Talk:Kenosha unrest

"It wasn't ruled self-defense"
, you removed the detail specifying that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum in self-defense, claiming that it wasn't ruled self-defense. Was or was Rittenhouse not acquitted of all charges? Oktayey (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

He was acquitted of all the charges. Which judge or jury ruling says it was self-defense? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The verdict of 'not guilty' says it was self defense; how could they have reached that verdict otherwise? Oktayey (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oktayey, the article lead says he was acquitted. Additionally, the end of the section in question says acquitted.  While I agree with the statement, "Rittenhouse acted in self defense", legally speaking we can only say the jury didn't find him guilty of the charges in question, presumably because they felt the self defense argument was reasonable.  Also, since prior to the edit in question and shortly after the article says he was acquitted, I'm not sure it's important to say "self defense" at that point.  Springee (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * While I still think there's more than enough evidence to state it directly, I agree it could be seen as redundant.
 * I know editors are supposed to assume good faith, but someone making an objectionable change like that without leaving an edit description AND marking it as a 'minor edit' makes that difficult for me. Oktayey (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, not an appropriate m tag. Springee (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I made an edit a few days ago which included a link to an article from a RS that 100% supported the edit I made (from current to "...acquitted on grounds of self-defense". It was undone because "That's not what the article says about the jury". Unless the mod is seriously making the Vaushian claim that "There is no knowing" and, therefore, since you cannot *literally* insert your brain into someone else's, there is no way to ever know even so much as causality (in which case, I would be making a global demand that this mod nuke about 95% of all of wikipedia on that ground), the article makes it explicitly clear that the only "ground" for "acquittal" for a jury to deliberate and reach "acquittal" was "self-defense". In fact, the article makes it clear that this point is so obvious the outcome should have been, essentially, foreseen. The article laid out the groundwork for why *a* jury would get to this conclusion, and this is *a* jury, and, unless we're going to be so obtuse as to say it is reasonable to say they may reasonably likely have rendered this decision because "the sky is blue" (again, because their is no knowing, and there is no causality), then the grounds for acquittal should be assumed to be the grounds laid out for the deliberation of the jury by the defense, by the prosecution, by the judge, by the law, by the article and by making the reasonable assumption of rational decision-making in the jury deliberation room unless evidence comes out to say otherwise. It's edits like this are what has cost Wikipedia and its mods the at least limited credibility it once had, and, again, unless you're going to take the autistically, hyperbolically, cartoon-super-villain literal interpretation of the rules that no human being and no other article on wikipedia assumes, there is no reason to have undone this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.103.37 (talk) 22:13 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Charged
Currently it has only two people listed as charged. However, this article says an additional 55 people were charged. Should the charged section be changed? 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I added information from this source to the "Later developments" section. Whether and how to add it to the infobox is subject to further thought/discussion. —ADavidB 01:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ...and this content is summarized in the infobox now as well. —ADavidB 02:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Move request: "Kenosha unrest" -> "Kenosha riots"
Move request: "Kenosha unrest" -> "Kenosha riots"

1. The events in Kenosha, as described in the article, clearly meet the definition of "riot". Pursuant to  MOS:EUPHEMISM's "Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms" the usage of "unrest" is a deprecated euphemism.

2. The attempt to deprecate the severity of the riots in Kensosha with the euphemism "unrest" creates the impression that the article's title is in violation of Wikipedia's "strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy."

Per #1, #2, above, the article's title needs to be renamed "Kenosha unrest" to "Kenosha riots".

RealLRLee (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * For reference, this topic has been covered previously in now-archived discussions: 1, 2, 3. —ADavidB 23:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) I see no mention, in the prior discussions, as to how "MOS:EUPHEMISM" mediates against the use of "unrest" or "protests" in the article title.
 * 2) Insofar as I understand Wikipedia policy the use of "strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy", for riots the appropriate word to use is "riots", not "unrest" or "protests".
 * I would like to discuss this matter and confirm that my understanding of the applicable facts and Wikipedia policy is correct or elicit facts and logic that indicates that my understanding is incorrect.
 * As I understand Wikipedia policy, it is appropriate to have an issue-clarifying discussion here, on this talk page, prior to taking the issue (if unresolved) to WP:NPOV/N. But, as the issue of calling the riots, in Kenosha, "riots" has been in dispute for 4 years, an authoritative decision from WP:NPOV/N would seem to be a time-saving solution. RealLRLee (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not read previous discussions, but I'd be very surprised if all relevant policies and guidelines have not been considered. Your understanding or MOS:EUPHEMISM and NPOV seems flawed, I'd suggest these are best addresses elsewhere as you are already doing for MOS:EUPHEMISM. Note that NPOV is quite clear "" If the view that this is an unrest is the majority view by far, and the view that it is a riot is the minority view by far, than NPOV requires us to go by the majority view, with the minority view possibly mentioned, but only in a limited way. Again definitions don't come in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Having now briefly read previous discussions, it sounds like the correct title is probably Kenosha protests and unrest is a compromise. So it's possible you're right, this article violates WP:NPOV since it gives undue weight to an extreme minority view i.e. that these were riots. However even if it's been 2.5 years since the previous discussion, I'm not sure it's necessary to rock the boat yet since it's likely sources with a more long term view are still limited. perhaps in another 2.5 years or something we can look into changing it, probably to Kenosha protests. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Nil_Einne: Per your "[my] understanding or MOS:EUPHEMISM and NPOV seems flawed" --  do you have evidence for this "flawed" claim?  Would you please provide the reasoning for your claim? Please be specific;  be sure to quote applicable Wikipedia policy(s) in your reasoning.
 * The plain text of Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms. ... Some words and phrases that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage." -- presents a strong policy-based argument against using the euphemism "unrest".  ALL riots are "unrest".  Not all unrest is riot.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nil_Einne, your "it gives undue weight to an extreme minority view i.e. that these were riots" is a clearly false claim.  The article itself refers to the events as "riots".  The Kenosha events clearly meet the Wikipedia description of Riot.
 * Would you please justify your claim that "riot", used to describe the Kenosha events, is an "an extreme minority view". I would like to see your reasoning.
 * Note, u/Nil Einne, that your "I'm not sure it's necessary to rock the boat" is contradicted by WP:BOLD.
 * RealLRLee (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)