Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Shooting vs Shootings

There was more than one shooting. Why is the article title singular? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The word can be used either way. An example of a collective singular might be, "There was shooting during the Kenosha unrest". —ADavidB 16:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to explore all the possible usages of the word "shooting". Rather, I am saying that "shootings" is the more accurate term for the title of this article. And on that point, do you agree, y/n? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I prefer the singular. I would be persuaded to go plural if it's shown to be more common in reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Calling these events a "shooting" implies they are a single mass shooting. However, it's very evident that each person fired at, was only fired at when they were attempting to engage the shooter in a physical confrontation. Thus, these events are more accurately described as individual shootings, rather than a single shooting. Also, this does not fit the pattern of a single mass-casualty shooting, where the shooter fires relatively continuously for the duration of the event. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Politifact use the term "shootings" https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/aug/24/fact-checking-kenosha-shootings-violent-protests-o/ Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Slate uses the term "shootings" https://slate.com/tag/kenosha-shootings Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

NY Times uses the term "shootings" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Associated Press uses the term "shootings" https://apnews.com/article/homicide-shootings-police-jacob-blake-trials-0b0bbd2701e282361495bf815755e080 Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

ABC[1] and CNN[2] use "shooting". —ADavidB 18:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That CNN link is not a valid example; the article is about one of the victims, who being only himself and dying only once, is of course referred to in the singular. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

NYT using singular. The Slate tag is plural because it also tags articles about the Blake shooting. Here's a Slate article using the singular to refer to the unrest shooting. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The Slate link you supplied does not have "shooting" or "shootings" in the article title, which is what I am posting. So far, the preponderance of the links posted clearly supports "shootings" Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Why just article titles? If anything, the body is more persuasive sourcing per WP:HEADLINES. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The probable cause affidavit on the charging documents describes the shooting events as distinct shootings, each with their own particular set of facts. https://patch.com/illinois/grayslake/court-documents-detail-rittenhouse-charges Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"does not fit the pattern of a single mass-casualty shooting" This was not a mass shooting, as only 2 people died. Pet the main article: "Some definitions describe a minimum of four deaths due to gun violence". Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

HuffPo - shootings - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/key-witness-kenosha-protest-shootings-richie-mcginniss_n_5f5142d3c5b6578026cb33fe Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

WSJ - shootings - https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-is-kyle-rittenhouse-and-what-happened-in-the-kenosha-shootings-11598653456 Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

NPR - shootings - https://www.npr.org/2021/01/05/953594475/kyle-rittenhouse-accused-kenosha-shooter-pleads-not-guilty-to-all-charges Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

CNN - shootings - https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2020/08/29/tracking-the-suspect-in-the-fatal-kenosha-shootings.cnn Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"Kenosha shooting" + Rittenhouse has 1,800 Google News hits. "Kenosha shootings" + Rittenhouse has 1,060. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please cite to actual reliable sources, as I am doing Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not all the Google News hits are RS, but there's little reason to suspect that one search is pulling up vastly more non-reliable sources than the other. This is a pretty common way of determining what language to use in article titles. Not a perfect system, but helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've done the work; I've posted more than enough reliable sources; you offer no rebuttal of contrary reliable sources in the same quantity. This needs to go to a vote; to get a sense of what others think. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

WAPO - shootings - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/teen-charged-in-kenosha-shootings-due-back-in-illinois-court/2020/10/08/1cc56778-09e3-11eb-8719-0df159d14794_story.html Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Wisconsin Examiner - shootings - https://wisconsinexaminer.com/brief/newspaper-tells-the-stories-of-the-victims-in-kenosha-protest-shootings/ Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

CNN uses 'shooting', too. [3][4][5] This is not a good way to prove best wording. —ADavidB 03:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that we're both able to find reliable sources with "shooting" or "shootings", then we are left to reason it out our ourselves. But to stay WP:NPOV we have to keep our thumb off the scale as best as we can. Therefore, it's got to be "shootings" because "shootings" makes clear there was more than one shooting, which there was. But "shooting" does not make that clear. If we keep "shooting" in the article title, we are editorializing more than if we go with "shootings". And even based on that alone, there is no rational editor's reason to oppose "shootings". Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The word in the title has been singular since the article was started a full year ago. Shooting occurred during the unrest, and this article provides details. Other editors have yet to express support for a name change. Let's leave it be. —ADavidB 19:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If so, then the title has been less than accurate since the beginning. Also, I do not agree to "leave it be" based solely on your admonition. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Two points: 1) Since apparently only one editor objects to the term "shooting", there would seem to be no consensus for changing it. 2) The three victims, two dead, one wounded, were all shot by the same person and within a very short period of time. Thus they are very closely related. "Shootings" might imply that these were were separate, unrelated or only loosely related incidents. Clearly they were not. TheScotch (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The article says the shootings happened during "multiple confrontations". Please explain how multiple shootings during multiple confrontations in more than one location, at more than one time, is best described with the singular term "shooting". Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

TS: My comments above and in the section below are not addressed to you. You've had far more than your say, and it's long past time that you retire the argument and let others hash it out. I will consider what anyone else has to say, but I won't even bother to read you here any more. TheScotch (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Scotch: I'm mmaking my best effort to improve this article and I ask that you assume good faith. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021

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.

---

Change unrest to riot 2604:2D80:A48A:1700:B0F5:961D:911D:1D0B (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I support changing to "riot" Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I am opposed, but more importantly: the decision should be made at Talk:Kenosha unrest, which this article should continue to match. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"Riot" is an inflammatory term and thus does not belong here. TheScotch (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The use of the word "riot" is not always inflammatory for the simple reason that sometimes there are riots and therefore, describing them as such is perfectly normal. Are you saying that the use of the word "riot" would be inflammatory if used in this article title? This local article uses "unrest" and "rioting" https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/damage-due-to-rioting-unrest-in-kenosha-tops-50-million-2-000-guard-assisted-here/article_26473ec9-c08a-5490-9d09-cc2b840b65f1.html Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:22, 18 October 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.

Awkward wording in the lead.

In the lead "At the second location, Rittenhouse tripped while fleeing, a man kicked him, and Rittenhouse fired at the man twice but missed." sounds awkward to all be put into one sentence. It seems to me more natural to divide it up into three sentences. Something like "At the second location, Rittenhouse tripped while fleeing. A man kicked him. Rittenhouse then fired at the man twice but missed." would sound a lot better, at least to me. What are other people's thoughts? Is there any reason why this all has to be in one sentence?JMM12345 (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

I agree it could be improved. How about two sentences: "At the second location, Rittenhouse tripped while fleeing and a man kicked him. Rittenhouse then fired at the man twice but missed." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Rewriting is an improvement. This latter version seems best thus far. —ADavidB 19:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The two sentence proposal is better than my initial three sentence proposal. JMM12345 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

The article says that Mr. Rittenhouse falsely claimed to be an EMT. However, the sited sources for this make no mention of this claim, nor could I find any video evidence or reputable sources to back this claim. 2600:8803:D400:450:7DA2:8EBD:561F:3AF9 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Already handled by User:Springee. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Had prior ties to Kenosha

The trial revealed that Rittenhouse had been in Kenosha several times before the shooting. His divorced father lives there and his sister's then-boyfriend, Dominick Black, also lives there. Rittenhouse had a summer job as a lifeguard in Kenosha, I don't know what year that was. He's been there on several occasions. This contradicts the claim that Rittenhouse was a complete outsider to came to town to make trouble.

Here is one article which reveals it:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-witness-testimony-shot/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:7941:1B00:BD65:39D8:C83A:3BB (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe the article currently claims "that Rittenhouse was a complete outsider to came to town to make trouble". Is any of the language in the article contradicted by that CBS source? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP violations?

I believe that some of the material in this article may violate WP:BLP. For example, the Criticism section mentions sources that called Rittenhouse a "white armed extremist" and "white supremacist domestic terrorist", which seem like clear violations of WP:BLPCRIME. In general, BLP tells us that information concerning living persons must be written conservatively, and should not be sensationalist. Stonkaments (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I support removing the Pressley quote. I don't see "white armed extremist" as a BLPCRIME issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The expanded Guardian quote reads: "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." That doesn't seem like a conservatively-written (or accurate) description of the shootings. Stonkaments (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Wikipedia only uses those phrases as verbatim quotes, which there is no issue with, as they are reliably sourced. It would be another story if it was said in Wikivoice. ––FormalDude talk 02:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see why we would need to mention the "white armed extremist" quote at all. That said, as a general rule I would suggest we revisit some of these discussions after the trial is done. Consider a few scenarios. One is this material is mentioned at trial. If it's mentioned at trial (and in the subsequent trial reporting) I think the case for inclusion is stronger regardless of the trial outcome. Now consider if Rittenhouse is ultimately convicted (and of what) or if the self defense claim holds. If it is found this was reasonable self defense then we really need to be careful about what we say about someone who was not convicted of a crime. At that point I think a lot of this content should be scrubbed. If he is found guilty then it's easier to keep more of this type of "character association content" (my term for want of a better description). Still, I would try to limit things to strictly relevant to the crime/trial. Springee (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

If it were used anywhere else in the article, descriptions of Rittenhouse as a "white armed extremist" or "white supremacist domestic terrorist" or the incident as mass-murder, would be completely inappropriate. The criticism section however permits full bias so facts don't matter. Nor does it matter if Rittenhouse is found to be fully innocent and having only used lethal force as a last resort to protect his life against those who sought to murder or maim him. It will be embarrassing for those organisations and individuals saying such (should the jury find him innocent, or rather not guilty), but that's not our problem. Come to think of it, it may prove useful, assuming the jury votes not guilty, to see that lawful defence of self is deemed White Supremacy, terrorism, extremism, and mass murder. If articles are written discussing this discrepancy - kinda putting the cart before the foal here, that likely will merit its own section. 人族 (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove Trump rally reference

The article states: "He had also attended a Trump rally in Des Moines seven months prior to the shootings". I think this should be removed as it has no connection to the article. It gives the reader a feeling that the article is trying to frame all Trump supporters. LandyRise (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Completely agree. It has no bearing or relevance to the incident, despite those with bias who insist it is so. --N432138 (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The relevance to the shooting is clear and attested to by reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I would remove it. It doesn't seem to have any significance to the events in question and BuzzFeed News isn't really a great source on which to gauge it's significance to the topic in general. Springee (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

BuzzFeed and the Washington Post. There are more sources as well, but we don't need to overcite here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Has it proven to have any relevance to the events that night? Remember this isn't an article about Rittenhouse but about the shootings. Perhaps a way to decide is see if it comes up in the trial. If not then it probably isn't important. Springee (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I remember! This particular section, though, is about Rittenhouse. I'm not sure how we'll decide what biographical detail is relevant to the events that night, besides by looking at what RS commonly highlight. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I suppose you would have to find RSs claiming it's relevant to the shooting. ― TaltosKieronTalk 22:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

No surprise that news sources dug for every detail they could find in the period right after the shooting. However, even if this section is about Rittenhouse, it's only for the material about Rittenhouse that is germane to the events in question. If RSs aren't saying how this is related to the shooting then how can we say how/why it's related? If we can't it should be removed. Springee (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

RS have continued mentioning it since the post-shooting period:

• The Guardian 2020/09/15
• New York Times 2021/10/26
• The Independent 2021/11/01
• New York Times 2021/11/02
• Bloomberg 2021/11/01

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to paywalls I can't see all of those but how much of that is just general biography of Rittenhouse? Again, this article is about the shooting, not Rittenhouse's history. For example, if most sources said he went to X high school would we include that? Is it germane to the shooting or just background information? Do note this is getting a lot of coverage so just finding some sources that cover it isn't the same as those sources saying its relevant to the crime. I will also say this is one of the down sides to digital media. In the old days such content would be left on the floor since column space on paper cost money. Now it's cheap to repackage older content, put it on the web site and register some clicks. It gives cheap to produce content disproportionate weight vs good reporting. Springee (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Even sourced, synthesis seems evident. I've seen no reliable source that says why his rally attendance was or even could be significant to the Kenosha shooting, just that 'he was there'. —ADavidB 20:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What conclusion are we stating or implying that isn't present in the sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The sources tease/lead the reader, implying that there's a significance, but none is explicitly stated. What is the "clear relevance" mentioned in the reversion edit summary? —ADavidB 22:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

ADavidB, it sounds like you're just trying to coax out some WP:OR argument. The fact is reliable sources mention it and there's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't either. ––FormalDude talk 02:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the editors who feel this is not relevant content even if it is being reported. In terms of group consensus I think FormalDude and Firefangledfeathers support inclusion. ADavidB, LandyRise, Stonkaments, TaltosKieron (?) and myself oppose. I personally think that puts this on the knife edge of new consensus vs no consensus. How would editors feel about waiting to see how the trial turns out then deciding? Springee (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel it is relevant to the article regardless of the outcome of the trial. This was a political event that the subject attended, so their political affiliations are relevant. ––FormalDude talk 04:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hinting that Rittenhouse's political event attendance is tied to this shooting is the issue. That correlation is not established. —ADavidB 05:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Adavidb: He likely wouldn't have been at the shooting if he'd never attended a political event before. Quit kidding yourself. ––FormalDude talk 05:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Some WP:OR argument"? —ADavidB 06:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This kind of illustrates the issue. Sources looking into his background note he went to Trump rallies. If in our summary of Rittenhouse and the shooting we say, "went to Trump rallys, shot someone" we are implying a link that the sources don't explicitly make. As a summary source we need to err on the side of not implying that which isn't clearly stated by source. We also should not imply motives that can't be attributed to sources. Putting this in the article implies that the Trump rally put him up to this or similar. At the end of the day the linkage isn't clear and beyond speculative motives no RSs are saying the two things are related. For that reason it shouldn't be here (again, unless this is mentioned at trial and covered by RSs covering the trial). Springee (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Add a critical missing word! (and spelling mistake) Springee (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty ridiculous to think that putting this in the article implies that the Trump rally put him up to this. At most it implies correlation, but definitely not causation. And, worded the way it currently is, any implication of correlation is clearly by the reader alone. All we're doing is stating a relevant fact about someone who is significantly involved in the subject of the article. It's not good for Wikipedia to leave out relevant information just because the reader might jump to conclusions. We need to provide everything that is due weight (and I believe this certainly is) so that the reader can make the most informed conclusions. ––FormalDude talk 07:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No one claimed it did. However, your earlier comment said Rittenhouse wouldn't have been at the shooting had it not been for attending the rally. No sources say that and we shouldn't do anything that would imply as much. Springee (talk contribs) 18:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You literally just claimed that Putting this in the article implies that the Trump rally put him up to this or similar. ––Formal ^talk 19:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

We are probably misunderstanding each other's points. I agree I said that putting the content in implies/could imply (I should have said could imply the first time) that the one helped lead to the other. FD, you said, "He likely wouldn't have been at the shooting if he'd never attended a political event before." So you are thinking going to the Trump rally (or similar) directly lead to the events. I'm saying that we shouldn't put content in that could imply that since no RS says that. It simply comes down to we shouldn't put in everything reported by RSs about everyone who was involved, especially since BLP restrictions associated with non-public people apply here. Springee (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

By saying "He likely wouldn't have been at the shooting if he'd never attended a political event before" I mean a person with no interest in politics doesn't all of a sudden go to a political unrest event. That is why I emphasized it is correlation, not causation. There's too many reliable sourcing reporting on this to not include it. I don't know of any BLP restriction that would apply here. ––Formal ^talk 04:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the majority here that his presence at a Trump rally several months prior to the shooting has no relevance to the shooting. Take it out. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to provide a counterpoint, while it's definitely not directly relevant, could it be part of the victim\perpetrator profile? If for instance Trump rally attendees are viewed as violent gun toting extremists by a section of the population, and the criticism section of this article makes clear that is how Rittenhouse is being seen, then is it simply rounding out that stereotype assumption? 人族 (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

We have to be careful about including "profiles". The people who were shot all had profiles as well. At some point we have to say BLP rules apply and these are otherwise notable people thus we don't try to include facts that sources haven't directly tied to the actual subject of this article. Springee (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have temporarily removed the Trump rally reference. Under WP:BLP, contentious and potentially BLP-violating material like this should be removed until there is consensus that it is allowed within policy. If a consensus is achieved here then it may be restored, however I do believe that this is WP:SYNTHESIS to suggest that Rittenhouse attending a Trump rally is relevant in some way to the shooting that this article is about. If this were purely a biographical article about Rittenhouse then it might be more relevant in an appropriate context, but this is an article about the shooting and including it here implies that there is a relationship between the rally and the shooting. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional Trial Information

While the trial section should probably be expanded, there's no reason to cherry pick from sources to bolster the prosecutions case. DarrellWinkler (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding sourced content from NPR and AP is not "bolstering the prosecution's case"; I can't imagine why you would think that. I think we will need strong reasoning as to why that content should not be included. Until I see something other than "it might make him look bad", I'm going to leave it in. Jorm (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Other sources do not make the case that.

From the NPR artice: "FBI infrared footage taken from an overhead airplane, shown during Rittenhouse's trial, appeared to show that Rittenhouse first pursued Rosenbaum into the used car lot"

Now, from a CBS News article[6] which includes testimony from a prosecution witness directly contradicting NPR's write up: "Richards also described how Rosenbaum had come out from behind a car to meet Rittenhouse before the shooting, saying to the detective: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like the classic ambush." After prosecutors objected, Richards said: "Mr. Rosenbaum is in hiding as my client arrives, correct?" "It appears so, yes," Howard responded.

The NPR article doesn't mentions both the prosecution and defenses position on the infrared video. Unless both are included, neither should be. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the CBS source (cited above) has that the The AP News article (cited in the original bold edit) does not as AP News states both the prosecutors take and defense attorney Richards take:

"Prosecutors contend that the video will show Rittenhouse chased Rosenbaum before the situation reversed itself and Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse — possibly chipping away at Rittenhouse’s self-defense claims. . . . with superimposed images identifying the two men, a Kenosha police detective testified under questioning from defense attorney Mark Richards that it appeared at one point that Rosenbaum had been “hiding” as Rittenhouse arrived at that location. Richards called the confrontation “the classic ambush” — words that were struck after the prosecution objected, but were heard by the jury."

NPR used the more neutral word pursued rather than the stronger chased . . . what other language could one use to neutrally state that infrared airplane footage showed one individual moving away with one individual moving towards the other? The article is already saying this via cell phone footage (Rosenbaum moved towards Rittenhouse). NPR's description of what was in the infrared footage was the most neutral, and both prosecutors and defence did not refute the basics of who was moving towards whom - rather they framed it differently. At a minimum, the wording "appeared to show Rittenhouse moving towards Rosenbaum" should be restored. Cedar777 (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In the context of the case, "pursue" inst neutral at all and its not a characterization agreed upon by all sources and certainly not the witness at trial. In the case of the AP article, they at least attribute the characterization of a pursuit to the prosecution whereas the NPR piece states it as an uncontested fact and that is why I think its the least neutral source. The phrase "appeared to show Rittenhouse moving towards Rosenbaum" is factual and non judgemental but should be coupled with the observation that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse prior to the final fatal confrontation. DarrellWinkler (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said below, Jorm shouldn't have restored the content without addressing the specific concern. Springee (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

The section that states the "OK" hand sign is used by white supremacist is speculative, not fact. Many people use it as a game to entice others to look at the gesture, and if they are seen looking at it, they are then teased or even punched by the prankster.

The notion that it stems from white supremacy comes from an online joke intended to troll bloggers and media sources. 2600:1700:38B1:1F40:6D85:8E99:351D:754F (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Not relevant. The hand sign has been used by white supremacists unironically, in the years following the original hoax. That, and the notion that it did originate from a hoax and doesn't have any previous association with white supremacy, is highly disputed. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

I would like to include more facts about thoose shot and there past criminal history. I can understand how one could think this is not relevant to the event that occurred but I think it is important for the reader to understand that while them may feel the defendant was unjustified, the people who were effected were not just peacefull community members trying to make a positive change in our society. They were also child rapists and wife beaters who may have been there to capitalize on the violence.

Here is a link to my source. The wedsite may look pretty right biased at first but it gives important information balk up by state registries as while as other proof balking there claims

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/12/kenosha-shooting/?amp=1

Thank you for reading my concerns 72.34.110.28 (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The past behaviour of the wounded and deceased has no demonstrated relevance to the cause of their injuries and deaths. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. WWGB (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Responses by authorities - "sympathetic statements" example

The current example for "sympathetic statements" in the "Responses by authorities"-Section is misleading and not really covered by the Source. I suggest changing the example to "took his rifle to the scene of the rioting to help defend small business owners". This is covered by the Source (2nd Paragraph there) and makes more sense, because "innocent until proven guilty" is not a sympathetic statement. --Engeltr (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the entire "responses" section could use some work .. not sure how to go about that though. DarrellWinkler (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Source uses sympathetic in its title. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

How is he being simultaneously charged as an adult and as a minor in unlawful possession of a weapon (misdemeanor charge)?

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.

---

Can someone who is more educated than me please clarify this in the article, because it is very confusing. Is this an issue of prosecutorial discretion? It seems contradictory since the event under trial took place on a single night. 2600:1012:B02F:F99B:1124:4D70:C10A:BA7E (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Prosecutorial discretion in this instance. DarrellWinkler (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Actual age is firm. If the actions are adult type actions, then he can be judged like an adult. Very typical im the American "justice" system. -- Valjean (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Typically minors are only charged as adults if its a violent felony or they have an extensive criminal history and are over 15. DarrellWinkler (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

In the great state of Wisconsin we charge 10 year olds as adults. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It's actually state law to try 17 year old's as adults in Wisconsin. No prosecutorial discretion involved. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

All of which shows why I added those quotation marks above (American "justice" system). Many more civilized countries think of us as barbarians. -- Valjean (talk) 17:40, 10 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

Gaige Grosskreutz then approached Rittenhouse while pointing a handgun; Rittenhouse shot him once, severing his right bicep.[15][16][5]

(This was stated as fact in yhe trial yesterday by Gaige Grosskreutz) 2600:6C55:7B00:618:F45E:9A5B:135C:2D4C (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done until there are reliable sources stating this, we aren't going to do anything, or even speculate.--Jorm (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There are reliable sources confirming this and its been added to the article. DarrellWinkler (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

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.wiki.x.io/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.”[7]

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 [8]. 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[9]:

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. [10]. The Hill also covered this [11]. 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 [12]). 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

[13] 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 [14]. 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[15] 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 [16][17] are additional sources for Rosenbaum's criminal history. Bill Williams 22:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That WaPo article [18] 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 [19], 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 [20] 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)

• This was thrown out by the presiding judge due to the fact that others noticed this as well. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:44, 20 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)