Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting

Bias in this article

I feel that this article has a bias that leads to it ignoring a good portion of the facts. I don't know how it was managed, but it has both strong left wing and right wing bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.22.210 (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain and example of that here? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Despite the editor's wording, I think he may be making a valid point: most editors have strong feelings about the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is this article called the Kenosha unrest shooting? The article is about the shooter. He was not the cause of the unrest. Seems like there should be a page for the events in Kenosha that led to the unrest along with details thereof. Then a different page or a section at the bottom concerning the shooter if there isn't much information on him. As someone that doesn't more than what I just stated, the article is all over the place and confusing. --Asr1014 (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The above user is correct, examples would be "the sources" used. This source describes events in Kenosha as well.

The Federalist is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP). EvergreenFir (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The Rifle and the Invitation

My recent contribution concerning Black and the rifle was recently reverted, fine. But the article misrepresents the relation of Black and Rittenhouse - Black invited Rittenhouse. The article relies on statements by Rittenhouse's defense attorney, which is a decidedly non-neutral source. I would also argue the nature of the rifle, how Rittenhouse skirted the law, etc. are relevant to the incident should be perceived and how events played out. Bdushaw (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

If I understand, the concern is the article currently says, Rittenhouse responded to a call for help from the businesses directly (per his defense attorneys) or Rittenhouse responded to his friend's call for help per RS. I don't have anything against that version so long as we have several RSs backing the story since it would move from an attributed statement to wiki-statement of fact (or we keep it attributed). My concern is first that the friend's name shouldn't be specifically mentioned per BLPCRIME. Second, the origin of the rifle was pushed to the top of the story. While it does matter, legally as it resulted in additional charges against Rittenhouse and charges against his friend, it doesn't have a big impact in the events of the shooting. Suppose the rifle was owned by the friend and simply, legally loaned to Rittenhouse. Would it change the major narrative, no. So the question is how much emphasis should be put on this in the primary description of the shooting. Right now we are near zero, with the only mention being later in the article. Perhaps more than zero in this section but not as prominent as in the edit in question and without naming the friend would work better. I hope that helps find a common ground. Springee (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC) added for clarity Springee (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I am sure there is common ground. Some random thoughts... I'd be in favor of removing less-than-correct statements just now, at least until the trial evolves and facts are established. Right now sources are statements by the defense attorney or court charging documents. I was startled that Black had invited Rittenhouse, at odds with the depiction in the article. I also note that the rifle is noted in the lead - if the consensus is the rifle is of no particular relevance, perhaps that should be removed. But I happen to think how a 17 year old got a rifle from a 19 year old in the adjacent state and they both went to a dangerous riot armed as such, is relevant to the article; they were teen-aged, armed vigilantes. The point about waiting for well-established facts is important, however. Bdushaw (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Just throwing out an idea, what about reshuffling things a bit. In this section start off with the primary story. Rittenhouse was there for X, confrontation with Y etc. Then follow that with extenuating facts such as the back story on the gun, the differences between the defense attorney vs other sources stories as to how Rittenhouse got the call etc. I'm not sure this is ideal but I feel like it puts things in a bit more order. Still, in perhaps two weeks we'll have a whole lot of new stuff to talk about. I think you have convinced me that the rifle should be mentioned in this section (how can we make it not redundant with the later section) but, in my opinion, don't think it should come before the bigger picture part of the story. Springee (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You may proceed as you like - I was just making a passing edit/discussion and won't get too involved. Thx Bdushaw (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Should the lead state that the rifle was a "semi-automatic AR-15 style rifle"? This feels a bit bias WP:NPOV as it then describes the other weapon as a "handgun". Later in the article it talks about the specific model of rifle. The model and style of handgun that was used by the other parties is not called out or talked about. But the core issue is not related to the specific model or style of fire arms involved, and in my opinion serves to bias the article. Tepkunset (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

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 - but the Wikipedia article is not enacting the less common but still used term. Wikipedia editors say what the RS say. The precise make and model may be of interest to some encyclopedia readers and it is listed in the article body for Rittenhouse's gun. If the specific make and model of the handgun that Grosskreutz was carrying strikes you as a relevant detail and it is sourced, it seems reasonable to also list it in the body of text further down. Cedar777 (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cedar777 here. Springee (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

FBI Infrared footage

AP News and NPR have reported on the use of infrared footage in the trial that was taken from above by FBI aircraft during the first shooting incident. This article on the Kenosha unrest shooting already details events taken from several cell phone cameras, yet . . . the inclusion of information from the FBI's infrared cameras has been reverted. The prosecutors and the defense are both naturally seeking to use the infrared footage to their own advantage. The fact that it exists at all is relevant and need not be expunged from the article in a total revert as was recently done. My edit was bold . . . but it does not state that one party was at fault - prosecutors say Rittenhouse chased Rosenbaum who was hidding betweem cars in an effort to escape him . . . the defense seeks to present that Rosenbaum's actions constitued "a clasic ambush" on Rittenhouse. The edit stated what was in the footage, not how each side was describing it. The fact remains that there is infrared footage taken by the FBI that has been presented in court. Perhaps those reverting this can clarify what about that edit is problematic, i.e., how specifically they feel it should be modified for neutrality? Cedar777 (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I think inclusion of the FBI surveillance is highly appropriate, what I object to is the prosecutions characterization of what it showed (Rittenhouse pursuing Rosenbaum) when the prosecutions own witness contradicted that. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, including the IR footage is DUE but the way it was included was effectively parroting a prosecution point in wiki-voice and is an issue because the AP article makes it clear that "appears to show" is in dispute. Jorm shouldn't have restored the content without addressing those specific issues. This is especially true when Jorm restored it a second time despite it being clearly disputed. Springee (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

See the reply to DarrellWinkler above. The footage shows Rittenhouse moving towards Rosenbaum. This preceeded the earlier observations via cell phone video that Rosenbaum was seen moving towards Rittenhouse, as the Wikipedia article already states. Cedar777 (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be best to wait a week and see what is claimed regarding the footage at trial. Springee (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

When the IR video first appeared, some news sources erroneously reported that Rittenhouse was initially "chasing" Rosenbaum, since they were both moving in the same direction, with Rittenhouse somewhat behind Rosenbaum. During the trial, it became clear that this was simply two people moving in the same direction (south on Sheridan), and Rittenhouse did not actually notice (and therefore could not be chasing) Rosenbaum at this time. Rosenbaum then lies in wait between two cars and begins the confrontation of Rittenhouse when he passes by. --Westwind273 (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

According to Kenosha County prosecutors, Rosenbaum engaged Rittenhouse?

In the "First major confrontation" section it states "according to Kenosha County prosecutors, Rosenbaum engaged Rittenhouse and tried to take his rifle from him". Isn't 'engaged' passive voice? Engaged Rittenhouse meaning used dialogue to try to take his rifle, or engaged meaning lunged at and tried to forcibly seize the rifle? More importantly should we be quoting the prosecution when the prosecution's own witness directly contradicts the prosecution's claims?

Richard McGinnis is a videographer who works to support Daily Caller journalists and has frequently attended violent protests in the course of his duties. In Kenosha he had extensive contact with Rittenhouse, and saw the encounter between Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse, hence his use as a witness. McGinnis saw Rittenhouse fleeing whilst calling out he was friendly with Rosenbaum charging after him. When close enough Rosenbaum lunged to seize the weapon. Rittenhouse dodged slightly, and started shooting. The prosecution then moved to treat its own witness as hostile, repeatedly asking variations of the same question to get McGinnis to testify that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum in the back as he was falling, before the judge intervened and told the prosecution it could not dictate what the prosecution was to say, and then the case broke for lunch. So according to the prosecution's own witness Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse and was shot whilst trying to take his rifle, yet the section in question merely weakly claims Rosenbaum engaged Rittenhouse and sought to take his rifle.

Should this be adjusted in line with best writing practices and the actual facts? 人族 (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry about the double post but I missed the defence additions to the McGinnis testimony. Rittenhouse was fleeing for safety but appeared to be headed for a dead end with Rosenbaum chasing him. There was a shot from behind by a friend of Rosenbaum's and that's when Rittenhouse looked behind him to see Rosenbaum charging at him and started calling out friendly. Rosenbaum screamed out expletive you, then attacked. On cross the prosecution was unhappy with McGinnis having suggested Rosenbaum attacked to get the weapon and argued he couldn't know what was on Rosenbaum's mind. McGinnis paused, thought for a moment, then said the expletive you before lunging for the weapon means it's not entirely guesswork. All a bit long winded, but to my mind it contradicts what Wikipedia is reporting. 人族 (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd just point to WP:NOR. It's not for us to try to figure out what actually happened that night. And the charging document (from summer 2020, which the sources in the article are based on) is likely to not match the final facts of the case as more investigation was done in the meantime. Testimony from witnesses will eventually be summarized as part of the facts of the case during the trial. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@人族:, @EvergreenFir: I also believe it should go without a saying that whatever the trial's outcome is, wikipedia needs to reflect what reliable secondary sources say. Not what users believe they understood from listening to dozens of hours of trial footage. There's a distinct probability, that some people will try and push the POV of certain partisan commentators who are not journalists, based on their personal interpretation of the primary sources. For example, MSNBC is reliable. A response video from a youtube lawyer with zero connection to the trial is not. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Generally yes but I would be very cautious about taking MSNBC's general reliability to mean their specific claims about this trial are accurate or is correct in what it emphasizes as significant to the outcome. Zooming out, we should probably wait until the trial is over before making big changes as well. Something that seems significant during the trial might not be in the end. Springee (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_307#RFC_on_MSNBC There has been an RfC on the topic of MSNBC last year that concluded in a unanimous consensus that MSNBC is reliable and their reporting it generally factual. If you believe that's no longer the case, then maybe you should open a new RfC, but I doubt the outcome will be any different. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

General reliability is not the same as always reliable in every instance. Even the explanation on RSP notes this, and generally reliable sources can be challenged by more authoritative sources. Since we are talking about a trial, and the subject of law, people who are professionals in that field would have a more authoritative opinion than a typical main stream media commentator. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Being a professional in the field (i.e. having a degree in criminal justice) does not in itself guarantee that someone is an authoritative source, and unless they are a reputable legal analyst who has done diligent research on the facts of the case and the arguments of prosecution and defense, their commentary is opinion and is in fact worth less than the commentary of a reliable media outlet with a proven history of accurate and factual reporting. There is right now a massive disconnect between what reliable sources report on the trial, and what internet commentators of a particular political leaning report on the trial. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no. A licensed professional is always more authoritative than media who has almost no liability for when they get things wrong. If the media is pulling in professionals then the article gets the benefit of their authority, but if they aren't, they are people who have no expertise on the subject commenting on the subject. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a different but valid way to think of this is if a lawyer with expertise in the field says A=B but not C and MSNBC's talking head says A=C but not B then we should question if MSNBC is reliable in this specific instance. Per OR we can use our own reasoning to decide if a claim made by a source is questionable. If so we can decide to keep that claim out of the article. What we can't do is include the claim then add the commentary that undermines it. Springee (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

A professional has just as much likelyhood of being wrong on the facts of a case than the media. Especially if they don't follow it closely or have a political bias. Compare MSNBC's reporting with how certain youtubers claiming to be legal experts (yet always leaning towards one end of the political spectrum) and you'd swear they're talking about different cases. MSNBC is reliable. Some guy called "Nate the Lawyer" or "Actual Justice Warrior" are not. Regardless of how many times they repeat that they have a legal degree. If MSNBC or other reliable sources invite a legal analyst to break down the case, then obviously what that particular legal analyst says is definitive. If they don't but some guy on youtube claiming to be a legal expert, or some editor claiming to have watched the trial footage says the opposite of what they are saying, the reliable sources are still definitive. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The commentary from some media outlets has been so poor that Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder took time out of the trial to address some of the more egregious examples. He specifically singled out Jeffrey Toobin for criticism and explaining that Toobin was unfamiliar with Wisconsin judiciary rules and case law.

The judge specifically referenced a CNN report in which two legal analysts questioned the ruling, including one who described it as “incomprehensible.” According to CNN. Com, legal analyst Areva Martin made the comment. Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin — who Schroeder specifically singled out — called it a “really unnecessary and unfortunate beginning to this really important case.” “That’s our rule,” Schroeder said. “It’s the law.”[1]

This is why we should take care with comments from "legal experts" who get paid to talk for a living. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If even legal experts covered by reliable sources can be wrong about the facts of the case, "legal experts" who do more commentary than actual legal practice have even less reliability. This just proves my point that reliable sources must be given preferential treatment over self proclaimed "experts". And @Springee:? When you say Per OR we can use our own reasoning to decide if a claim made by a source is questionable, I hope you don't mean that we can just arbitrarily decide that a reliable source got something wrong, because they contradict our personal interpretation of what we think the primary sources say, or because they didn't cover something that we believe was more significant than it actually was. Because if that were the case, articles like the one on the sham Cyber Ninjas Audit would be a cluster(BLEEP) of partisan hackery. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You are mistakenly assuming the RSs are referencing legal experts vs reporters. And yes, we as editors are allowed to question claims from RS on the talk page. If consensus is the claim is wrong we do not have to include it. The rest of your comment about "personal interpretations" etc is false characterizations of my comments. Springee (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If I falsely characterized your comments it's probably because I misunderstood something. I apoligize if that's the case. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that battlelines have been drawn amongst the media with assorted organisations practically campaigning for their preferred outcome irrespective of the facts. The NY Post actually has an article about the 'Framing of Kyle Rittenhouse'. Note I've seen articles giving completely opposite interpretations of the same testimony, and one NYT piece included a quote claiming that a guilty verdict is required to protect Black rights. There's also frequent references to the 'lone survivor' which is ridiculous given his own testimony! 人族 (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Did Kenosha County prosecutors actually say this? They seem to have been trying to prove that Rosenblum didn't try to grab Rittenhouse's rifle, although their evidence didn't back this up. Rittenhouse unequivocally said Rosenblum grabbed his rifle, and the medical examiner said the soot on Rosenblum hand was consistent with him trying to grab the rifle, and McGinnis said Rosenblum lunged at Rittenhouse and maybe tried to grab the rifle, but that's contrary to what the prosecutors were saying at trial. The prosecutors tried to get the medical examiner to say that Rosenblum was trying to bat the rifle away, but the medical examiner wouldn't go along. They also tried to prove that Roensblum was too far away to grab the rifle, but the medical examiner wouldn't go along with that either. And they claimed that the drone footage showed that he was too far away (although it didn't). But whatever you think of the evidence, I don't think it's accurate to say "according to Kenosha County prosecutors, Rosenbaum engaged Rittenhouse and tried to take his rifle from him." If Rosenbaum was trying to take the rifle, that destroys their whole case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagcowan (talk • contribs) 05:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe the take the rifle part came from the original criminal complaint rather than the testimony at trial. Springee (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Updates on the Rittenhouse trial and criminal histories of the victims

Sorry for double post, I went down a rabbit trail and noticed that there was more missing content then I thought.

I noticed that there is no content related to the trail that was held recently, nor was there any mention of related events. I can't edit the page because it is protected, but I thought I might help with the process by posting several links. Judge says person was caught filming jurors, Grosskreutz says he was pointing a gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot, and Grosskreutz testifying, prosecutor facepalming. Not sure if the latter link is worth a sentence but I just thought it was an interesting part of the story.

I also don't see anything related to the criminal history of the victims, which has also been widely reported (Grosskreutz here, but all other sources are far-right and don't actually back up their claims. Rosenbaum here, here, and here. Huber here, here ) There is also a Snopes article fact-checking some of the claims made on social media which also confirms the criminal histories of the victims.

Just thought I'd compile some stuff. Still wish I could edit pages, but all the ones I can usually have all the information there is on the internet about them because they are so small. ArmageddonAviation (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless there was a breakout section of each of the participants, I don't think details on their criminal backgrounds would be appropriate. That might change in the future, Hubers history of domestic abuse and Rosenbaums history of child molestation havent been brought up at trial so I dont think they warrant inclusion here. DarrellWinkler (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't sure if those were important or not. ArmageddonAviation (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Those are not related to this shooting. None of the sources by AA are reliable either. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ABC News, AP, and NPR are reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the sources about the victims. Pardon my lack of specificity. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The criminal history of any victim is not relevant and cannot be brought up in court unless it was known to the defendant at the time AND had influence on his actions. --Asr1014 (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

In general that's true but not always specifically true. For example, if a previous history can establish a pattern of behavior then it could be admissible. A and B get in a bar fight, A dies and B claims self defense. Well if A had a long history of getting in bar fights that could be relevant to support that A started the fight. In this case Huber's aunt was going to testify that he was a good person (create sympathy for the deceased). The defense argued that if this was allowed they should be allowed to ask the aunt about less savory events from Huber's past that could indicate a tendency towards confrontation [2]. Faced with the negative testimony about Huber the prosecution declined to ask character type questions of his great aunt. Springee (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Rosenbaum's mental health was discussed in moderate depth during the trial thanks to the prosecution opening the door. I think his criminal record was raised as well - had to leave his girlfriend's place due to domestic violence order, but please don't quote me on that. 人族 (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Guardian Article no longer relevant

Based on what we now know, the Guardian article cited in the Responses section should go:

The two men shot dead when white armed extremists disrupted a Black Lives Matter protest and at least one agitator opened fire on a group of protesters in Kenosha have been identified.

Their characterization of the events are woefully out of date, and I am going to remove it. DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@DarrellWinkler: Thanks. Sorry for revert. A09090091 (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem! DarrellWinkler (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully I disagree. It doesn't matter if the Guardian's claims are radically at odds with the facts, that's what the media response was at the time. 人族 (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Who pointed a gun at whom and when . . .

It’s misleading to stress the detail of Grosskreutz pointing a gun at Rittenhouse. Depending on which video image still one views, there are a number of things he does in a very short time period. The CBS source says this “When Rittenhouse shot Huber, Grosskreutz froze, ducked, and took a step back with his hands in the air, prosecutors said. Grosskreutz then moved toward Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse fired one shot at him, striking him in the right arm, prosecutors said.” Yes, Grosskreutz had a handgun but he was not consistently pointing it at Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse had a gun for the duration of the night and he pointed it at Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz, among others yet we are not highlighting these details in the article . . . Cedar777 (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Grosskreutz, testifying for the prosecution, stated he was pointing is pistol at Rittenhouse when he was shot. He testified he didn't mean to point his pistol at Rittenhouse, but that is immaterial to the charges. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

So what's the real story here? Help me understand this. It looks like two "good guys with guns" think the other one is an active shooter, and the real active shooter shoots the good guy in self defense and gets away with it because he was faster, was under age and had no justification for being there. That's really confusing, and I guess there really was a lot of confusion at the time. -- Valjean (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's let reliable sources and the jury sort it out. This type of speculation is unhelpful. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Heres the BBC on it[3]:

Under tense cross-examination on Monday, the defendant's lawyer, Corey Chirafisi, asked Mr Grosskreutz: "When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?" "Correct," Mr Grosskreutz said. "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Mr Chirafisi continued. "Correct," Mr Grosskreutz said.

There are reliable sources confirming this is what happened. DarrellWinkler (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Grosskreutz was illegally carrying a firearm at the time. Only when he pointed it at Rittenhouse did Rittenhouse fire a single shot in self defence. I wouldn't call this 2 good guys with guns, but rather one who has confessed to a crime but is not being charged - as far as I'm aware, and the other who is enduring a trial to determine if he was a good guy with a gun. 人族 (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Plague of Original Research and BLP Violations

I am very concerned at the levels of Original Research and BLP violations that are happening on this talk page. Editors are willy-nilly engaging in this behavior and it really needs to stop. Perhaps @Evergreenfir: or @Liz: can do some clean up. Jorm (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ugh that's supposed to be @EvergreenFir Jorm (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, lots of people seem to be following the trial and then coming here with statements they hear. Comments, speculation, and retelling of trial statements here should probably be removed unless they are accompanied by reliable sources, at least while the trial is ongoing. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Jorm, unless there is a specific BLP violation please do not close discussions. Per WP:OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages". Discussions of content that may be included in the article are legitimate exceptions to OR. Springee (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

We are absolutely not, under any circumstances, going to use this talk page to vilify dead people in an attempt to "prove" an innocence, which is absolutely what is happening here, and you know it. Jorm (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

To the extent that any comments violate BLP they can be dealt with. Ideally, please assume good faith when dealing with such issues. In the discussions you are closing above you didn't cite any BLP violations, only discussions related to content and what might be DUE in the article. Springee (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. Jorm (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think editors here are violating BLP etc then take them to ANI. Don't disrupt discussions to which you are otherwise not contributing. Springee (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of narrative talking points going on, but some of the content isn't just OR. Like Gaige Grosskreutz's testimony on pointing the gun at Rittenhouse is covered in the NY Times here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony.html. Though it would probably be best to have actual article suggestions instead of the forumy content we've been having. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep an eye on this page. BLP needs to be enforced for sure; statements of criminal acts without sources need removed. This trial is certainly polarizing and we'll need to make sure details added as testimony continues reflect the whole picture. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I concur. This is exactly what I cautioned against above. We go by reliable secondary sources, not our personal interpretations of the trial footage, and not by the evidently biased interpretations of partisan commentators who get paid by their audience to bend themselves into a pretzel while reframing the facts to suit their political narrative. Mainstream news outlets give a very clear picture of this case, the facts of the case, and what the possible outcomes are. That is what we go by. Not some bizzarro alternate universe that certain talking heads apparently live in. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You really are twisting what people are saying into something that is not at all reflective of the actual discussions. As to your point about media coverage, I would suggest reading Glenn Greenwald's comments about how much of the media got this very wrong. [4]. The Hill also covered this [5]. Springee (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not my intention to twist anything, though I did go off on an unnecessary tangent there. I'm just going to stop now, at least until there's a definitive verdict. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It's frankly ridiculous that you'd bring up Greenwald. Jorm (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Why? Hes become quite the media critic as of late. DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

[REDACT] Sure. Sounds reliable. Jorm (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is the problem. There are parts of the current article that are clearly in error. The writers of the article clearly misinterpreted their reliable sources. The actual trial has shed light on exactly how mistaken these article sections are, but it can be hard to demonstrate this refutation with news articles at this time. This sentence from the Kyle Rittenhouse section is a good example: “Some of the men at the dealership were affiliated with the militia group the Kenosha Guard, but they denied any affiliation with Rittenhouse, and their leader said he never met or communicated with him.” The writer of this sentence is clearly misunderstanding the Washington Post article which he is using for reference. The writer is conflating the large group of all armed right-wing people in Kenosha that night with the very small group protecting the dealership. I am not saying that any article content should be based on watching the trial directly, but it should be allowed to have a discussion of parts of the article which are clearly wrong (i.e. where the referenced source has clearly been misinterpreted). And the sentences that are in error should be removed from the article, to be replaced later with correct content when proper sources are available. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

Should be titled “Kenosha Riots” unrest is left biased 2603:6011:D440:D00B:ACE2:E8FD:C0E1:F98D (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We already have an article about that topic here called Kenosha unrest. This one is about the shootings involving Rittenhouse, which is now a high-profile legal case. People have tried to politicize the case, and some participants had political motives. That does mean that, to the degree that RS document that politicization, we are required to also document that angle.

Rittenhouse's attorneys claim he acted in self-defense to numerous physical confrontations by attackers. The prosecutors intended to show that Rittenhouse was influenced by the white supremacist movement, in particular the "violent white supremacist group" called the Proud Boys. -- Valjean (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021

Change 'biceps' to 'bicep'

71.192.7.215 (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done I thought I got all of them but missed those. -- Valjean (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The word "biceps" is singular. The plural would be "bicepses". The arm muscle's full name is "biceps brachii". I've changed it back to the way it was in the article. —ADavidB 05:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

”Biceps” is also an acceptable plural of biceps. We need not be pedantic. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biceps https://grammarist.com/usage/biceps-triceps/ Edison (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Title

The event should strictly be referred to as the “Kenosha Shooting,” or Kenosha Mass Shooting to be more accurate. Placing the term “unrest” first creates a biased predisposition for the reader before they start reading about the event of the shooting itself. The wording of the first paragraph of the article similarly distorts the reading of events. We have a page for the “Kenosha unrest” already, “Kenosha unrest shooting” is biased and redundant. 2600:1702:1B40:5C30:93E:53D3:5004:40B6 (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is a child of Kenosha unrest so it makes sense to use a derivative name. Springee (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

And this wasn't a mass shooting by definition. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is a strange title.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that the title is biased, but I did find it difficult to parse. I found myself briefly wondering what an "unrest shooting" was before I started reading and realised it's actually referring to a shooting during the "Kenosha unrest". If there's a way to reword the title that would probably make it clearer for a lot of people. Maybe actually just rename it to Shooting during the Kenosha unrest if that's not too wordy. Adam McMaster (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The question of riot or unrest should be answered on the parent article's page. Adding "shooting" to the name of the parent article seems perfectly logical to me. Springee (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true; 'Kenosha Unrest' covers the period of both peaceful protests and riots that happened over a number of days, which the other article averages out to 'unrest'. The shooting happened during a very specific part of the whole event which could be categorised differently. JeffUK (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This, as well as the fact that rioting is unrest but not all unrest is rioting. I think it's fair to use "unrest" given that there's a dispute over whether it's rioting or not. Also, why do IPs always come post these weird takes on talk pages?QoopyQoopy (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Request to Defend Business

The article has a bias against Rittenhouse in the area of whether there was a request to defend the business. While Anmol Khindri testified he did not ask anyone to defend Car Source, Nicholas Smith testified in detail on Day 6 of the trial about how he was requested by Anmol. Either Smith or Khindri are lying and guilty of perjury. Many who watched the trial feel that it is Khindri who is lying, in order to protect the family business from lawsuits. In any case, the article should present both sides of this issue, not just the business owner's side. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Westwind273: do not speculate on witnesses' truthfulness or accuse them of crimes. This is not the place to express what you think the "real" story is. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It would probably be best if we either avoided mentioning the specific request or simply state that the testimony was mixed. It has been argued that a business owner might not want to admit requesting help for fear it would open them up to liability if someone that answered the request caused harm. If RS note the evasive nature of Khindri's testimony that might be significant. Still, it might be best to hold off on any of this until the trial is over and some RSs start providing post mortems for us to pick through. Springee (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, do not pontificate on what you think people should or should not be saying on the talk page. This talk page is not your personal fiefdom where you get to make the rules. My comment was completely in line with the purpose of the talk page. There are reliable source news articles reporting the Nicholas Smith testimony, and therefore my comment was a good faith effort to improve the article. Next time, mind your own business. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, like all administrators, has a duty to enforce the WP:BLP policy, which applies even on talk pages per WP:BLPTALK. clpo13_(talk) 22:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

And how, pray tell, did I violate that? As I previously mentioned, there are plenty of reliable source news articles that describe the testimony of Nicholas Smith. Frankly, I detect bias in how the "policy" is being enforced. What is the policy for dealing with administrators who make biased and unfounded accusations? --Westwind273 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Westwind273: to answer your question, you'd bring up issues about admins at WP:ANI or WP:AN. That said, you may not use this page to accuse witness of perjury or lying. WP:BLP applies here too. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand my whole point. My purpose in mentioning perjury and lying was not to accuse anyone of anything. It was simply to show that there are clearly two strongly different answers to the question of whether the dealership owner asked for protection, and the article should be balanced by including both sides of this issue (which it currently does not). You really need to take a pill and stop being hyper-critical of the discussions that are taking place on this page. People like myself are describing things in a good faith effort to improve the article. Please stop over-policing this page. We are trying to improve the article. We are not trying to grind any political axes. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The whole “Kyle Rittenhouse” section is seriously problematic due to its anti-Rittenhouse bias. In addition to the above problem of dealership protection request, the final sentence of this section is seriously biased against Rittenhouse. This sentence is conflating two groups: (1) the group of all right-wing armed people in downtown Kenosha that night, and (2) the small group of right-wing people who were affiliated with the car dealership and protecting it. The small car dealership protection group (of which Kyle was a part) were not affiliated with the Kenosha Guard, and the “leader” described in this sentence was the leader of the Kenosha Guard organizing all the right-wing protection people that night (#1 above). That leader had nothing to do with the car dealership, even though the sentence makes it sound like he was the leader of the dealership protection group (#2 above). If there was a leader of the dealership protection group, it was Nicholas Smith or Dominic Black, both of whom knew Kyle. Smith was wearing the body armor that Kyle had loaned him. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Method and date/time of travel to Kenosha?

There has been speculation that Rittenhouse's mother drove him there as well as suggestions that he drove himself. The date and time of his arrival in Kenosha also seem to be in dispute. How he got there and how long he had been in Kenosha before the shootings seem like important pieces of information to add to this article. Does anyone have reliable sources with that information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.242.107 (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The GQ article listed in the External Links at the bottom of the Kenosha Unrest Shooting page has extensive info and research into details, easily the most detailed info I've read so far . . . could be a good place to start. Cedar777 (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing any discussion about how Rittenhouse made it to Kenosha. Given his father lives there, his means of transport doesn't seem relevant. Given it's less than 20 miles it's even possible he walked it - though I admit it's unlikely. 人族 (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I know this is a primary source, but the answer can be found starting at minute 40 of the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0tdbq3cGl8&t=1893 . Rittenhouse drove himself to his job in Kenosha the previous day (the 24th) and stayed overnight at his friend Dominic's house. I cannot find any news source reporting on this part of the trial. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Trial Response - National Guard Mobilised, Police Leave Cancelled

In light of the trial moving toward jury considering a verdict, 500 members of the National Guard have been deployed to Kenosha (pop. 99,986) - unlike during the 2020 riots, and the Chicago Police Department has cancelled all regular leave ahead of the verdict. Should this be added to the 'Responses by authorities' section? It doesn't address guilt or innocence, only expectations of renewed rioting should Rittenhouse not be found guilty. 人族 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@人族: Again, please do not speculate here. There are expected demonstrations regardless of the verdict. And you are incorrect about 2020 (see [6]). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm curious. I don't recall ever hearing or seeing anything about troops in Kenosha. My bad. As regards the troops being deployed now, and police leave being cancelled, that's not speculation. The speculation is that more might need to be added to the piece regarding public response to the verdict. 人族 (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed sentence deletions

I propose that two problematic sentences in the “Kyle Rittenhouse” section be deleted:
(1) “Later, the owner of the dealership denied asking gunmen to defend the business.” Witness testimony on this point is conflicting, so this sentence is biased and unbalanced. Alternatively a sentence could be added here such as “However, former employees of the dealership testified that they were asked by the owner to protect it.” The reliable source would be https://www.kenoshanews.com/did-car-source-ask-for-armed-help-during-kenosha-unrest-witness-testimony-differs/article_d0d31293-6736-53f4-9dcc-f448f37b2952.html
(2) “Some of the men at the dealership were affiliated with the militia group the Kenosha Guard, but they denied any affiliation with Rittenhouse, and their leader said he never met or communicated with him.” This sentence has so many problems it is probably beyond saving. Put simply, what is stated in the sentence is not in the references cited (Verge and WaPo). I could go into more detail, but probably better to just delete this sentence. --Westwind273 (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The GQ article American Battleground: 72 Hours in Kenosha from April 2021 covers both of these things in section 5. It includes the context that Kenosha Guard had summoned supporters to Kenosha, with reports of Boogaloo boys, Three Percenters, and members of a biker crew with “hatchets, ball bats, and firearms” showing up in addition to assorted and otherwise unaffiliated militia. At one point in section 5 of the GQ article it states "Rittenhouse’s civil defense lawyer, Robert Barnes, emphasized that Kyle was not a member of any militia and that he hadn’t met Balch before, though the two would coordinate throughout the night as part of a team of about seven people who had taken it upon themselves to guard the lot. " (In GQ Balch is described as an experienced militia member in tactical gear). GQ also specifies that militia began pulling up to the Car Source lot . . . but the eventually "assembled around two gas stations at the southern end of the block".

I don't support removing this content but rather revising it per the best qualtiy sources availlable and possibly shifting it into the section describing the preceeding events in general. The source provided to Kenosha News from November 9, 2021 is also reliable and can be used to modify the existing content to make it more accurate. Cedar777 (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the article has been fixed. No one at the dealership was a member of the Kenosha Guard. In fact, the "Kenosha Guard" was really nothing more than a Facebook page created by an odd-ball former city council member. They did not have regular field practice sessions or anything that we would normally associate with a militia group. --Westwind273 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Background

This type of background is both unneeded and prejudicial. If the article is about Rittenhouse, keep it about Rittenhouse. The background is inappropriate unless the article itself is entitled "Kenosha unrest" or some such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilpassion (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

wondering if any source reported on contents of plastic bag that Rosenbaum was carrying and threw at Rittenhouse

We only mention a bag which makes it sound like an empty bag but there's clearly something in it when you see it lying on the ground afterward. Looks like it was half orange half blue.

Judging by how it slows down in flight I don't think it could've been particularly heavy. Just curious, because it'd be better to say "bagged X" whatever it might've been.

Like maybe it was an unopened bag of potato chips he just bought? WakandaQT (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple sources reporting the testimony of Rosenbaum's girlfriend. The bag contained socks, deodorant, toothpaste, toothbrush, water bottle, hospital paperwork, and possibly a shirt. It was a bag given to Rosenbaum by the mental hospital that he was released from earlier in the day. The hospital released him into homelessness. https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/watch-now-rittenhouse-trial-day-5-rosenbaums-fianc-e-hubers-great-aunt-take-the-stand/article_d9aa3d88-0f85-5c57-b734-91163e29f2d7.html --Westwind273 (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It says: "Although it is not being shared with the jury, Rosenbaum had been in the hospital for mental health treatment after a suicide attempt.". That explains things. Who in their right mind would be throwing heavy objects on a young man with a deadly weapon and his finger on trigger? Of course he will shoot; this is nearly an automatic reaction. Rosenbaum practically shot himself. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Ziminski

Joshua Ziminski fired his gun first, while chasing Rittenhouse alongside Rosenbaum. Both Ziminski and Rosenbaum were screaming death threats at Rittenhouse. This Wikipedia article says that Rittenhouse heard a gunshot in the background. However, this article neglects to point out that the gunshot Rittenhouse heard was fired from one of the men who was chasing him and screaming death threats. Can someone add this?173.240.9.14 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

High quality reliable source(s) are needed for this. See WP:RSP for a list. Cedar777 (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Grosskreutz's Finger

So, Grosskreutz had his finger on the trigger when he was pointing it at Rittenhouse's head. This is critically different that if he pointed his gun at him with his finger straight and alongside the trigger, outside of the trigger housing. Can someone add the fact that Grosskreutz's finger was on the trigger when he pointed it at Rittenhouse's head?173.240.9.14 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, high quality reliable sources are needed here for any further consideration of this request. Cedar777 (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Previous Charges of Rossenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz

[7] a better source for an editor's claims AnswerManDan, which were removed as a BLP violation. Rosenbaum was convicted of "sexually abusing five children — all boys between the ages of 9 and 11," which differed from what the editor stated. Additionally, Grosskreutz's offense was what the editor claimed, "guilty in 2016 of breaking Wisconsin’s law governing the use of dangerous weapons — a misdemeanor offense — per Milwaukee County court records. He had apparently gone somewhere 'armed while intoxicated,'" but the source does not state whether or not he was allowed to possess the firearm at the time of the shooting. Huber was in fact convicted of disorderly conduct for repeated domestic abuse [8]. Bill Williams 21:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

None of which are remotely germane to these shootings/homicides. They've not been brought up at trial either. And we don't use court records (CCAP) on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I never said it has any relevance, and I agree with you. I'm just stating the factual criminal convictions that the three aforementioned men faced, so that the editor knows the truth with reliable sources. Bill Williams 22:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Also in place of the court record you can use[9] which states "In 2012, Huber brandished a butcher knife and threatened to “gut” his brother “like a pig” if he didn’t clean the house. The family told police that Huber choked his brother with his hands for 10 seconds before letting him go and retreating to the skate park. Convicted of strangulation and false imprisonment, he was placed on probation but violated the terms and was sent to prison in 2017. When he came home, he got into another argument over the state of the house. This time, he kicked his sister, and went back to prison on a charge of disorderly conduct in 2018."

Additionally [10][11] are additional sources for Rosenbaum's criminal history. Bill Williams 22:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That WaPo article [12] does look a solid RS. It say the following.

1. Rosenbaum. "Joseph Rosenbaum — depressed, homeless and alone — didn’t belong to either side. He had spent most of his adult life in prison for sexual conduct with children when he was 18 and struggled with bipolar disorder. That day, Aug. 25, Rosenbaum was discharged from a Milwaukee hospital following his second suicide attempt in as many months and dumped on the streets of Kenosha.".
2. Huber. "...Huber, who also was battling a bipolar disorder that went undiagnosed until he was an adult. ... Convicted of strangulation and false imprisonment, he was placed on probation but violated the terms and was sent to prison in 2017. When he came home, he got into another argument over the state of the house. This time, he kicked his sister, and went back to prison on a charge of disorderly conduct in 2018.".

There is a lot more info about them, some a lot more positive, and it all should be included. The bottom line. This page should include subsections with info about every victim of the shootings - per RS. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I tend to agree that this type of content is probably not due for inclusion in the article. I don't think we need to strictly limit biographical content to what was presented at trial thought it might help decide what should/shouldn't stay or how much emphasis should be given to parts. Also if RS say part of the trial included discussion of something that was ultimately excluded would that be included? Springee (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't really think this is important for the article either, but it was a topic of discussion during the trial, and if we add information on each of the people involved (maybe also including his friend and the man who fired a random shot, but at least the three people shot and rittenhouse), we could include this as part of it. Bill Williams 00:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just think we need to include a lot more info about three people who were shot. But that info must be framed neutrally, without demonizing anyone, i.e. as WP:BLP requires and as was neutrally described in the WaPo article. If that info was or was not discussed during the trial is irrelevant. It is only relevant if it was described in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. If we describe their lives, since multiple reliable sources have mentioned it, we should not conveniently leave out their past criminal records. The article mentions Rittenhouse's carry of the gun being prosecuted by the state as illegal, therefore it makes sense to include that Grosskreutz was illegally carrying as well. Bill Williams 00:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should include any substantial background info on anyone. The topic of the article is the unrest and shootings. Background info on Rittenhouse (as the person charged with crimes in connection to the shootings) should be kept to a minimum and the victims shouldn't be described at all (WP:BLP1E). Iff we have bio pages for these people, then that info would be appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, you make a good point. Bill Williams 00:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Then I would say we definitely need an additional page either on Kyle Rittenhouse, as we already had [13], or on the criminal case of Kyle Rittenhouse.As about others, they did not deserve separate pages, but I am sure they should be described more as people highly relevant to the actual event (that is why they have been described in such detail in WaPo article). My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

While I believe EvergreenFir has made a point to not include additional information on the three people shot in the article, I do agree with My very best wishes that Rittenhouse needs his own article, which could give a further description of him. Bill Williams 01:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken. We have another and separate page on Kenosha unrest. That one is specifically about the shooting by Rittenhose. We do not need more pages here, only a better coverage of three other participants. This case is very different from typical mass shootings in the USA because three other people run after Rittenhose and provoked him to shoot (sure, he also has provoked everyone around simply as a guy with an opposite ideology and a big gun). Therefore, they are participants here, not just victims and need to be covered much more in detail, exactly as RS do (see the article in Washington Post cited above). My very best wishes (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Everything I stated in my now deleted claim is accurate and precise. (Redacted) You don't like the source I used, here's another one: https://kenoshareporter.com/stories/552689330-rosenbaum-raped-five-boys-sentencing-records-reveal

And here are the court documents stating this explicitly (pdf): https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jns-media/57/7f/11464076/rosenbaumrecords.pdf AnswerManDan (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As stated on your user talk page: No. Metric Media, which runs that website, is not a reliable source as you can see per the wikipedia article's description. Moreover, the byline is just "staff" which, given the sus nature of the source, makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia. And a PDF of an indictment document (not anything he was found guilty of) is not helpful here. (Drmies, can I get your opinion on all this? See this for context.) EvergreenFir (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• What--no, none of it. EvergreenFir, I don't know what all you redacted, but the more the better, and I appreciate your respect for the BLP. No, we do not need "biographies" of the victims in here, especially not if they end up blaming the victims. No, they are not "participants" in any meaningful sense of the word; we do not need better "coverage". We need to be conservative, and less is more. AnswerDanMan, I am somewhat curious as to why you are here and what you are trying to achieve. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I also do not thing that their backgrounds belong in the article, but it's absurd to claim that "they are not participants" because they attacked Rittenhouse and he attacked them, considering the definition of the word "participant" is "a person who takes part in somethin" which clearly describes them. Bill Williams 02:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course they were very active participants of the event, not bystanders; none of the RS disputes this. According to the version by prosecution, Rittenhouse provoked others (to chase him, to try to take his weapon by force, etc.), thus negating his right to self-defense. No one denied the fact that that he shot in response to actions by others. The only question if his response was a felony. But let's put myself into shoes of these people... Someone is just passing by with an AR-15? Yes, this is a potential threat, but it does not requires any action from me. Quite the opposite. Someone hitting me with an object, trying to forcefully take away my possessions, or coming to me with a gun (no matter how pointed) and demanding something (no matter what)? That is a direct threat, an assault that does require my immediate reaction. Could he fought them off with his bare hands? I doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18

Currently, the article mentions section 948.60(2)(a) which, per the criminal complaint, makes Rittenhouse's possession of the AR-15 illegal (and a misdemeanor). However, it only takes a moment spent reading the whole section cited to realise this is not at all clear. In particular, 948.60(3)(c) states that the whole section "applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 [possession of a ... short-barreled rifle] or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 [Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.] and 29.593 [Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.]." (emphases and brackets mine)

The rifle used was not entered into evidence, so it is not possible to say for sure that it wasn't short-barreled, but that model normally isn't. All parties agree Rittenhouse was 17, and thus not "under 16". So he was not in violation of 941.28 or 29.304. It is not clear whether he had the required certificate for 29.593, however because of the wording it could be argued he would have to be in violation of both 29.304 and 29.593 in order for 948.60 to apply at all. At most, the law is ambiguous.

I feel like this needs to be clarified somehow, right now the Weapon charges section just regurgitates the prosecution's charge.--Wlerin (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably the case [14] however strange that sounds. In many states, one does not even need a permission to own AR-15, unlike a handgun. This is because handguns are easy to conceal and they are usually used as crime weapons. See AR-15_style_rifle#Use_in_crime_and_mass_shootings. My very best wishes (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Its moot at this point, the gun charges have been dropped. DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of this seems to focus on the short barrel rifle part. I don't know how many readers would be familiar with the laws/restrictions associated with a short-barrel rifle. A short barrel rifle is, per the National Firearms Act, a Title II weapon and subject to the same types of restrictions as a machine gun. This isn't something where the difference is considered to be a legally insignificant design choice (say the difference between a 17" vs 18" barrel). I think we should at least hyper link to the short barrel rifle article so the magnitude of this difference is clear to an unfamiliar reader. Springee (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There's only focus on the length of the barrel because the rest of 948.60(3)(c) reads ambiguously. If his rifle had been short-barreled then this would have been a clear violation, but as it was not--as could be seen even from the earliest videos--it is not clear whether the remainder of the law requires him to be in compliance with both of the referenced statutes or if one of them suffices. What would be most interesting would be a summary of previous adjudications re: this law, perhaps in regard to minors under the age of 16 with the require certification. But of course doing that ourselves would be OR.--Wlerin (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

Please change police shooting to civilian shooting. This shooting was not a police shooting. Kyle Rittenhouse pulled the trigger. Rittenhouse has no connection with police department and was not working with them or for them at the time of these shooting. 2603:6011:5741:E100:911C:63F3:5037:57ED (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The first sentence's mention of a police shooting is about the incident with Jacob Blake, which preceded these Kenosha events. —ADavidB 16:02, 15 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)

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)

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 [15],
• Reuters [16]
• Kenosha News [17]
• Politico [18]
• ABC News [19]
• USA Today [20]
• BBC News [21]
• CBC News [22]

(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[23]. 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 a 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,[24] while providing medical services as a licensed paramedic with prior experience as a licensed EMT.[25] 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.[26]

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

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 [27]. 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 [28]. 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[29] 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[30]. 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)

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)

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. [31]. 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)

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. [32] 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 [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

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 ([42]) -- 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)

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.

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)

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)

By that logic, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, CBS, PBS are all not good enough.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Confusion About Edit

[43] 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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Separate article for trial?

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2021

64.237.85.136 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Can You please The middle initial “H.” To Kyle Rittenhouse’s Name? His Initial was mentioned when he was acquitted

Section for Lies and Corruption

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)

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)