Talk:Kenosha unrest/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This Kenosha riot has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "The man subsequently walked past police with a semi-automatic rifle, with members of the public shouting for him to be arrested, but the police took no action." to "The man subsequently walked past police vehicles with a semi-automatic rifle, with members of the public shouting for him to be arrested, but the police took no action."

As stated in the usatoday source article: "The gunman is then seen heading north toward several police tactical vehicles, his arms raised, according to video footage. The tactical vehicles drive by him." And as stated in the cbc source article: "In the cellphone footage, as the crowd scatters, the gunman stands up and continues walking down the street as police cars arrive. The man puts up his hands and walks toward the squad cars, with someone in the crowd yelling at police that the man had just shot someone, but several of the cars drive past him toward the people who had been shot."

It is misleading in its current form, as it implies the police were outside, and therefore heard and willfully ignored the bystanders shouts (casting them in a bad light). Stating that he walked past police vehicles is accurate as per the source, and does not have such implications, as a reader would not infer they necessarily could make out the shouts, and that they willfully ignored them. 108.15.33.17 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I second this. A certain user is butchering the webpage to accurately reflect mainstream news views. These actions violate neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplosiveResults (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC) — ExplosiveResults (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That is not what the CBC source says. It says:

• According to witness accounts and video footage, police apparently let the young white man suspected of carrying out some or all of the shootings walk past them with a semi-automatic rifle over his shoulder as members of the crowd yelled for him to be arrested. Asked why the gunman was allowed to leave, Beth portrayed a chaotic, high-stress scene, with screaming, chanting, nonstop radio traffic and "people running all over the place" — conditions that can cause "tunnel vision" among law officers.
• CBS says Police not only didn’t arrest Rittenhouse at the scene, but at the start of the night they thanked an armed group who had come out – and at the end of the night, video shows Rittenhouse was able to walk right out of the Kenosha hot zone..
• And the Chicago Tribune says The sheriff also downplayed video indicating police let Rittenhouse walk past them with a semi-automatic rifle over his shoulder as members of the crowd were yelling for him to be arrested because he had shot people. The lack of response, however, allowed Rittenhouse to return to Antioch, a far northern suburb more than 20 miles from Kenosha.

Your interpretation that the mention of vehicles means he was not also walking past police officers and was therefore not allowed to leave is not reflected in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Your overreliancy on mainstream news outlets as the one and only infallible source of events highlights the biases. On top of that, there is a general consensus that we are not identifying minors on the page. You are completely ignoring the general consensus and twisting the entire page to fit a single narrative.ExplosiveResults (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonetheless, we have to go by what the most up-to-date mainstream sources say; as far as I can tell, they do not mention vehicles in this context at all. --Aquillion (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"This is not what the CBC source says." Please search that article for the sentence I quoted verbatim. It is still there as of this writing. "Your interpretation that the mention of vehicles means he was not also walking past police officers and was therefore not allowed to leave is not reflected in the sources." An article is not expected to repeat every detail every time. That is not a reason to assume the details don't remain true. If an article refers to a party named John Doe age 38, and later referred to them as John, do you now assume there is also a John without the last name Doe or not 38?? The article talks of police in vehicles. When it separately refers to the police, the assumption is the police detailed elsewhere, not some new set of police. 108.15.33.17 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The current "...walked past police" actually happens to adequately capture the ambiguity in these different descriptions. And no matter what, the term "police tactical vehicles" must be avoided at all costs, because it's the overwrought faux-professional term of armchair warriors. It's a police car. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Matthias Winkelmann: I don't suggest we go into such details but I would oppose calling all the vehicles "police car", in particular those that drive past. I guess this is another weird American thing, but I think for most of the world, calling what appears to be armoured response vehicles of some kind (maybe Lenco BearCats?) as simply "police car" is just weird. The non moving one one the left (of most videos) can reasonably be described as a police car, as well as those that are driving on the other road parallel. But the 3 that drive past him on the right (again from the perspective of the videos) of the mostly stationary police car which seem to be what the USA Today refers to? No those aren't just police cars, at least for most people outside the US. I think it is entirely reasonable that USA Today referred to them as something else, although again I don't think we need to go into such detail. Simply saying "police vehicles" would be enough if we need to mention the vehicles. Unless there is some reason it makes sense to distinguish between the various vehicles involved. Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:You are right. I had only seen video of "regular" cars. You are also right with regard to the (un)importance of this detail. And, finally, "police vehicle" would indeed be an excellent term to subtly suggest they are somewhat different than what one might expect, without buying into the glorification of war-like violence that buzzwords like "tactical" evoke. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done, added the word "vehicles". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted. None of the three sources used for the sentence at the moment mention vehicles in that context at all; the only one anyone has mentioned in this section, the USAtoday one, is from earlier, before he was identified and before full reports of what happened came out, and in a way that gives us no real reason to think it's the same event that later sources covered and devoted so much more attention to. Beyond that I'm not seeing a consensus for this clearly-controversial suggestion at the moment. --Aquillion (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: As the IP user pointed out, the CBC source says: In the cellphone footage, as the crowd scatters, the gunman stands up and continues walking down the street as police cars arrive. The man puts up his hands and walks toward the squad cars, with someone in the crowd yelling at police that the man had just shot someone, but several of the cars drive past him toward the people who had been shot. A second review of the current sentence seems to suggest that the police were stationary, when in fact they were actually driving past. Therefore, I suggest replacing the entire sentence to "As police vehicles arrived on the scene, the man is filmed walking past police with a rifle. Despite members of the public shouting for him to be arrested, several of the cars continued past him towards the injured." This should adequately address the IP's concerns as well as being backed by an RS. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Numerous sources state specifically in the article text that police allowed him to leave, so we need to reflect that coverage. And later sources, as I pointed out above, usually have no mention of vehicles at all. Focusing on one small detail from an earlier source in a way that tries to refute the specific interpretation and conclusion of the majority of reliable sources is

WP:SYNTH at best. We need to go with the interpretation and analysis in reliable sources rather than trying to replace it with our own; and none of them support the idea that is being pushed here; and the key takeaway from all sources is "police allowed him to leave the scene", not "there were some vehicles in the direction he was walking as well." --Aquillion (talk

) 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:SYNTH. Its stated goal is "do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources". It is perfectly valid to join them to a conclusion mentioned by at least one of them. Heck, the article is already composed of some 63 distinct sources. In other words, if one source states "the perpetrator was wearing a white shirt" and another tells you "the perpetrator was named John Doe", it is obviously not synthesis to say "John Doe was wearing a white shirt". That is the synthesis wikipedia is all about! Lastly, from watching the video each and every of these sources refer to and link, it is obvious that it was vehicles, and not police on the ground. While unusable directly, because of original research, it should make it clear that the interpretation approach you are arguing for is deeply flawed. 108.15.33.17 (talk

) 13:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

But the key point is that most sources say that police saw him and declined to arrest him; this is the notable aspect of the section. The proposed rewording is being used to dispute that (the first comment in this section specifically says they want to word it in a way that casts doubt on that), which is

WP:SYNTH argument made above. --Aquillion (talk

) 19:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly visible in the videos and actually really funny. He's walking down the road with his hands up, apparently meaning to surrender, and they yell at him over the PA to get out of the road so they can proceed to the incident. He complies, and then tries to approach the passenger side window of the last police car, but gives up as it drives away. Presumably he then went home. Pkeets (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I added the Kenosha Police Chief's statement, which clarified at least their POV—but it was reverted.^[1] I suggest putting it back, as it is separate from what the Sheriff said and made clear that there was, according to police, an issue of hearing what people were saying, as well as the fact that they supposedly didn't know anyone was shot at the time, but were simply responding to a "shots fired" call: "Kenosha Police Chief Daniel Miskinis further explained that police were responding to a "shots fired" complaint and were unaware that any people had been shot, that officers were likely unable to hear information shouted from the crowd, and that individuals raising their hands to police as if in surrender was not an uncommon sight."^[2] Elle Kpyros (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Multiple news sources state that multiple arrest warrants were vacated. Why is it important to know what the warrants were for, it seems only necessary to know they were vacated. It seems a violation of Blake’s privacy to list what the warrants were if they were vacated by the police. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We are balancing informing the reader against the presumed privacy considerations of Jacob Blake. In this instance informing the reader seems a more important concern. The existence of this article—

Kenosha protests—is inextricably linked to the events leading to the Shooting of Jacob Blake. Bus stop (talk

) 03:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, what were the vacated warrants for then? Is that in the public domain? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I concede the point, I just checked that other article and it is already widely detailed. Is there a reason to emphasise what the warrants were in this article? It seems excessive detail. I would think under

WP:ONUS we should leave that level of detail for the Shooting of Jacob Blake article. - Chris.sherlock (talk

) 03:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: the warrants were vacated when he posted bond (normally done in front of a judge). Arraignments happen at the same time usually. The charges still remain afaik ("We have learned today that the warrants for Jacob Blake were vacated, although the charges against him are still pending. ..." Blake's attorneys said in a statement. per [1]). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Good info, but shouldn’t that be in Shooting of Jacob Blake? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

yes! I may have gotten my wires crossed thinking this was the Blake page. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Haha, understandable, I've done that a few times :-) Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Since this article suffers from serious bias (pointed out yesterday) the sequence of events from the view of the lawyer of the alleged shooter can be found here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What this shows is a bunch of people trying to disarm a guy who is weilding an AR-17. I don’t really consider the NY Post a reliable source. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As opposed to using other highly partisan sources because the "journalist" agrees with the preferred version of the events. As usual, Reliable Sources are being misused to push a particular point of view on a current event. But that's the norm and no policy prevents it, since the "reliable sources" agree. This article should use words like "individual" and "person" and not label anyone as a protestor or counter-protester because those terms are subjective and opinion of journalists. It should also lay out as basic a sequencen of events as possible and avoid using any words that apply blame to any individual. Slywriter (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

NY Post is not a reliable source, end of story. If you think there are some other unreliable sources in the article please list them. Volunteer Marek 22:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to American Politics, CNN and NYT should not be considered reliable sources for anything beyond basic facts. The Modern NYT is well documented as censoring itself and changing headlines in response to complaints by it's highly partisan staff. CNN doesn't even pretend to be neutral but gets a free pass. NYPost, on the other hand, is banished to the unreliable source list for the same sins that both of those commit because a community bias exists against "tabloids". Also, a review of the links at perennial sources doesn't actually present a convincing case for community consensus against NYPost. Slywriter (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"NY Post is not a reliable source". Please explain. -- Frotz(talk) 03:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to argue to the wider community that CNN and the NYT are unreliable sources, there are mechanisms available to you. However, this talk page is not one of them. I don’t think you will get far with an argument that they hold editorial control of what they publish, however. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This is covered in the "investigation and legal process" section. Beyond that, we cover things according to the sources; I can't think of a situation where we devoted an entire section solely to claims made by the defendant. And to a certain extent

WP:MANDY applies; obviously his denials or defenses are worth a mention, but unless they are given more attention and credence by (non-Fox) sources, we can't structure the article around them to the extent of giving them an entire subsection or detailing every single thing he says. One mention in the "investigation and legal process" section is sufficient. ---Aquillion (talk

) 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I spent some time in Kenosha Wisconsin today. I interviewed a resident who said Kenosha was a war zone. Hyperbole? She said, cars were exploding, lot of glass smashing, all the street lights were knocked down and businesses were burned to the ground. She said fire and police would not come, they told her they could not. She was quite angry but happy to point out a few sites for me. She showed me a car with a bullet hole in it as well. In any event I present some of the photos that I took at the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting scene, the shooting scene of Jacob Blake, and of course some of the destruction. I saw we are now calling these events a protest...I would hate to see what we call a riot. (Jk I understand i guess) I had to do some google street views of some of these places to get what former use and address, because some of the buildings were no longer standing. I want to say also... I did not see everything. I was uptown and midtown. Apparently there was more destruction downtown. All around I could see residents cleaning and painting on the boarded up buildings while the national guard trucks patrolled. I photographed some of that goodness as well. I will upload a few more, but I thought our articles might be better with photos and it is only a one hour drive to Kenosha for me. They are filed at commons under Kenosha protests. Or preotest Photos Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Were all protestors rioting? Weren’t there peaceful protests? Rioting is a form of protests. This has been covered already, but perhaps a clarification: we need to use the most inclusive, neutral word we can find for this topic. As there were peaceful protestors, calling these the Kenosha riots would tar these people with the same brush. Unless we split off a new article to deal with specific rioting, we need to keep this with its current title. I would oppose a split, maybe we need to make it clear in the article itself there was rioting.

Great photos, btw. I for one appreciate you taking them! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you, my argument is dead. I couldn't help pulling the tiger's tail. lol Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Haha! All good mate, it’s a raw time for a lot of people. Noting there was rioting in the article may actually be a good idea, it’s not like violence and property disruption didn’t occur. It’s a matter of balance. Stay safe dude! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the photos. Keep in mind that the peaceful parts of the protest, which were mentioned by several sources, probably didn't leave much evidence behind. –dlthewave ☎ 01:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: right! Do you have a choice for a photo in the article? Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I would lean toward this or something similar. You captured both a damaged/boarded up building and community members doing artwork, which broadly covers the various forms of protest that took place. –dlthewave ☎ 15:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the photos are very good, thank you for taking them. I also think they are appropriate. If someone had photos of peaceful protestors, that would be also great to add to the article. But the photos as added are an important document of the aftermath of rioting during the protests. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The photo is good, and even iconic, but I'm not sure it's the ideal lead photo for an article with "protests" in its title. Perhaps we could have this image and an image of some peaceful protesting in the infobox? - MrX 🖋 12:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is called "protests" because it covers an array of events, including peaceful protests, rioting, counter-protests and a shooting that has led to homicide charges. We should not be shy of calling certain of these events "rioting", but the article covers more than rioting and thus has a more generic name. Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for it if you can find it. I've done my fair share of image sleuthing and couldn't find jack. GMG^talk 15:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Should Kyle Rittenhouse's support of Donald Trump be included in the article? I'm in favor of including it, simply because, regardless of whether or not his political affiliations had any bearing on his actions, his support of Trump on social media has attracted significant media attention (BBC, Washington Post, BuzzFeed News) and it seems like it was a big part of his social media presence. Benmite (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Unless it can be shown it was because of Trump, by a reliable secondary source, then I would say no. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No. It's

WP:UNDUE. It's something for pundits and political wonks to discuss but not relevant here. EvergreenFir (talk)

06:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE begins Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. This has been prominently reported by lots of reliable sources, ergo it should be in the article. Bondegezou (talk

) 10:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm very strongly against this, it just reeks of POV. Somewhere political affiliation would be relevant background info is something like the

2017 Congressional baseball shooting, where politics was an obvious motive. This isn't that, and saying he is a Trump supporter before detailing his alleged shooting sounds accusatory, regardless what the RSs say. Anon0098 (talk

) 06:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say. Lots of RS are reporting this, so we report it too. If It's something for pundits and political wonks to discuss, then it is relevant here, because what is relevant here is determined by what sources talk about, not by what editors think is appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We follow what reliable sources say for inclusion of information but we have the decision to omit information that is irrelevant or does not improve the article in its own form. That's what

WP:ONUS is for. Not everything mentioned by RSs is inherently encyclopedic Anon0098 (talk

) 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with above, Reeks of POV and is

WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Editorial decisions are taken on content to include, we do not just include everything RS' do, that's why we have overriding content policies for exclusion of content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk

) 10:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is the only listed source reporting this with any emphasis, so I would say no. The other two sources only mention it in passing. It's not especially relevant to the protests. This article is starting to creak from the weight of exhaustive detail about the murders anyway. - MrX 🖋 11:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The matter is reported by Salon, Business Insider, The Independent, the BBC, the Washington Post, The Hill, Snopes, Slate, The Atlantic, The New York Times (in an opinion piece), the Metro, The Guardian, Sky News Australia, USA Today, The New European, and Vox.

WP:UNDUE says, Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. This clearly meets that criterion. Bondegezou (talk

) 11:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thx Bondegezou, for that article compilation. Social tensions will rise as it was announced that President Trump will visit Kenosha on Tuesday, September 1 -- to meet with law enforcement and to survey the property damage. That's now "Donald Trump's support of Rittenhouse". Harvard Kennedy School professor Cornell William Brooks responds: Trump's making a bad situation worse. Kenosha Shooter RADICALIZED By Trump. --87.170.198.254 (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Youtube talk shows are not RSs, if anything this shows why we shouldn't include it; it's too partisan and does not improve the article with its inclusion Anon0098 (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

International news sources: Le Monde (Paris), L'Obs/Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany's largest regional newspaper, Berliner Morgenpost (Berlin), Süddeutsche Zeitung (Munich), Der Spiegel (Hamburg), Basler Zeitung (Basel, Switzerland), n-tv Nachrichtenfernsehen (German right-wing politics TV channel).

• Le Monde : Manifestations à Kenosha : deux morts, un jeune suprémaciste inculpé, Trump annonce des renforts... "Un militant d'extrême droite américain, Kyle Rittenhouse"...==> Translation ==> Demonstrations in Kenosha: two dead, a young supremacist indicted, Trump announces reinforcements... "An American far-right activist Kyle Rittenhouse... "
• Der Spiegel: Protest und Gewalt in Kenosha - Trump's great America: ==> Translation ==> The militias see themselves as storm troopers of the president - The armed militias, which are increasingly appearing at anti-racism demonstrations in Portland, Atlanta and other cities, see themselves as the president's storm troopers. It is no coincidence that the shooter of Kenosha is a Trump supporter. --87.170.198.254 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We know he was a Trump supporter (but nothing indicates he was far-right as Le Monde claims). We don't know that his actions that night had anything to do with Trump. He was not wearing Trump clothing, he did not say anything about Trump. We don't know his motivation for arming himself and going there, but it looks to me that it was wannabe-police rather than political. In other words, leave it out unless some actual connection is shown. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I changed my mind. Thanks to everyone for responding! It's definitely better to leave it out due to the lack of direct connection to the shooting, plus POV. Benmite (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Several editors have cited

WP:POV

policy. WP:UNDUE is part of the WP:POV page. What these policies actually say is Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. We have a large number of reliable sources reporting this, therefore the policy people are citing says we should include it.

WP:POV also says As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. So, if people are concerned, stop trying to remove sourced information and suggest rewriting the passage. Bondegezou (talk

) 11:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Bondegezou removed the word "allegedly" so as to state as fact, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Rittenhouse was the shooter. [2] Ironically, the reference they cite says "allegedly" every time, and puts quotes around "killed two" in the headline.[3] IMO we must not call Rittenhouse a killer in Wikipedia’s voice unless and until there is a conviction; we need to say "accused" or "alleged" or similar wording. I have restored "allegedly" and I request Bondegezou not to remove it again pending discussion here. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. See

WP:SUSPECT. -- MelanieN (talk

) 22:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. My only caveat is we need to state who makes the allegation. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is an important point. Media outlets follow standards similar to our BLP policies and a careful reading of sources will show that they don't actually come out and say he did it.

In my opinion it would be best to describe the shooting and the suspect separately. Instead of saying "Rittenhouse allegedly shot at multiple people, killing two" (which leaves the question of which parts of the event are confirmed and which are alleged), we should say something like "A person shot at multiple people, killing two. Rittenhouse has been identified as the suspect." This also avoids the awkward use of "allegedly" in every sentence. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I already did that, but it got reverted by User:ProcrastinatingReader. [4] -- MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have personally reverted User:ProcrastinatingReader's edit here due to this discussion. I made a change that is noted in the edit summary to address an issue that they raised in their edit summary that was not discussed here. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Also going to ping, User:Benmite for their edit. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

imo it doesn’t make sense, but I’m not going to obstruct the change if that’s what the majority want. If we’re fixing BLPCRIME violations, we may wish to look at the glaring, egregious violation in the lead. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Ugh, I didn't even notice that since I have been skipping past the lede. Thank you for catching that and I have removed it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC) (Amended 08:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC))

His legal defence team acknowledge it's him in the videos, but are arguing he acted in self-defence: see here. If both prosecution and defence agree it's him, I don't see why we need to tiptoe around the question. Rittenhouse, both sides concur, is in the videos and is the person described in our text. They differ over what he did constitutes murder, so we can say Rittenhouse shot these people, but we can't say he murdered them. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A lawyer's comments to reporters have no legal standing. At the very least we need to wait to see how they formally respond to the charges. If they claim self-defense, that's one thing and we could probably say "shot". If they ultimately decide to plead not guilty, that's another. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether comments to reporters have legal standing: we report

reliable sources, not merely comments with legal standing. We are not lawyers: we are encyclopaedists. It is reliably sourced that his defence lawyers say he shot these people, but that he was doing so in self-defence. We say that in the article. It seems to me very bizarre for us to say, "The prosecution say Rittenhouse shot these people. The defence say he shot these people. Reliable sources say he shot these people." But then to have one use of the word "allegedly" as if that's going to change what the reader gets from the article. Bondegezou (talk

) 10:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not lawyers: we are encyclopaedists. Quite. And that's why we err on the side of caution. The point is not exactly that he did not shoot and kill those people. Rather, it's that said statement necessarily implies guilt and screams murder. And we could debate the linguistics of "kill" vs "murder" but that only proves the point - that many Wikipedians couldn't even tell the difference says a lot about how readers are going to perceive it. Similar applies for the definitive shot. Thus, we must put less weight on the matter, and take great care in how it's worded until there is a legal outcome. I think the current wording, at least of the intro paragraph, is mostly good. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If we just said "Rittenhouse shot some people" and nothing more, then maybe there would be some basis to your concern that there would be material in violation

WP:BLPCRIME

. But we don't do that. We have a long section that describes events and gives both a prosecutor's view and the defence lawyers' view. Rittenhouse's actions (and even you don't dispute that it was Rittenhouse) are contextualised. You can't read all that and simply presume shooting necessarily implies guilt. It is explicitly laid out how his actions may not mean he is guilty of anything.

That's how we should handle these concerns, with well-sourced text obeying

WP:DUE

, not by sprinkling a few "alleged"s in the text.

A journalist friend pointed out to me how simply dropping in a word like "allegedly" is bad writing. If something is alleged, it has been alleged by someone, some source. Would that help? Instead of Rittenhouse allegedly shot three people, could we look at explicitly saying who alleged this? "Media reports and an indictment allege Rittenhouse shot... His defence lawyers issued a statement concurring, but argued he..." Something along those lines? Because the current text does not read well. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

In the "Pennsylvania" subsection toward the end of the article, the first sentence basically reads that 'protesters protested in protest'. I changed the last bit to "in opposition" but the original editor restored the P word. Can we come to agreement on a different wording? —ADavidB 20:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We aren't required to call protesters protesters even if they are protesters. I would re-write it as On August 26, many marched throughout Center City in front of city hall in protest of the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! That's much better IMO. —ADavidB 22:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

definitely sounds a lot better Anon0098 (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add: “We appreciate you guys. We really do.” Ref.: https://theintercept.com/2020/08/28/kyle-rittenhouse-violent-pro-trump-militias-police/ --217.234.65.244 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

What aspect(s) of this (somewhat opinionated) source do you believe should be included, in what parts of this article? —ADavidB 14:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I am going to add a paragraph to the "background" section about the presence of armed civilians. (I do have better sources than this Intercept item.) -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That sentence, with what ever context/aspect(s).

"In video footage taken before the shooting began on Tuesday night, Rittenhouse and a few other men carrying weapons and wearing tactical vests strapped to their chests can be seen gathered in the darkness near a cluster of armored police vehicles. One officer, coming in fuzzy over a loudspeaker, orders protesters to disperse. At the same time, another officer tosses water bottles to Rittenhouse and his compatriots. “We appreciate you guys,” he says. “We really do.” Ref.:https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/08/kenosha-killings-militia-trump/615775 --93.211.223.218 (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I have added a few sentences to the "Shooting-Background" section, providing context about the "Kenosha Guard", the objections of civic leaders to the presence of such armed civilians, and the supportive treatment they got from individual police officers. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: also, the response of the Kenosha Police Dept. in the aftermath of the shootings may require some more expansion in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What specifically? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes we forget we're an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. I propose that we condense the material under 'Events elsewhere' into 2-3 brief paragraphs without subheadings. It should be sufficient to simply list the cities with other protests, without the detial. The sports shutdowns probably don't need much trimming. - MrX 🖋 11:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. These are tumultuous events that have rocked a nation, whilst a large part of the world has looked on aghast. It is a historical event and I think it is best we record the responses across the U.S. to this event. I disagree we are newsmaking, we are merely documenting the event. We are unusual in that we are able to write an encyclopedia entry in close to real time. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur that the "Events elsewhere" section isn't covering events that have attracted much coverage and could be condensed. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Almost the entire article is bloated with unnecessary detail that makes almost no meaningful difference to the reader. I don't know that it's necessary to even list the cities rather than simply saying there were smaller protests around the country. (A local paper reported 100 people protesting in a city of four million...or...about 45% of the crowd that forms outside of a local bar after last call.)

It's not necessary for us to read the entire coroner's report on the injuries. No one is going to miss the point if we don't specify the pulmonary artery. He was shot in the chest and he died. It's also not necessary to list every hot dog stand and post office box that was damaged, complete with the exact minute and damn near long and lat.

But so it goes with articles on current events. GMG^talk 11:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:Recentism a lot of this stuff is going to be shoved in there because people think it's extremely important when in the long-run it's not. I'd support trimming a lot of this. Most of it is way too specific Anon0098 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• There appears to be far more support for trimming than not, so I've done that. - MrX 🖋 11:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Has anyone seen any information about the gun - whose it was, how he "obtained" it (his lawyer says he got it in Wisconsin although he lives in Illinois), what he did with it after leaving the scene? This seems to be to be rather vital information, with implications such as whether he had help. I'm not looking for speculation, or our theories or discussion, just whether anyone has seen any actual reporting on this question. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the article from Milwaukee, WI's WTMJ-TV's website? https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/attorneys-representing-kyle-rittenhouse-say-he-was-wrongfully-charged-after-acting-in-self-defense It has information from his attorney on what Rittenhouse was doing, that day, in Wisconsin and talks about the gun. ..."Rittenhouse finished his shift as a lifeguard in Kenosha last Tuesday, he decided he wanted to help clean up damage in Kenosha left amid unrest over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. He and a friend went to a local high school to remove graffiti, according to Pierce. Later that day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed, Pierce says. The business owner said he needed help defending his business. So Rittenhouse and his friend armed themselves with rifles and headed to the business. So Rittenhouse and his friend armed themselves with rifles and headed to the business. Pierce added that the weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines." There is also a Scott Olson/Getty Images photo taken earlier in the day that shows Rittenhouse cleaning the graffiti from the school that would backup what the attorney said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.119.66 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Exactly my question. "Armed themselves with rifles" how? There in Wisconsin, when he lives in Illinois? He couldn't have bought them, not in either state; he's not old enough. Whose guns are they, how did he get them, what did he do with them afterward? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Heavy reported two days ago that, according to Rittenhouse lawyer Linn, a friend of Rittenhouse who lives in Wisconsin gave him the gun. There's no mention of the friend's age. The same source article identifies Dominic Black as a friend whom Rittenhouse called after shooting Rosenbaum, though that may not be the same friend who reportedly supplied the gun. —ADavidB 01:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, you are not alone wanting to know how a juvenile could get ahold of an AR-15! The Rittenhouse criminal complaint, released Thursday: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint.html

• His lawyer wrote that Rittenhouse obtained the AR-15 rifle from a "friend" in Wisconsin - meaning that he didn’t transport it with him from Illinois: https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1299353460530384899 - With friends like that, who needs enemies?

• The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) wrote an analysis → https://medium.com/dfrlab/armed-militias-mobilize-on-social-media-hours-before-deadly-kenosha-shooting-1ee5925a035f → "The conspiracy website InfoWars, meanwhile, amplified the call to arms," ... "While much of the thread quickly devolved into an argument, a user named BassmasterFisherDude replied with a threat: “I am on the way with 75 people from Green Bay We have lots of guns. Lots of pipe bombs. Going to cleanse the streets of rioters.” They added in a follow-up comment, “We are White We are above the law.”

• Three Percenters (III%) / Paul Swick, State officer with the TTPO, established collaboration with militia group and posts he has made showed a clear desire to hurt protestors. Please, read want J.J. MacNab, George Washington University's Program on Extremism, posted about the III%: https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/status/1300440671946452993

• https://www.kqed.org/arts/13885480/why-are-right-wing-pundits-celebrating-the-kenosha-shooter → "Kyle Rittenhouse traveled from Illinois to Wisconsin to join an armed brigade of vigilantes attempting to protect the city from riots; a now-removed Facebook page organizing the group used racially coded language, referring to the protesters as “evil thugs.”"

• https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/08/27/criminal-complaint-against-kyle-rittenhouse-details-prosecutors-version-of-events-in-kenosha-shooting-that-killed-2-wounded-1 → McGinnis [reporter Richard McGinnis (with the Daily Caller/ Tucker Carlson) named as witness in the Rittenhouse criminal complaint] said as he and Rittenhouse were walking south, another armed man who appeared to be in his 30s joined him and said he was there to protect Rittenhouse, prosecutors said.

• https://accesswdun.com/article/2020/8/933115 : Rittenhouse and a friend armed themselves on Tuesday and made their way to a mechanic shop whose owner had put out a call for protection, according to a statement from John Pierce, an attorney representing Rittenhouse. In the attorney's description of events, Rittenhouse had tried to offer medical help to injured people before he was “accosted by multiple rioters," leading him to open fire. ... Wisconsin allows gun owners to openly carry in public, but a person under 18 can’t legally possess or carry a firearm unless that person is hunting or target practicing with an adult or in the military. --87.170.192.244 (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The events of Rittenhouse's day: Bing maps shows a 38 minute drive in light traffic from Anioch, IL to Kenosha. Worked his lifeguard shift then went cleaning the graffiti, at school, with a friend. The reports have been that it was a friend in Wisconsin's gun. No source for the following but it would make sense that friend is probably the same friend he was cleaning graffiti with at the school. That the friend is from the area since the lawyer has stated "...the weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines." I have read too many articles and lost track of one I read that said the friend he was cleaning graffiti with, went to that high school. The high school was definitely in Kenosha because it was captioned in the Getty picture as being next to the Kenosha County Courthouse, which is located in the city of Kenosha. So the friend was from Wisconsin. I think people are getting too hung up on how he got the gun. A lot of people in Wisconsin own guns and not just one. So if the friend, from Wisconsin, loaned him the gun that would not be a surprise. Even if he wasn't old enough to have it that is only a misdemeanor charge. It might not even hold up in court as a person that has passed a hunter safety course can legally carry and hunt independently with a rifle like that at age 14, in Wisconsin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.119.66 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

So, according to his lawyer, he got it from a friend. I'm going to add that to the article, citing the lawyer of course. And presumably he gave it back to the friend after leaving the scene? I hope the police are looking into that. A competent investigation would by now have located and interviewed the friend, and taken custody of the rifle for forensic investigation. We have gotten no hint up to now that that has happened, but we can hope. Also, the friend who loaned him the gun does not appear to have stayed with him for his later activities. At least, he is alone every time we see him. We don't have any idea what he did after leaving the scene of the shooting, or how he got home to Illinois. There is lots to look into here, primarily because of the implication that this wasn't just him; others must have been involved before and after the shooting. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Wait, it's still murky.

• According to the WTMJ article, "So Rittenhouse and his friend (the one he had been cleaning graffiti with) armed themselves with rifles". It does NOT say the friend loaned him the rifle, just tht he and the friend both obtained guns somehow. - possibly possibly both belonging to the friend or possibly from some third person.
• The lawyer later stated in a tweet “the gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident”. That suggests the friend owned enough AR-15 style guns to arm himself and Rittenhouse. I sure hope the police have talked to that friend.
• According to the prosecution complaint, the gun was “later recovered by law enforcement and identified as a Smith & Wesson AR-15 style .223 rifle.” Good, they have the gun, but it would sure be nice to know how they got it. I'm going to add that to the article.
• They have also spoken to the person Rittenhouse was on the phone with saying “I just killed somebody”. We don’t know what if any connection that person has with the case.
• The prosecution complaint sounds like they have not interviewed Rosenhouse. He most likely is refusing to talk to them, as is his right. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m a bit concerned we are archiving after only three days. Surely we should be leaving threads on for at least a few days longer. I propose seven days so people can at least see decisions on things like page moves and article splits. Any objections? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk page is 175kB. 3 days is reasonable until things slow down a bit. VQuakr (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - I propose reducing the talk page archive period to one day to get the file size under control. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

One day would be completely unacceptable. It would require all interested parties to log on at least once a day, every day; not reasonable for those who have Real Lives. Three days is reasonable. And of course, closed discussions can be manually archived. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

A little montage of pictures for the infobox showing the protests, during the time and the aftermath, would be nice. At a glance I can't seem to find any, especially of during protests, that are freely licensed though (on Commons or Flickr). Anyone better at finding pictures than I am? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: can you help here? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: @Chris.sherlock: Unfortunately the photos I took show the aftermath, and the clean up in Kenosha. It is possible to take a screenshot of a Youtube video if the right license is granted - however, it is tricky, - and if no explicit permission the photo gets speed deleted. I will see if I can find any with correct license. Others with more knowledge about our license policies may also want to give it a try. In the mean time I can see about putting something together from photos I have on commons now. Lightburst (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's pretty slim pickins other than LB's photos on Commons. GMG^talk 14:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: @GreenMeansGo: @ProcrastinatingReader: I may have to take another ride to Kenosha to get active protest shots. I was only there for the aftermath, and after much had been cleaned up. News reports say that the protests have been peaceful for the last four nights, so I perhaps feel comfortable enough to go there in the night (gulp). Maybe tonight. By the way- reports say that more Nat Guard arrived today brining the total of Nat Guard troops there to 1000. Probably safe now - even though Nat Guard likely has no arrest powers, the present a visible authority to bad actors within the protests. Lightburst (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the situation is like over there currently, but do stay safe Lightburst :), that'd be the most important thing. And adding my thanks for the pictures you've already taken (I just noticed the section above), they've added much-needed flavour to the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Which color has your skin Lightburst? If you are black or café au lait don't do it. Trump will visit Kenosha on Tuesday, September 1. Stay safe and take care. --93.211.221.190 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please, please be careful! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I returned to Kenosha today. Sadly I did not know where the BLM protestors were. I later heard they were at the site of the Blake shooting - sorry I missed them. I did get photos of Trump supporters, Trump and Trump's motorcade- also many National guard troops. Kenosha seems under control now, and apologies for the photo of Trump, it was the best I could do, as it was hard getting close for any of these shots, but especially the Trump photo. Got about 20 photos worth keeping and they can be found on commons "kenosha protests" Lightburst (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Great job! Thank you for your efforts and stay safe. RopeTricks (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

A group of Kenosha residents calling themselves the "Kenosha Guard" approached County Sheriff David Beth and asked him to deputize them in order to "defend [our] City tonight from the evil thugs".

This is a potentially important piece of information, what does the community of Wikipedians think? Here's the source I found. If you can find other sources about this, I think we can bring together a lot of information and better-define the motives of the counter-protestors. Perhaps not now, but later in the article's life. If we collect enough citations, that will be helpful for future editors who might want to find that information. RobotGoggles (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

There is information from BBC, Business Insider, CNBC, Fox Business, The Guardian, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, NPR, and The Verge. Most are on Facebook removing them, but a few are just about their posts on Facebook. There is information here, but I am unsure how much of it belongs in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps none at all, but since this is a developing story, it might in the future. Thank you for your help. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The militias see themselves as storm troopers of the president and organize via Facebook and Alex Jones' InfoWars - The armed militias are increasingly appearing at anti-racism demonstrations in Portland, Atlanta and other cities, see themselves as the president's storm troopers. It is no coincidence that the shooter of Kenosha is a Trump supporter(Protest und Gewalt in Kenosha - Trump's great America)--93.211.208.71 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Look you can oppose Trump or think this shooting wasn't justified, but there's no need to make up utter garbage. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 17:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It is unclear whether the "Kenosha Guard" had any tangible existence outside Kevin Mathewson's activity on facebook and perhaps other means he may have used to promote the presence of militia on the streets of Kenosha on the night of 25 August. Leutha (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact than an unidentified militia-type group asked to be deputized, and the sheriff refused, is already in the article. So is a line or two about the origin of the "Kenosha Guard". -- MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)