the jury could consider whether or not Rittenhouse provoked the attacks that unfolded" is far more clear and less confusing than a long, winded explanation of what provocation is. Most people know what the word "provoked" means and do not need a legal definition. Bill Williams 03:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear, there was no "replacement", you deleted half and left behind half of what I added in this edit. It is worth considering that many readers may have a limited understanding of how the term "provocation" applies in a given legal context. Even if readers strenously disagree with the judge for granting consideration of the concept, it's useful towards understanding key aspects of the trial.Cedar777 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Bill's version reads much better. Do we have multiple examples of sources handling this specific information? Alternatively, is it critical to include this in the article? Things are already getting really detailed and we are moving from summary into play by play. I don't agree with Cedar777 here but I do want to compliment their recent work on this article. Springee (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Reuters stated "Under Wisconsin law, if someone provokes a confrontation they are required to exhaust all other options before using deadly force in self-defense." [65]. This is from an existing source that is already used in the article's lede. Clearly, the quality of the source isn't a problem. This was a trial that took place in Wisconsin with the specific application of the law there. The relevant content framing Wisconsin law should be restored and sourced to Reuters directly.Cedar777 (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that makes the article better or clearer. Are we going to go into the detail regarding what counts as exhaust all other options? At some point a simplified summary makes more sense and I think this is one of those cases. Still, perhaps that's just me. If consensus says the direct quote is better I don't think that is too problematic. Springee (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this a bit more I'm think BW's version is better for another reason. The Judge says the jury can consider if Rittenhouse provoked the incident. The law in question addresses when a self defense claim can apply assuming a provocation, not if a provocation occurred. The was the text was presented made it easy to confuse a question of duty to retreat with if Rittenhouse was found to have provoked the attack. Honestly I think this is all too much detail, too much play by play that should probably be left in the sources vs in the article. The post edit sentence is now a one sentence paragraph and has very little context. Why would the judge mention this? If we mention that then we should probably mention that initially the Prosecution claimed Rittenhouse chased Rosenbaum then later claimed a distant drone video showed Rittenhouse aim his gun at someone thus provoking the attack. Since this video as the heart of one of the controversies it would make sense to include it (or cut more out of the article). Springee (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

can you remove the extended conformed for this page because no one gives a fuck bout this shooting anymore it coulda been for only 1 week or 3 but why till march 70.26.174.96 (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"no one gives a fuck bout this shooting anymore"

Well, you seem to be VERY interested in it, for one! 2601:CF:300:4B70:FC11:C761:32AE:E280 (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

is the verdict final?

Most people (me included) are not familiar with Wisconsin justice. Is this all over, or can prosecution (or anyone) call to some higher court to overrule the verdict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:1DC:4570:9DC2:D726:8FE0:9D37 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A CNN analyst said the state prosecution cannot appeal the verdict.[66] Whether anyone else will bring other charges remains to be seen. —ADavidB 23:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A finding of not guilty by a jury can never be appealed in the United States. VQuakr (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The section on “other litigation” in the article covers some of the ongoing criminal and civil actions taken following the Kenosha unrest shooting. Two open criminal cases (Black and Ziminski) and at least two open lawsuits against the City of Kenosha, Kenosha County, and a number of other law enforcement figures and entities (Grosskreutz and Huber’s family are separate suits with separate claimants). In my research up to this point, a few of the sources make clear that Rittenhouse is not among those named in the active civil litigation. Cedar777 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

For Rittenhouse, beyond the "final judgment" we all (allegedly) face at some point, yes. The feds (the DOJ) could look into civil rights without double jeopardy (as Nadler suggested per this page), but that may be unlikely considering the political ramifications or whether or not a strong case could be made (that didnt deter the prosecution here...), civil suits of course are still on the table, as we saw with another innocent defendent, OJ Simpson. 2600:1012:B065:F8DB:31E4:61E0:EE11:128B (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I think this should be in the main article, as the CNN source exists already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:1DC:4570:1CF8:20A7:36C6:ACCD (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing self-defense statement in the lede

The court procedings established beyond reasonable doubt that the shooting was a justified self-defense. If facts and actual reporting is of any value, this should be reflected without casting any doubt, which (casting doubt and presenting self-defense claims as "he said, she said") this article does mutiple times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.235.12.137 (talk • contribs) 15:19 (UTC)

It's an exercise in futility to attempt discussion on this page without bringing sources Wikipedia thinks are reliable. There could be a 100% factual article from Fox discussing the findings of the trial, but Wikipedia editors will deny it because Fox isn't as reliable of a source as the channels that ree'd about Russian collusion for three years.Special:Contributions/CoreParadigm ((talk)) 23:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This is apparently an unsupported analysis by an anonymous editor. If there is a reliable source supporting this analysis, please cite it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Court procedings found no such thing! The jury found the accused not guilty, but said nothing about his motive. Self defence was an assertion of the defence team, not a judicial finding. WWGB (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It says that the protests were “peaceful”

I think that it should instead be that there were many rioters and criminality going on throughout the protest. That is actually what happened, and is why Rittenhouse went to Kenosha. Arson, theft, vandalism, and threatening is not peaceful, and should not be categorized as peaceful in any way. 73.157.11.201 (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. What the article actually says: "During the day of August 25, peaceful protests in Kenosha were followed by chaos...". VQuakr (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

which, in the English language, does mean the protests were peaceful. Doesn't it?

Moreover, it blames peaceful protesters, just like the sentence "During the day of December 11, a peaceful edit by User VQuakr was followed by a Wikipedia vandalism" would implicitly blame you. The fact is, "most of the damage was from individuals with no intent to protest" (wikipedia dixit). "Peaceful protests" are not even separated by a comma from "chaos", when they need at least a period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:1DC:4570:4878:4396:6987:7A3F (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It means that protests were peaceful during the day, with looting, etc in the night. Which is what verifiably happened. No, there's no implicit blame in that sentence. VQuakr (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Misquote

In the Richie McGinniss interview, Rittenhouse's specific words are "So people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and part of my job is to also help people. If there's somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle - because I need to protect myself, obviously. But I also have my med kit." Not sure what would be an appropriate citation in support of that, except maybe the video of the interview itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfAwXIhov9U

72.24.245.34 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Ziminsky was not a bystander

Ziminsky was Rosenbaum were associates, who coordinated an attack on Rittenhouse. Ziminsky was not some radom bystander. At trial, it was revealed that Ziminsky and Rosenbaum said death threats to Rittenhouse. Ziminsky also shot first. Why does this article mislabel Ziminsky as some random 'bystander'. He was not a bystander, he was an attacker. None of the sources describe Ziminsky as a bystander.208.98.222.88 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The cited source from the Chicago Tribune uses that exact terminology.[67] You are simply mistaken that "none of the sources describe Ziminski as a bystander". Here is what the Chicago Tribune source cited in the article states (in case a paywall is preventing verification of the existing source):

"The day ended with the two sides squabbling, outside the jury’s presence, about the prosecution’s desire to present enlarged images that they said show Rittenhouse pointing a gun at a bystander moments before Rosenbaum began to chase him. The bystander, Joshua Ziminski, has been mentioned frequently during the trial but was not called as a witness by either side. The attorneys all agree that Ziminski fired a gun into the air during the pursuit and Rittenhouse testified it made him fearful for his life because Ziminski and Rosenbaum were often seen together that night. The prosecution has suggested Rittenhouse contributed to the confrontation by pointing the gun at Ziminski. Ziminski, who faces a felony arson charge related to a fire set during the unrest, told the Tribune he fired two rounds into the air, though only one shot was captured on highly publicized video. He alleges Rittenhouse threatening him “is the reason I pulled my gun out in the first place.”"

He is twice referred to as a bystander and the authors make clear that accounts differ as to what transpired based on various viewpoints of the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, the defendant, and Ziminski himself. Cedar777 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It this context I agree that referring to Ziminski as a bystander can imply that he was previously uninvolved and just in the area. The degree to which and when Ziminski was involved seems to be subject to debate. Since "bystander" was not critical to the facts I simply removed the descriptor. I think the sentence would read better with some additional descriptor but no obvious ones came to mind. Springee (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

The shooting of Jacob Blake was fatal. 47.32.179.158 (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done. See Shooting of Jacob Blake#Medical aftermath for Blake and sources cited in that article section and in the rest of that article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2021

"Video footage showed Rittenhouse being pursued across a parking lot by a group of people." source #67 does not make this claim at all, and 44 claims it, but does not show the footage. More correct is the following resource, and with the sentence reading "Video footage showed Rosembaum and 1 other person, several meters behind Rosembaum, pursuing Rittenhouse across a parking lot" 219.88.233.81 (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Closing archived request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)