Made contact?

The article says “Next, according to court records and video footage, another protester, Anthony Huber, "made contact" with Rittenhouse's left shoulder with a skateboard as they struggled for control of the gun.[44][45][46][41] As Huber was pulling on the rifle, Rittenhouse fired once, hitting Huber in the chest, perforating his heart and right lung, causing his rapid death.[34][47]”

Why is made contact in quotations? Did he or did he not make contact? If it's unclear (although it's stated there is video footage), supposedly made contact seems better than putting the words in quotations. Jhurley85 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The words "make contact" are quoted from the last of the sources provided for that sentence, thus the quotation marks. As I recall, whether the skateboard made contact with Rittenhouse was a point of contention in prior editing of this article, with other verbs (e.g. 'hit', 'struck') having been used. This is a direct quote from an ABC source regarding court records and its inclusion here seemed to resolve the issue. —ADavidB 14:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jhurley85 that we should remove the quotation marks. I do see that the abc7NY source has "make contact" in quotations. It's possible from context that they are quoting Hannah Gittings, Huber's girlfriend, but it's much more likely that they are scare quoting. We shouldn't duplicate the mistake; if we are quoting that source, we should do so exactly and make it clear which source is being directly quoted. If we are scare quoting, we should stop. I'll probably edit out the quote marks soon if no one objects and point to this talk section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to say something like "source X said the board made contact" or similar. The intent is to clearly attribute the statement without making it look like the Wikipedia editors are casting doubt on the statement. Springee (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll have to skim through a few sources to see how most are handling it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "unrest" in article

As above, so below.--Jorm (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is "unrest" used in this article, and other articles from around this period, as opposed to "riot"? Riot is used on plenty of other pages in a similar context, shouldn't this be kept standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎50.107.105.191 (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "unrest" is used because editors of the Kenosha unrest article discussed the name and the consensus was not to use "riot". See Archive 6. —ADavidB 07:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That decision ought to be revisited- the damage estimate put out by some local sources was $50 million. I also think the reason Rittenhouse and others went there, to stop arson, is not given much attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:d85b:f278:aeff:d881 (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think people would agree to change this article's title before the title of the Kenosha unrest article is changed, so your efforts would probably be better spent over there regarding the article title. Regarding arson, there's a paragraph in the subsection on Kyle Rittenhouse explaining his stated motivations for being there (protecting that business, and that the business had arson damage the previous night). I'm not sure there's much more to say. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Even if a RfC resulted in a clear consensus to change the title here, this topic should follow the lead article. Springee (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shooting vs Shootings

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I disagree with your premise. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Slate uses the term "shootings" https://slate.com/tag/kenosha-shootings Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
ABC[1] and CNN[2] use "shooting". —ADavidB 18:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why just article titles? If anything, the body is more persuasive sourcing per WP:HEADLINES. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Kenosha shooting" + Rittenhouse has 1,800 Google News hits. "Kenosha shootings" + Rittenhouse has 1,060. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite to actual reliable sources, as I am doing Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
CNN uses 'shooting', too. [3][4][5] This is not a good way to prove best wording. —ADavidB 03:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021

This is a waste of time because we're not going to have this discussion on this page; it belongs elsewhere, so this section exists only for the yammering of cats.--Jorm (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]
Rewriting is an improvement. This latter version seems best thus far. —ADavidB 19:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The two sentence proposal is better than my initial three sentence proposal. JMM12345 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)JMM12345[reply]
Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I disagree. The relevance to the shooting is clear and attested to by reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I suppose you would have to find RSs claiming it's relevant to the shooting. ― TaltosKieronTalk 22:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
RS have continued mentioning it since the post-shooting period: Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What conclusion are we stating or implying that isn't present in the sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
"Some WP:OR argument"? —ADavidB 06:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
Categories