Talk:Kenosha unrest/Archive 3

Milita
(User:Juno has split this into 2 questions)

Is it fair to describe Kyle as a militia member? I lean no. Juno (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC) The use of the plural indicates that he considers himself part of the group in question (or, alternatively, French royalty from the 17. century) --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , what do reliable sources say? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not seen anything solid that tags him as a member of a group. Juno (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the line because of some confusing wording. I'm surprised media sources are even mentioning him by name, as he is 17. A CBC news article said: The Anti-Defamation League, which tracks extremist activity, told CBS News there were militia members at the Kenosha protest but found no indication from Rittenhouse's social media footprint that he is connected to any extremist movements. KidAd   talk  19:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we can thank TMZ (and probably Twitter) for the misinformation. Media conflation determines that 1 there were militia members at the protests and 2, an individual killed people at the protest so therefor the individual was a militia member. KidAd   talk  20:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's not one single group called "the Militia", it's various different people that oppose the rioters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplosiveResults (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The local paper just published this article, with the title giving away the conclusion: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Kyle Rittenhouse, charged in Kenosha protest homicides, considered himself militia --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I read that article, but there's nothing at all in the article to support the claim in the headline that he "considered himself militia". Wsw248 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're second-guessing the source, then. The title and first paragraph definitely make the claim, as does a reference to "[the guy] and his fellow militiamen." It's not usually required for claims by reputable media to include primary sources.
 * And, even by that standard, the article includes evidence for the statement, quoting the gunman with "[...] and our job is to protect this business."
 * "Our job" as in the armed civilians on the scene. Unclear how many of these people were militia members. And I wasn't suggesting the article needed to include primary sources, but it should have at least explained the assertion in the title and the first paragraph, which it didn't. Instead, the article did everything except support or explain that central thesis. Maybe that was just their interpretation of "our job", but that seems like a really weak basis for the central thesis of the article. Wsw248 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Include per sources  . These are outlets that can be trusted to gather and report information reliably even if they don't include the primary source; in this case the reporting seems to be based on deleted/non-public social media posts. –dlthewave ☎ 02:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "based on deleted/non-public social media posts" Other WP:RS sources indicated there was no militia content whatsoever in his previously available social media; only support for police causes and affinity for firearms. Wsw248 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Include, widely described as such in sources per the above. --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include but by focusing on self-description and what is known, not conjectures. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal article is fine. We could write something along the lines of "an interview, video and social media suggest the teenager was active as a militia member who saw himself as protecting life and property". Fa suisse (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No If you read the Sentinel article it actually says "...Miskinis said he didn't know what group Rittenhouse was part of. He wouldn’t comment on the circumstances leading to Tuesday night's shootings, saying the investigation was too new." With that I would hold off on using this terminology until more is known. Comatmebro (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Too soon to say – "There are no overt links on Mr. Rittenhouse’s social media accounts to militias or white supremacist groups who have dispatched armed men to protest events across the country." – --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 05:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should say "he is a militia member" on current reporting. We can quote him or talk about how he saw himself: that seems a good way forward (depending, as always, on the reporting). Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave it out. He certainly doesn't appear to have been a member of any organized militia. He may have hooked up temporarily with a group in Kenosha calling itself a militia, but that's not the same thing. His strong attraction seems to have been toward police (I believe he was or is a member of a Police Explorer Post) rather than militia movements. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * However... I just saw where his lawyer described him as "a Minuteman protecting his community when the government would not." "Minuteman" is a term commonly used by organized militia groups. There is still no evidence that he actually belonged to such a group, but his lawyer tagging him with that name suggests the defense may claim he had such an affiliation. I still say leave it out, but watch this issue for developments. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is as much that the so-called "Kenosha Guard" was more a facebook page and a call out rather than anything with structure.Leutha (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Name
(User:Juno has split this into 2 questions)

Also: is it reasonable to use his name? I lean yes. Juno (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , what do reliable sources say? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While I generally lean against mentioning peoples names, let alone minors - a large number of sources have said his name. Thank you, u|Wsw248 for bringing up WP:MINORS. With that in mind, I would like to move toward not mentioning his name. Juno (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To the second question, I lean no, due to WP:MINORS. To the first question, probably wait and see until more information becomes available, I suppose. Wsw248 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should avoid the use of his name in-article. It has been broadly publicized but our standard for protection of minors is very high. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about this. WP:BLPNAME would suggest that he meets the threshold for using his name, but that he is a minor and, more importantly, that we can describe the events without using his name make me lean slightly toward omit for now. If a trial ensues and this gains continued coverage, I would lean toward inclusion.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't use his name. See WP:BLPCRIME. Not using the names of people who have charged with crimes but not yet convicted is generally preferable, and omitting the name does not result in any significant loss of context in this case. TompaDompa (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems right. --JBL (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Include; virtually all news reports after his identity was determined seem to use his name prominently, and he is central to the event. This satisfies the requirements of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME, provided we are clear that he is only accused at the present. WP:MINORS is just an essay (and not one that particularly reflects current practice, especially around the age of 17; in that borderline we generally go with the sources.)  Additionally, even by the standards WP:MINORS, the key question is whether he is considered a minor in his locale for the purposes of responsibility for his actions - and the sources are already saying he will be tried as an adult, which answers that question in the negative. --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include per Aquillion. The relevant policies and essay require care and caution when covering suspects, which we're able to meet by clearly labeling him as such. –dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include. It has been published around the world, and he has been charged as an adult. WWGB (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Omit. Seconding EvergreenFir. Even if he is mentioned across media, I'd lean toward not including the name of a minor if possible, which is the case here. Fa suisse (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Omit obviously, per WP:BLPCRIME, which overrides any local consensus. Reliable sources naming him is quite irrelevant here, as that's the entire point of WP:BLPCRIME existing. He is a low profile individual, per our policies, thus BLPCRIME applies. Plus, he's a minor, which should just add more strength to WP:BLP arguments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevant passage of BLPCRIME appears to be When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Are you suggesting that Kyle's name "has not been widely disseminated"? Newimpartial (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You’re looking at BLPNAME, not BLPCRIME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So we're talking about editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime? I'd say the matter has been considered, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording was written in 2007-10, I'm not sure why it hasn't been changed since, but in practice it means "do not add such material". The good thing is these policies override "talk page consideration", as they should, since most editors aren't going to be familiar with them. That the subject is a minor only adds to the issue. Feel free to wade through the archives of BLP and BLPN for further reassurance of this idea, as I had to do when I was mistaken on this matter. There's a very high burden to add a name in defiance of BLPCRIME, and I'm not aware of any cases where that's met (we literally hide the name of a previously convicted rapist at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann under this policy). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This looks more like a BLUDGEON than a valid precedent, I'd that's where you're pointing. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Precedent would be & this is just with a quick search. It's really up to you to dig the archives. It wouldn't really be logical to interpret BLPCRIME as a formality where editors on the talk page say "duly noted" and add the words in anyway, as you suggest above. Perhaps BLPCRIME needs to be looser and more clearly worded, but this wouldn't be the venue. Even in the case of ambiguities, we should (& I believe do) err on the side of exclusion, especially when (as in this case) no context is lost to the reader by not naming. At a current tally of numbers, not that it matters, we're at 8 in favour of exclusion and 3 in favour of inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a actually not sure this shouldn't be the trial case, since the (presently) accused person seems to be integral to the event in a way that is not true in the many cases of we know a crime occurred but don't know whodunit, which seem to be more what BLPCRIME has in mind. I don't think there is any reasonable argument that the shooting during the unrest doesn't meet WP:N or NCRIME, and my sense is that the shooter here is integral to the story of the event. On the other hand, I personally am willing to wait until Kyle is no longer a low-profile individual before restoring the name. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's also precedent for including the names of the accused as well, I can think of three right now - Killing of Ahmaud Arbery, Death of Nina Pop and Shooting of James Scurlock. So it's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. And when it's an officer involved shooting, there is precedent for that as well, Killing of George Floyd, and the parent article of this one, Shooting of Jacob Blake. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think many cases are just poor understandings of BLP policy, so articles which are undeveloped (like Nina Pop & James Scurlock) and articles which have only introduced names after interest fettered out are poor examples; the policy is probably violated on a countless number of articles, but it doesn't make it any less valid. Police officers, in the case of George Floyd, are exempt because they're WP:WELLKNOWN, thus exempt from both BLPCRIME and BLPNAME. The case of Killing of Ahmaud Arbery I'm not sure, but given how many times they're mentioned in the article alone, I imagine that may be an instance where it's too difficult to write the article without naming.Of course, one could argue that this is a bit ridiculous because we mention the name over half a dozen times in the titles of references on the article, but nevertheless I've seen it applied this way without issue (I think this used to be the case at Derek Chauvin as well, until recent). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The officer's involved in the Killing of George Floyd were not wellknown before Floyd's death, they only became wellknown because they were involved. And this young man falls into that same scenario. He is now wellknown, due to reliable sources widely reporting his name. Whether his name should be included in this article is a matter of consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My personal view is that Wikipedia "well known" isn't "is now receiving lots of media attention", and I think WP:LOWPROFILE suggests the same. The officers are inherently high profile due to their position. This young man, irrelevant of how much media attention he receives, remains low profile. Unless, of course, it turns out that he did high-profile actions, before or after his arrest (obviously he can still become high profile), but the media deciding to cover him wouldn't (& shouldn't) alone change his status. The whole point of WP:BLPCRIME is to hide names when WP:RS reports them (otherwise it would just be against core content policies), so to use media reporting as a roundabout way to include a name defeats the point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Omit WP:BLPCRIME and WP:MINORS lead me to believe we should hold off on using his name until a conviction. If he is convicted as an adult, those policies might not hold as much weight, and I could see us using his name at that time. I also tend to lean on the side of "don't glorify these people" for doing things like this. Just because everyone else is using his name doesn't mean we have to. Comatmebro (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please clarify your use of WP:MINOR. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Disregard. I realize now that you were just trying to cite WP:MINORS.  --Super Goku V (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Corrected to fix the typo. Thank you! Comatmebro (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. At least my mistake of not understanding at the time ended up being positive.  --Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include A reading of WP:BLPCRIME implies to me that we cannot imply that the suspect is guilty without a conviction, but little else. A simple way to resolve this would be to detail the events without the name, then mention that 'Suspect was arrest by (Illinois/local) police in relation to the event.  The Kenosha District Attorney charged Suspect in relation to the event.'  This is somewhat similar to how the Boston Marathon bombing was handled where when the authorities named the suspects and what they were alleged to do. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding: Regarding WP:MINORS, it is an essay that deals with a person who is not considered to be an adult along with a separate part about a person who "[...] has been adjudged to be incompetent."  If we were follow the WP:NONAME part of the essay by not including his name, we also would have to "Be careful of partial identifications, as a reader might assemble only a few facts and thereby use your information to identify the person who should not be identified, or might even mis-identify someone else."  Details of the current suspect are well known online to the point that even a general description would be enough to "[...] identify the person who should not be identified [...]."  To do the best to follow this section and not identify the suspect, we would be required to omit everything including age and gender, which still might not be enough to prevent a reader from identifying the suspect due to still needing to cover what is claimed to have happened.  There is an addition consideration that the suspect is currently being tried as an adult.  WP:MINORS talks about a person adjudged to be incompetent as already noted.  I believe that this can be extended despite not being in the essay to the subject, but in the sense that a court will be treating the suspect as an adult.  Even if we do identify them, I do believe that a consensus could be reached that the "Editing on a person who must be identified" section of WP:MINORS would apply.  That would mean editing [...] what is said about the person so that it is even less contentious than would be acceptable for a competent adult or not contentious at all. Do so not just by adding sources but by toning down the content in a way that remains consistent with sourcing, which I believe should be done anyways due to WP:BLPCRIME.  --Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include We are way beyond the point of WP:BLPNAME. This name has been widely published. Take the usual caution not to imply guilt but publishing his name is not an issue. --- C &amp; C ( Coffeeandcrumbs ) 05:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include Concur, WP:BLPNAME is baseless at this point. Serious reservations about using WP:MINOR as the government has already announced that they are trying him as an adult.Albertaont (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include - WP:BLPNAME says "... editors must not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime,..." That's what we're doing—seriously considering. Given that this has been widely publicized and video of the murders exists, there is no compelling reason that I can see to omit the name of the suspect. His age is not a factor. - MrX 🖋 11:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include Yes, he is a minor, but the fact that the police are releasing his name indicates that they intend to charge him as an adult. However, we do need to be careful not to say in Wikipedia's voice that he killed the people. I added several "allegedly"s to the article today. No matter what kind of videos or statements come out in the future, he should remain "allegedly" the killer unless and until he is convicted. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On the note of a being charged as an adult, since the point has been made many times, I must note I feel this point is somewhat flawed. The ideology behind BLPCRIME separates executive (incl prosecution and police) and the judiciary (as impartial). It logically follows that the police/prosecutors deciding to charge him as an adult does not mean that he was (or will be) convicted as one. So him being charged as an adult doesn't diminish his status as a minor. Perhaps we are beyond the point of omitting his name, but even if so, we must still tread carefully and stay true to the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME, which prohibits even implying the person has committed a crime. I think your edits are a good step in that direction, but unambiguous violations do constantly keep cropping up in edits (mainly by newer editors). Thus, I think an editnotice is probably a good idea, as well as a talk notice, to highlight WP:BLPCRIME implications. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Something like User:ProcrastinatingReader/BLPCRIME editnotice perhaps? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Include Both prosecution and defence say that it is Rittenhouse who shot a number of protesters. Shooting someone isn't necessarily a crime: his defence lawyers argue he acted in self-defence. If they are correct (can prove their case in court), then we will still be able to say Rittenhouse shot these protesters, but he will be adjudged to have done so legally. What we can't say, under WP:BLPCRIME, is that Rittenhouse murdered these individuals, or shot them illegally (until such time as he is found guilty of doing so, should that be the outcome of legal proceedings). BLPCRIME applies to a crime (first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, attempted homicide -- what he's been charged with). I don't see that it should stop us describing events that everybody (reliable sources, prosecution, defence) agree occurred (Rittenhouse fired shots that hit people, resulting in 2 deaths). Happy to see wording changed to ensure we are the right side of BLPCRIME, but I think we are within policy to say this was Rittenhouse, he fired these shots. WP:MINORS is only an essay and it seems to me to say that who counts as a minor should be determined by state law, and Rittenhouse is being charged as an adult, ergo doesn't that mean he is an adult under state law and MINORS does not apply? Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead: Shooting of protestors - needs clarifying
I'm from the UK, so haven't been following this incident. It's not 100% clear in the intro who shot who - I had to scroll down to the main body to confirm that it was indeed an anti-protest guy who shot two BLM protesters. It might be worth putting this in the intro so readers can see at a glance..?WisDom-UK (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not really clear that Rittenhouse was "anti-protest" so much as "anti-riot"/protect the public (in his mind). I agree that the intro doesn't do a good job since it also isn't clear that this isn't a case like the Charlottesville_car_attack.  In Charlottesville the intent was to attack the protesters.  There is no evidence Rittenhouse wanted to harm vs wanted to protect in at least some way (regardless of how naive he was).  Perhaps something like "On August 25, an altercation resulted in the shooting death of two protesters and an injury to a third.  Prosecutors have charged the shooter, who claims the shootings were in self defense, with six felonies inclding first-degree intentional homicide."  It's a bit longer but it captures that this wasn't a case of someone who opened fire out of the blue and the victims were not random.  Springee (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made an update indicating that Rittenhouse is claiming self defense. Springee (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

So long as we are talking about the lead,, I don't think this is true to the source.[] It suggests that issues that protests were trouble free prior to the arrival of militia types. The article says confrontations between protesters and counter protesters started when... Later in the same section of the article is says the call for armed citizens went out Tuesday (25 Aug, the protests/damaged started on the 23rd). Perhaps a change like, "Property damage, fires and looting, occurred the night of the shooting. After a "call for armed citizens" to protect the city, groups of armed militia members, which Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth described as vigilantes, arrived resulting in additional confrontations."  This makes it clear that the initial protests were not peaceful but the NYT felt things went up a notch when armed "protectors" showed up. Springee (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Riots removed from lede
There needs to be some mention of the riots and property destruction in the lede in a way that does not violate WP:EUPHEMISM. I recently added it, and it has since been removed. There has been a disturbing trend of scrubbing protest articles to remove mentions of violence. That is not the job of Wikipedia.  Ergo Sum  14:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It wasn't removed, just moved up to the first paragraph. Where it was in the second paragraph made it read like the riots were in response to the Rittenhouse shootings.  But, since the article came out before the Rittenhouse shootings I moved it up in the lead.  [] Springee (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies; should've slowed down in my reading. Thanks .  Ergo Sum  15:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Fatal shooting background
One of the shot protestors was filmed daring/taunting an armed man (not Rittenhouse) to "shoot me" earlier that evening. I previously proposed mentioning this, but it was opposed due to the source being from NYPost, which was very recently depreciated. I've since found two more sources that are both credible. Can we add this to the shooting background now? Steverci (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's also being reported that his girlfriend tried to calm him down after earlier confrontations, but couldn't. Less quotable sources say he may have been on drugs. Pkeets (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A sentence has been added to the background section to cover it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly inclined to keep this out. Yes, it does suggest that Rittenhouse had a reason to fear the would be victim but we have no idea what lead up to that video.  Rittenhouse may have threatened first or may have done nothing wrong.  We just don't know.  Also, we do need to consider that BLP does apply to Rosenbaum so it's probably best to keep the video out as the context is simply unclear.  Springee (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody's making an argument for or against motivations, it's just documenting what happened with reliable sources. What on BLP are you referring to? --Steverci (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BDP applies to Rittenhouse, including on the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But he's not dead. --Steverci (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BDP (part of BLP), the BLP rules apply to recently deceased as well, thus Rosenbaum. My concern with respect to Rosenbaum is this video appears to show Rosenbaum starting a fight but we don't know anything else about the context around that video.  As such I'm worried it may imply something negative that we cannot RS at this time.  As such we should err on the side of caution and not present what appears to be very negative information about Rosenbaum. Springee (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The background section contains a lot of information about Rittenhouse being filmed at locations leading up to the shooting and his activities with the armed civilians that were recorded on video. Rosenbaum's interactions with armed civilians before the shooting is currently presented in a similar context and doesn't seem out of place to me as long as what is known is accurate and neutrally worded. If Rittenhouse had yelled provocations at protesters and made comments like "come anywhere near me and I'll shoot you!", we would be including that too. With regard to BLP, Rosenbaum did not start a fight (with the other man on the video), his interactions with the armed civilians took place in a public area where it was lawful for him to be there, and doesn't appear to have committed any crimes in the cited news reports or videos. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That part is fine. Just any negative comments against either from "less quotable sources" is a problem.  --Super Goku V (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the other content (speculation from low quality sources) should be kept out. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * :I Sorry, I was referring to Rosenbaum and confused Rosenbaum's and Rittenhouse's names.  Sorry for the error and thank you for noticing it and to Springee for correcting it.  --Super Goku V (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

ADL
I think this sentence should be removed. Since there is no previous claim that Rittenhouse was a member of an extremist group, picking an obscure sentence out of a single source to elevate this information strikes me as WP:UNDUE.

- MrX 🖋 15:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pertanent considering the rest of the section paints a somewhat different picture. I could see moving it lower in that section.--MONGO (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What about WP:DUEWEIGHT? Is this something that is being covered by other sources? - MrX 🖋 16:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE. Reliable source reporting on a well-known organization in the arena of hate speech & extremism. Whether or not he was connected to extremist groups is relevant background info. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm agnostic but certainly don't think it's necessary. If it's in, I would remove "prior to the shooting" unless sources state he's had connections to extremist groups since the shooting. We wouldn't say "he didn't beat his wife before 2007" about someone who's never been a wife-beater. Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Wikieditor19920: I think you're confusing WP:DUE (WP:DUEWEIGHT) with WP:V. There is no question that this is briefly mentioned in one source. - MrX 🖋 18:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the source provided gives sufficient weight for a one-sentence mention. If it were longer, I would agree with you on the weight issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how WP:DUEWEIGHT works. A single source cannot establish weight by definition. "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." - MrX 🖋 16:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely keep it. People always assume, in this kind of situation, that the person might have belonged to an extremist group of some kind. So to have this kind of comment from the JDL is very important to scotch rumors. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Per my comment above I think this is DUE but could probably be done better. A number of sources/commentators have described Rittenhouse as a white supremacist or similar. This Atlantic article is very critical of Rittenhouse [] and says, "Rittenhouse has been called a “white supremacist,” but none of his comments during interviews at the scene mention race.". The National Review noted Congressional Democrats calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist []. NPR mentioned both the search for ties to groups and the lack of any evidence of affiliation []. MrX is right in noting that without context that material just floats there and is undue. However, in context of sources noting he has been attacked as such, it makes a lot more sense. Springee (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No Reliable Source has suggested that he has white supremacist connections, and no evidence has been found to suggest it. Given that, I oppose quoting any of the accusations-without-evidence accusing him of such - probably knee-jerk reactions based on partisan stereotyping. We should not dignify such comments or expand their reach by referring to them here. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see your point and given this is a BLP I can see not quoting such accusations. Even without those I'm OK keeping something in there saying (to date) he doesn't appear to be part of [bad groups].  Springee (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral to whichever version is better. If having the sentence implies a connection, then it should be removed.  If not having the sentence implies a connection, then it should be kept.  If both as suggested above, then maybe we need to put it up for WP:RFC or a noticeboard if it is considered more serious.  --Super Goku V (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone object to removing "prior to the shooting" from the article? Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I can see why they included it - they are quite properly expressing the limitations of what they investigated - but it probably isn't needed for our purposes. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RACIST, unless he is "widely described" as a white supremacist by reliable sources, it shouldn't be mentioned at all. I do not see that present here and am removing that portion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely remove it. Why would we include something he didn't have? This type of sentence would only be due as a rebuttal/denial to an allegation and/or claim in the article that he was connected to an extremist group. There's no context given as to why this obscure sentence is significant, relevant, or any way connected to the alleged crimes he has been accused of committing. Isaidnoway <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 00:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is always the first question asked when there is a shooting. "Did the shooter belong to any hate groups, radical groups, any group that might have contributed to his motivation?" It's part of the quest for a motive. There don't need to be specific allegations. The search for such a connection is routinely done and routinely reported. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that that's always the first question. It certainly wasn't mine. We already inform readers about the Kenosha Guard, so it would follow that we have informed reader of any other groups he's associated with. The ADL merely looked at his social media account. That stands out as giving undue prominence to something that any idiot with an internet connection could do. No one has yet shown that this information is important because of proportionate coverage in reliable sources. While we're at it, we should also remove the primary-sourced ACLU response. - MrX 🖋 16:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think enough sources speculated about disreputable ties that something to the effect that his profile is clean does make sense. I'm not sure it needs to be the ADL specifically but I think something is DUE in this case.  I do get MelanieN's concern that we should be careful about listing sources that make the accusation since we are dealing with a BLP and LABELs.  Perhaps this is a time to say IAR and include it without including sources that made the accusations without evidence.  Springee (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The question was asked and the answer was no, so it went nowhere, and sources didn't think it was significant enough to widely report, as evidenced by that single sentence being cherry-picked from a local news report. WP has different guidelines for inclusion of content, and it shouldn't be included here, giving undue weight to something that reliable sources didn't think was significant enough to widely report on. If there had been a specific allegation of this nature made against Rittenhouse, then yes, I would support inclusion.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a point in having this sentence if there is no sentence which makes the charge in the first place.  Volunteer Marek  02:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Number of arrests in Kenosha
This article may be worth including. The Wiki article talks about how much damage. This one says over 250 arrests with ~1/2 people out of the area. []. The article formatting on my computer is a mess but it appears to be sourced to the AP. Springee (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Infobox civil conflict template does have an optional "arrests" parameter. The source article displays well in my browser and does include AP under the title. After seven short paragraphs, the article includes many aerial photos of the damage. It also includes the cost of damage to city and county property, as reported by police. —ADavidB 14:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's included in the infobox, it'll also require an "As of" qualifer. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As per MOS:INFOBOX, info should only be in the infobox if it's covered in the main article text. Put something in the main article text first. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)