Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting

Jump Kick Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox calls itself entertainment, has a political agenda that determines its content, was founded as a mouthpiece for the GOP ... none of those news organizations you mention is anything like that. -- Jibal (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying with a straight face that The Guardian has no political agenda? No wonder Wikipedia is becoming a joke when sources from one side of the political spectrum are considered ok while the ones in the other side are all banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:AC68:1567:2FF8:94DC (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

SomeRandomGuy 10:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You Cant be serious??? CNN is not political??? MSNBC???? I cant think of one major "news source" that isn't political. 22:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC) 2601:5C4:4301:217C:E480:9F0C:8409:151F (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You're focusing in on the word "political" for some reason. What Outdatedpizza likely meant is Fox is not suitable as a source for political coverage, as per WP:RSP. This is because editors perceive Fox News to be biased and opinionated. CNN and MSNBC have a history of factual accuracy and as such as considered reliable by a majority of Wikipedians per WP:RSP. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

SomeRandomGuy 10:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The word "political" should be focused upon, because Jibal who I was replying to made it such. Nearly all "news" sources are highly politicized, and Wikipedia unfortunately has become as well. Nearly every wiki page on politics bashes conservatives. CNN and MSNBC have a long history of non-factual one-sided political advocacy - how many of their shows even pretend to be news? Was CNNs coverage of Nicholas Sandman, Kyle Rittenhouse or Huter Biden's laptop "reliable" or "accurate". It's not Fox News that's biased, its the folks who have hijacked wikipedia. The page you point to shows that Wikipedia excludes all non-liberal sources (Fox, dailyMail, NYPost, etc., etc.) that I know of, which speaks volumes about wikipedia's reliability. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:AC3F:7AA6:DD0F:B40C (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100% with this. Wikipedia is becoming a joke because of this. Who is making the decisions some sources are political or not? My guess is, one side of the political spectrum is doing this and it shows in how biased many articles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:AC68:1567:2FF8:94DC (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

If in fact he has been identified, I'd imagine an appropriate source will emerge eventually. Yes, there is a lot of garbage hurled out there by the media. The cool thing about Wikipedia is it can filter through the noise, if editors are willing to put in the effort to identify the worthy material. Complaining about the world on article talk pages eats up earnest editors' time and does not help further that goal. The real reason this can't be sourced correctly is probably far more boring and innocuous than you would think. 2600:1012:B061:4E2A:E99E:E1E1:4628:27CC (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Separate article for trial?

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wait for now; if in a few months there needs to be a split, if anything a new article on Kyle Rittenhouse may be needed if he stays in the spotlight. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split - Article is over 100 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• No split. There is nothing so special about the trial, only whole story is notable. But the story is highly significant. The context: [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Don't split it's all one event. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• No - It all goes together. Other high profile incidents are combined where the article has the event and the aftermath and/or related trials - no need for separate articles. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split. There seems to be enough coverage of the trial to write a fuller detailed article that goes into the trial itself in more depth than would be appropriate for inclusion in the article on the shooting. Since articles are written in summary style, it would be more appropriate to narrow down the listing of legal proceedings in this article and to link using a {{main article}} template to a main article for the trial. If the holdup is a neutral title, then "State v. Rittenhouse" or something along those lines could suffice temporarily until a better title could be fleshed out; I don't see this being an issue that should hold up a split. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. The proper treatment of the Kenosha killings deserves Wikipedia’s best efforts. Even the language used will be unsatisfactory to many. It’s easy to picture an edit battle. I recommend the trial and acquittal remains a section here until sufficient material is available for an independent page. Dw31415 (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What material, in your opinion, does not currently exist that is needed to justify the creation of an independent page? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait until the article gets sufficiently expanded and more stable, but I agree in principle with the idea. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split I think a split at this point is appropriate since it's such a notable trial. I would say the trial itself has similar RS coverage as the Trial of Derek Chauvin. Also I agree with the notion that this will expand over time. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Don't split it all goes together. Dream Focus 21:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split The trial and the unrest were two separate events and should have two separate articles. We should also have a page for Kyle Rittenhouse himself. Joe (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Split the trial had numerous aspects that would be way too long to include in the article, and many of them are unrelated to the shooting, since the trial was not only about the shooting but also what occurred beforehand with Black and Rittenhouse and also what occurred afterwards with his extradition back to Kenosha etc. Bill Williams 23:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Wait It's one event, the Legal proceedings section on this article doesn't take a disproportionate amount of text, and the article size is reasonable at 31KB prose. feminist (t) 08:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Jump Kick Man Is Not Unidentified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who were the barristers?

Who were the barristers defending (or prosecuting) Rittenhouse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions - subsections titles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That isn't really a good characterization. Many of the right leaning sources and many legal analysis blogs (regardless of bias) noted the evidence pointed to a strong self defense case. Many of the conservative sources noted that much of the mainstream media coverage either got facts wrong or emphasized aspects that could mislead readers. Examples of getting the facts wrong are that Rittenhouse shot African Americans, crossed state lines with a gun, couldn't legally poses the gun (Politifact got this wrong then claimed the were right even when the charge was thrown out![2], NYP talking about it [3]). The emphasis on crossing a state line without noting that Kenosha was only 15 miles away from his house and that he had a number of family and other ties to the town suggested he went to an area specifically because he was looking for trouble. Thus many conservative sources and legal bloggers noted that the difference between what many people understood to be true and the facts of the case (generally the facts that the prosecution and defense agreed upon) were very different. The catch here is finding "reliable" sources that will note these failures. Springee (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

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

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

Source 1

Source 2

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

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

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

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

21 Wikipedia pages with the term "Kyle Rittenhouse"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name of Article

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

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

Multiple info boxes

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black and his role connecting Rittenhouse to rifle in the lede

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

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

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