Talk:Kenosha unrest/Archive 4

Events of Second Shooting
By User:Wikieditor19920 here. There is nothing that supports the text "several protesters who had been pursuing him rushed and began kicking him". Here is the source, search for yourself. Likewise the source does not say that "According to video footage, Huber approached and struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard". The source is here. What it says is "Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, was shot in the chest after apparently trying to wrest the gun away from Rittenhouse" and "Huber had a skateboard in his right hand and used it to "make contact" with Rittenhouse's left shoulder as they struggled for control of the gun." Basically the source makes it explicit that Huber was trying to disarm Rittenhouse, who had just killed someone, and was using his skateboard to do so. The text change made by Wikieditor19920 instead tries to give the impression that Huber just attacked Rittenhouse for no reason.

It looks like Wikieditor19920 replaced text which accurately reflected sources with his own idiosyncratic interpretation of events (WP:OR) but retained the sources that were present to make it seem like they supported his own original research. This is a pretty serious misrepresentation of sources and a pretty serious violation of policy.  Volunteer Marek  03:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary makes it even worse, as the edit does exactly what it accuses others of doing.  Volunteer Marek  03:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The entire thing read like a personal interpretation, yes. The most important facts (and the only ones that are completely incontrovertible) are the deaths and the arrest.  Blow-by-blow details are worth covering but can wait until further down in the section, and in any case that version doesn't particularly seem to reflect the sources.  Look at the structure and framing in The Washington Post, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Tribune or The Guardian, for example; we should structure our section like that. None of them fundamentally frame it as a "confrontation leading to a shooting" the way that rewrite does.  The Washington Post mentions "the shooting began with an apparent scuffle at a service station" halfway down the article (and says nothing else); the Guardian, Tribune, and CST don't mention it at all, only the shooting. Framing it as a brawl when the sources do not is plainly editorializing. --Aquillion (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

,Here is the sourcing for my supposedly "idiosyncratic interpretation": The shooter is pursued by a number of protesters, including at least one armed with a handgun. When he stumbles, several people rush to try to seize his rifle. One smacks him with a skateboard. But he immediately regains his footing, and starts firing. The Washington Post on August 27, the day after the shooting and after most of the videos had circulated. Photos that also captured the moments leading up to the second shooting scene appeared to show a man kicking Rittenhouse before another man with a skateboard appears to grab at the teen's weapon. The man with the skateboard appears to be the same one lying on the ground not moving in the video. NBC Chicago. What we have here are various otherwise reliable sources reporting slightly contradictory information or emphasizing different details, so let's not pretend that the text reflects my "personal interpretation." , the source you cited for a factual assertion about what is shown in the footage itself cites the prosecutor's complaint for that detail, not the video; the WaPo I cited above cites its own analysis of the video/photos. The analysis by a reliable secondary source means much more than does a news source's regurgitation of a prosecutor's complaint, and the text accurately reflected that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You added the text " "several protesters who had been pursuing him rushed and began kicking him""
 * Please show me where the source says ANYTHING like that. There's NOTHING like in it.
 * Yes, there's another source which mentions ONE MAN, who "appears" to be kicking Rittenhouse. Putting aside that this is a new source you just added, not the one you used, it most certainly does not say "several protesters ... began kicking him"''.
 * Your text did not reflect the sources at all, accurately or otherwise.  Volunteer Marek   15:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the blatantly inaccurate edited text in the shooting to correct what the sources have stated. The prior edited version said According to video footage, Huber tried to disarm Rittenhouse and he "made contact" with his shoulder, with a skateboard
 * According to the cited source, this attribution gets it completely backwards. The source reads:


 * The source cites the footage as a reference for the people chasing him and, critically, cites the prosecutor's complaint for the assertion that Huber tried to grab the gun from Rittenhouse, not the footage. The Washington Post, as cited above, says that Huber tried to "smack" Rittenhouse with the skateboard and references the video. This is not an easy set of details to summarize, but we need to 1) be correct in not only in-text attributions, but references to attributions made by the sources themselves as where the information comes from. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And just to be clear, I do not see an issue in of itself with citing the prosecutor's complaint noting that Huber may have been attempting to wrest the gun from Rittenhouse. I have added this in the updated version of the page. However, this statement needs to be properly attributed, and the cited source states that this detail in their piece comes from the prosecutor's complaint and not the footage. The Washington Post references the footage for saying that Huber "smacked" Rittenhouse with the skateboard.
 * Lastly, I have revised the title of this discussion thread, which formerly contained a personal and uncalled for accusation and violated WP:TPG. The focus belongs on the sources, what they say, and where they say they get their information from, even if they offer seemingly competing and sometimes contradictory details. This is to be expected for a breaking news event. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't be starting edit wars right after you got caught misrepresenting sources to push your own WP:OR narrative. And this thread is about you misrepresenting sources, not "details" of the attack. There's nothing "personal" in criticizing an editor for violating Wikipedia policies.  Volunteer Marek   15:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I provided detailed sourcing for every word I added above. On the contrary, the version you restored is still patently incorrect. The source does not say that "video footage confirms" that Huber was attempting to disarm Rittenhouse, and the fact that you added "court records" does nothing to remedy this problem; it is also misleading. "Court records" sound like objective evidence. It was the prosecutor's complaint, the prosecutor's characterization of events, that supports this version. As for "make contact," the word "smack" (struck or hit is a synonym), appears clearly in the WaPo reporting of events--we don't need to resort to confusing legalese pulled from court documents. To restate, version you restored is misleading and relies on primary documents rather than secondary sources, and summarizes secondary sources poorly. This is unacceptable for a summary of facts that are pertinent to an active case involving a living person. WP:BLPCRIME. I am restoring the previous version. Please identify what specifically you feel needs to be changed and the source in question, as I've done above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not done anything like that nor have you yet explained why you added the false text which claimed that the protesters were kicking Rittenhouse when no source, either the original one that you misrepresented nor the one you added later, states that. Like I said, you really don't want to edit war right after you got caught misrepresenting sources to push your own WP:OR.  Volunteer Marek   16:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And the source explicitly says "according to court records".  Volunteer Marek   17:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there was some problematic WP:OR in this material. You can't take "appeared to show a man kicking Rittenhouse" from a weak local source and turn it into " protesters rushed and kicked him."
 * Also., which of the cited sources say that three protesters were shot when they pursued Rittenhouse? Maybe I missed it. - MrX 🖋 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The WAPO source at the end of the sentence says "The shooter is pursued by a number of protesters, including at least one armed with a handgun. When he stumbles, several people rush to try to seize his rifle. One smacks him with a skateboard. But he immediately regains his footing, and starts firing. Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, Wis., was killed. Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, of West Allis, Wis., was shot in the arm and is expected to recover." While unnamed, the one with the handgun was Grosskreutz, which is covered in the shooting section.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rittenhouse didn't shoot all of the protesters who chased him. The first person that he shot was not chasing him. They were involved in a "scuffle". As far as I can tell, it is inaccurate to say . Do you have sources that say "three protester were shot when they pursued a civilian"? Not something vaguely similar, but something semantically equivalent to the quoted text currently in the article? - MrX 🖋 17:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just made this edit before seeing your response here (figured it out a few minutes ago when I re-read the material). Does that help?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's fine. Thanks. - MrX 🖋 18:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the prior version was "OR." See below.

On the other hand, you just restored a version that states According to court records and video footage, Huber tried to disarm Rittenhouse and he "made contact" with his shoulder, with a skateboard.
 * Photos that also captured the moments leading up to the second shooting scene appeared to show a man kicking Rittenhouse before another man with a skateboard appears to grab at the teen's weapon. The man with the skateboard appears to be the same one lying on the ground not moving in the video. Source.
 * Video shot by another pro-Trump YouTuber, Brendan Gutenschwager, appeared to show Rittenhouse pursued by several protesters who suspected him of carrying out the first shooting. After he tripped and fell, just a block away from the police, two of those men attempted to disarm him, one by kicking him and another by hitting him with a skateboard. Rittenhouse fired at both of them, apparently killing the skateboarder, Anthony Huber, with a shot to the chest as they struggled for the rifle, and then shooting a third protester, Gaige Grosskreutz, causing a gaping wound in his arm. Grosskreutz, a member of a social justice group who was wearing a hat with the word “paramedic” emblazoned on it, also appeared to be armed with a handgun. Source.
 * The shooter is pursued by a number of protesters, including at least one armed with a handgun. When he stumbles, several people rush to try to seize his rifle. One smacks him with a skateboard. But he immediately regains his footing, and starts firing. Source.

What the source actually says is this:

The source cited for the line you restored does not attribute the "disarm" line to the video footage, it attributes it to the prosecutor's complaint. Describing this as a "court record" is misleading, because it suggests it is backed up by objective evidence. A "prosecutor's complaint" is the state's case and contains allegations that will or will not be proven at trial. The line you restored misses these distinctions and seems to confuse what the source actually said. The lines that I added above supported by each of the sources which were cited in the article. We also should not be deferring to primary sources, i.e. court documents, when reliable sources have offered analysis of primary material. This level of sloppiness is unacceptable for a section of the article touching on WP:BLPCRIME, since it does deal with both recently deceased persons and a still living person who is on trial. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. One more time. There is NOTHING in the sources about "protesters rushing in and kicking Rittenhouse". You. Made. That. Up. And then tacked a source at the end to pretend it was sourced. You have NOT addressed this at all in your responses, just kept pretending that the dispute is over something else.
 * 2. Compare " According to court records and video footage, Huber tried to disarm Rittenhouse and he "made contact" with his shoulder, with a skateboard." (our text) with "Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, was shot in the chest after apparently trying to wrest the gun away from Rittenhouse, the complaint said." and, the source that is actually being used in the article which you keep ignoring: " According to court records, Huber had a skateboard in his right hand and used it to "make contact" with Rittenhouse's left shoulder as they struggled for control of the gun.". The present text, which you're trying to replace with your own OR, reflects these sources accurately.
 * Sorry, but there really is no simpler way to explain it. At this point this is becoming a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue.  Volunteer Marek   20:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for a few days. In general the wiki article has been impressively balanced given the contentious nature of the event. I do want to note a few items. Regardless of the above, this is an impressively neutral article given the topics. Springee (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) . The court records are the prosecutors alleged offense and should be treated as such. The ABC 7 NY source (citation 79 as of this writing) says "Kenosha County prosecutors said in court records..."  Currently the only things in court records at this point would be claims provided by the prosecution or the defense.
 * 2) . The NYT put together a good video and description that could be a source for much of the "what appears to have happened"  [].  Per that article, "Six minutes later footage shows Mr. Rittenhouse being chased by an unknown group of people into the parking lot of another dealership several blocks away. [section break] While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.  Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head. "  This should all be put into attributed language but it seems rather clear that the NTY felt that Rittenhouse was being pursued prior to the first shooting.  The source doesn't answer details like getting hit with a skateboard but other sources state the video shows that.  Anyway, it's clear that we have a number of sources that are giving similar but not identical descriptions of the same event.  Rather than picking one or the other it's probably just best to use several and in cases where the claims don't align, attribute.  For example, in the case of the skateboard it appears that sources vary if this was being used as a weapon ("attacked with" or if this was incidental contact such as the prosecutor's report suggests).
 * 3) . A number of sources have suggested Rittenhouse was a white supremacist or similar.  It should be noted in some capacity that no evidence was found.  I'm not sure if this is the best source source[] but the lack of evidence was reported by a number of news sources and is DUE for this article.  A specific statement that other sources/commentators suggested affiliations would address the question of why that should be in the article.
 * 4) . This material about the ACLU probably shouldn't be clarified.  []  When I first read it I assumed it was asking for a resignation in general.  It may be worth adding a sentence stating the ACLU was comparing the treatment of Rittenhouse vs Blake.

I have to agree with User:Wikieditor19920 that when it comes to Huber's actions the ABC article clearly is not citing the video but only the criminal complaint. And the article makes it crystal clear that the complaint itself only claims that Huber is "apparently" reaching for the gun and/or trying to disarm Rittenhouse. So at the very least needs to be rephrased as ""According to [prosecutors], it appears Huber tried to disarm Rittenhouse". And I even more strongly agree that "court records", while used in the source article, is less specific, clear, and helpful than "criminal complaint filed by prosecutors" or some variant; to insist on using the former is indefensible. When someone alleges X in a lawsuit, for example, it would be grossly misleading to claim that "court records state X"—and that's exactly what's being done here. That a cited source uses an obviously misleading phrase is no excuse for repeating the error in a Wikipedia article. Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is why it says "according to court records", just like the source.  Volunteer Marek   20:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear in context (and from the earlier statement in the article) that the court records in question are the prosecutors statements. They should be treated as such, not as statement of fact that the court establishes after a trial.  Springee (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What's clear is that there was never any misrepresentation of sources. The WaPO noted that protesters composed the group that rushed and kicked Rittenhouse. The sources offer competing depictions of Huber's altercation with Rittenhouse; some say, citing the criminal complaint, he was attempting to disarm; others say he smacked or struck him. All of these properly sourced details can be included. I suggest restoring the previous version of this paragraph, at least in part, to reflect all the information that's been reported. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Because is still accusing me of somehow "making up" that sources reported the protesters rushed Rittenhouse, here is, again, the quote from the story reporting it: (The footage) appeared to show Rittenhouse pursued by several protesters who suspected him of carrying out the first shooting. After he tripped and fell, just a block away from the police, two of those men attempted to disarm him, one by kicking him and another by hitting him with a skateboard. So it states protesters were pursing him and two of those men  attempted to disarm him one by kicking him. This clearly and and unequivocally supports the language that was previously in the article that protesters reportedly rushed and kicked Rittenhouse. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * " The WaPO noted that protesters composed the group that rushed and kicked Rittenhouse" <-- This is a complete falsehood. Here is the WaPo source: . Here is the archived version of the source . Here is the version of the article where you put in the false text: . The word "kick" DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR IN THE SOURCE!. Stop trying to fool people here. All it takes is clicking on the source and checking to confirm that you are simply making stuff up.
 * Now, you have another quote there. I don't know where it comes from or if it's real since you don't bother providing a link or a citation. Regardless, when you edit warred you were - and still are (!) - claiming that Washington Post stated this. They didn't. Really. Stop it. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  Volunteer Marek   04:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was The Intercept. Nothing about that quote is "made up," so why don't you go ahead and click on the link yourself. I provided the correct link next to the quote in one of my earlier comments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post piece linked above includes the line about Huber "smacking" Rittenhouse with his skateboard, not the "made contact" legalese nonsense. Again, follow the links that have been provided and do the reading before making repeatedly false accusations on talk pages, talk headers, and edit summaries. Every single word in the version I restored is supported by a source provided on this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh. No. The WaPo doesn't say anything about "smacking" or skateboards or anything of the sort!
 * You're probably thinking of this source, which is the one that is used to source the skateboard stuff. As already pointed out multiple times it says: "According to court records, Huber had a skateboard in his right hand and used it to "make contact"". "Make contact" is IN the source. Do you even read these sources? Do you even read other people's comments? Why does this have to be repeated half a dozen times???
 * As for your Intercept source, well I guess it's a good thing that you found something (much less reliable than WaPo) which kind of aligns with your text but this is NOT a source you tried using in the article. And EVEN THEN this source says nothing about "protesters", plural, but one guy possibly doing it (this has also been pointed out to you several times).  Volunteer Marek   05:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I said it was legalese because it's pulled from a court document by the secondary source. And it is. "Make contact" is a terrible descriptor that wouldn't exist outside a police report or court. 2) We know from the reporting in sum that the Washington Post was referring to Huber when it described Rittenhouse being smacked by a pursuer with a skateboard while he was on the ground, so that is a silly point to argue over. Chicago CBS also described Huber "hitting" Rittenhouse with his skateboard. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And here is the Washington Post article from which the line (S)everal people rush to try to seize his rifle. One smacks him with a skateboard. But he immediately regains his footing, and starts firing. is pulled. It is incorrect to say that the reliable sources reporting on this subject have only used the term "made contact." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever said that ALL sources use the term "made contact". But even in this source the context of "smacking" Rittenhouse with the skateboard is that Huber was trying to get the gun away from him.
 * You are also 100% ignoring the fact that there's nothing in WaPo about "protesters rushing in and kicking Rittenhouse" which is what you were actually edit warring over.  Volunteer Marek   15:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet again you accuse me of "edit-warring." WP:KETTLE, much? You repeatedly restored your preferred version with edit summaries including ridiculous accusations of "making up" sources, yet all of the language in my edits were sourced.


 * I already acknowledged that when I mentioned the WaPo in reference to the "rushing and kicking" line, I meant The Intercept, another reliable source. WP:DEADHORSE. The WaPo did support the language about the skateboard being used to smack Rittenhouse, and similar language was used by Chicago CBS specifically identifying Huber as "hitting" Rittenhouse with the skateboard. I never objected to the inclusion of reference to disarming; I added additional, sourced descriptions about the confrontation, which in fact included Huber striking/smacking/hitting (whatever phrasing you prefer) Rittenhouse with his skateboard. So we actually agree on at least 50% of the content, yet for some reason you chose to frame this entire thread as attacking me for "misrepresentations" and "OR" despite there being ample sourcing for my edits.


 * If there are no challenges to the reliability of the sources I have cited (CBS, WaPo, Intercept) I suggest we move forward by re-incorporating both sourced descriptions into the breakdown of the shooting; that Huber was reported as hitting Rittenhouse while perhaps attempting to disarm him. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did a search for the actions of the unnamed person "kicking" Rittenhouse. I didn't find a RS that described it as kick (or similar).  That seems to be a term used by commentators and Rittenhouse's defense team.[]  This Chicago Times article described it at "jumped at" [].  The Fox13 article I posed earlier today said "tries to subdue".  Anyway, it is probably best to drop accusations of edit warring or bad faith edits and agree to a compromise text.  Looking at the videos and some of the descriptions we shouldn't imply the first person was calmly walking up to Rittenhouse by selectively picking mundane descriptions.  Regardless, we should discuss here first.  Remember, at this point in time there is no consensus version of the text. Springee (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From The Intercept, Video shot by another pro-Trump YouTuber, Brendan Gutenschwager, appeared to show Rittenhouse pursued by several protesters who suspected him of carrying out the first shooting. After he tripped and fell, just a block away from the police, two of those men attempted to disarm him, one by kicking him and another by hitting him with a skateboard. I think you have been otherwise thorough, but you missed an obvious source that has been posted multiple times on this page. And I agree completely that the bad-faith accusations need to stop—a great place to start would be revising the title of this header to comply with WP:TPG. I suggest "'Shooting' Section." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious about citing an exceptional claim solely to The Intercept like this, especially when it doesn't reflect how the subject is covered in other sources, but we definitely cannot do so without an in-line citation. Per WP:RS/P the Intercept is a WP:BIASED source - it is written from a very specific point of view, and both the things they choose to emphasize and the way they frame them can be colored by this; that's the very definition of the sort of thing that requires an inline citation. When a biased source provides an interpretation (and we are using it, here, to interpret the video), people need to be aware of whose interpretation it is.  Since we've established above how few sources frame it this way, if we are going to put specific emphasis on the one that does, it is particularly important to identify them by name - especially since we're using this to make specific BLP-sensitive claims about people who fall under WP:BLP or WP:BDP. Basically, as I see it, there are three choices:  1. Omit it as WP:UNDUE emphasis on something that few sources say; 2. Attribute it to The Intercept, if we are going to use them as the sole source for it, or, 3. find other sources, which means taking their framing and focus into account. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, there are other sources available. We need to be careful about omitting key facts reported by multiple outlets and violating NPOV. That some of the pursuers began kicking him is established as a fact of the event, it is neither WP:EXCEPTIONAL nor solely attributed to The Intercept. Exceptional claims are those that are shocking or outrageous. Nothing about the fact that Rittenhouse was chased and kicked by protesters is shocking or outrageous to anyone who's followed this story. Intercept is reliable according to WP:RSP, but it is not the only publication to report this fact. NBC Chicago reported the same. Intercept is seen as having a liberal bias, not one that would seem to impact the reporting here. WP:INTEXT does not require we clutter the description with attributions for every line when multiple RS have reported it. I see you've also cited BLP. I don't know what the basis of that is, but we have 1) multiple sources confirming Rittenhouse was kicked by his pursuers just before the altercation, and 2) WP:DUE is satisfied by the presence of multiple sources reporting this link in the chain of events, and we don't selectively omit key facts. WP:NPOV. In the future, please feel free to add an additional citation if you feel one is necessary--they are easy to find--rather than removing the material and not doing any further research. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be concerned that totally removing the "kick" somewhat underplays what can be seen in the video however, I think this edit goes too far in the reverse direction []. This could reasonably be read as 3 people stood around Rittenhouse and kicked him as he was on the ground.  Certainly the fact that many sources didn't mention this kick means we shouldn't make it sound like it was multiple kicks by a number of people.  I would suggest self reverting and working on a compromise text.  I think the objective should be to attribute the "kick" in some way.  As a starting suggestion, "Rittenhouse tripped.  According to some sources the first pursuer attempted to kick Rittenhouse and grab his rifle [sources]".  I'm sure that can be improved upon.  Springee (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is another timeline source. It's a local station in Memphis that did a NYT like analysis of the videos etc. It was released 1 Sept so it has the benefit of a bit more hindsight and review of other sources as compared to earlier articles covering the same information. The authors seem generally careful about making definitive statements vs using attribution or describing how things appear. [] It has some additional information on the events prior to the first shooting. It also offers a more detailed description of the second shooting events, pulling from several sources including directly from the video.
 * Others shout that Rittenhouse shot someone. One man takes a swing at the teen, knocking his hat off. Rittenhouse trips and falls to the street. As he lies on the ground, an unidentified man tries to subdue him, the court document states. Rittenhouse fires two shots at the man but misses. “A second person who was later identified as Anthony Huber approaches the defendant, who is still on the ground, on his back,” McNeill wrote. “Huber has a skateboard in his right hand.” In the video footage, as well as still images that have turned up online, Huber swings the skateboard at Rittenhouse with one hand while he uses his other hand to reach for the rifle. “Huber appears to be trying to pull the gun away from the defendant,” the complaint states. “The defendant rolls toward his left side, and as Huber appears to be trying to grab the gun, the gun is pointed at Huber’s body. “The defendant then fires one round, which can be heard on the video. Huber staggers away, taking several steps, then collapses to the ground.” [paragraph breaks removed]

This might offer a bit more content to draw from. Springee (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a pretty good description.  Volunteer Marek   15:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the positive feedback (both of you). Springee (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

, please be careful about editorializing/OR. Neither source you added here [] supports the claim that Trump "suggested without evidence". In fact the source here [] quotes Trump as saying the video showed Rittenhouse trying to get away. Additionally, please use complete citations, not bare URLs. Springee (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020
Background addtional information: Rittenhouse had a job as a lifeguard in Kenosha and that was why he was in Kenosha that day. From a WTMJ-TV article on their website https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/attorneys-representing-kyle-rittenhouse-say-he-was-wrongfully-charged-after-acting-in-self-defense. Rittenhouse’s attorney, John Pierce, said “that when Rittenhouse finished his shift as a lifeguard in Kenosha last Tuesday, he decided he wanted to help clean up damage in Kenosha left amid unrest over the police shooting of Jacob Blake. He and a friend went to a local high school to remove graffiti, according to Pierce. Later that day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed, Pierce says. The business owner said he needed help defending his business. So Rittenhouse and his friend armed themselves with rifles and headed to the business. Pierce added that the weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines.” 184.97.119.66 (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a change but additional information should be added regarding Rittenhouse's background that is important to why he happened to be in Kenosha that day. He had a job as a lifeguard in Kenosha and was at his job earlier in the day. He didn't just drive to Kenosha to protect a business from protesters as has been reported. He was in Kenosha for his job.


 * Agree with request—this is a no-brainer and it's obvious what changes were being proposed. The article goes on about Rittenhouse being a "police admirer"—which likely includes at least 75% of US citizens depending how it's defined—then spends two full paragraphs blathering on about the "Kenosha Guard", a group which there's zero evidence Rittenhouse was involved in. But it completely fails to include much of what he was actually doing that day in Kenosha: working as a lifeguard, cleaning up graffiti, getting pepper sprayed while defending a building, etc. The way the article is written now, the obvious implication is that he heard some call to arms from a "militia group" on Facebook and drove in from another state to take up arms—when in fact he was 15-odd-miles from home at his job, got off work, and volunteered to help people whose businesses were being destroyed by riots. These hot-button articles are increasingly slanted and really do a disservice to Wikipedia by not maintaining a neutral POV in terms of scope. Elle Kpyros (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of edit requests is request changes when the editor cannot directly edit the article due to protection. Whether the requested edit is adding info, removing info or wording, any editor making a proper edit request should ensure the exact wording is in their request along with any sources needed to support it. An editor processing the request should be able to fulfill the request simply by copying and pasting and/or finding deleting stuff in the article as necessary, while knowing next to nothing about the issue. If you don't come up with an exact wording, don't make an edit request, instead just post normally on the talk page suggesting a change. Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood—but rather than denying request, why not help the user make the edit request? I'm new to this, and when I made the same error, someone just very helpfully showed me the steps to take. I would do so here, but am not sure I could do it correctly. Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source for this statement? --Aquillion (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the source for all of this information is Rittenhouse's lawyers. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also seems that if you try and add anything to the article mentioning why he actually was in Kenosha, it gets deleted. How strange. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Rittenhouse was identified in court papers (that I post above) as a lifeguard at a YMCA in Lindenhurst, Illinois. Rittenhouse had no job in Kenosha, Wisconsin! --217.234.72.158 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * He was furloughed from his part-time job at the Lindenhurst YMCA in March. Nobody has said who he was lifeguarding for in Kenosha. It's possible that he got a lifeguard job in Kenosha after being laid off in Lindenhurst, but it's also possible that his attorneys are lying. I think this uncertainty is why we aren't saying in the article why he went to Kenosha. Not until we get some confirmatory details like who he worked for. That shouldn't be hard and I hope police or reporters are working on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Both the claim that he was working in Kenosha and that he was "cleaning up" graffiti were included in the article, but were deleted as making Rittenhouse sound angelic. Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course they were deleted. Leaving them in goes against the narrative that he went there with murderous intent. It's the same reason YT, FB, et all, are deleting videos (and removing accounts) of him helping the supporters after they were injured, of him being assaulted, and anyone defending him or asking donations for his legal defence. Liberal media requires him to have mercilessly gunned down BLM supporters, and being factually correct is just an obstacle to that. 2600:6C5A:657F:F417:2D30:FABC:20EA:527E (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Presumably this will become a little more clear when the verdict comes in. See State of Wisconsin Plaintiff vs. Kyle H. Rittenhouse Defendant.

Can we get a separate Rittenhouse article?
That part of the protests is more covered in reliable sources than the rest put together. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * &uarr; . &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Pursuing vs. Attempting to apprehend
Currently, under the Day 3 section, the text reads (with emphases added): My concern is that pursuing can be interpreted to involve multiple intentions (e.g., pursuing as in chasing prey, a goal, etc.) It can be read as if the pursuers has intent to harm him (which we do not know). In the second and third instances, I suggest we change wording to It seems clear from the video that these men are chasing him in response to his shooting of the first man.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not clear at all that the crowd was attempting to apprehend him rather than attack him. They did attack him physically and with weapons, as you can see from the footage and as reported in several news outlets, but their end goal is not apparent (beat him up, apprehend him, or kill him).Wsw248 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A skateboard is a weapon, now? That is news to me. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * News flash:
 * FBI Uniform Crime Report 2018: Crime in the United States
 * Expanded Homicide Data Table 8: Murder Victims by Weapon used
 * _ 672 Personal Weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)
 * _ 297 Rifles
 * _ 235 Shotguns
 * FBI considers hands, fists, feet, etc as "personal weapons" and such "unarmed" assailants murder more people in the US than assailants with rifles + shotguns combined. (Stats for 2018 compiled, analyzed, & final release 2019)
 * My state's "Going Armed" statute defines weapon as any instrument carried or used with intent of offense or defense. A skateboard would be considered a weapon when used as a weapon. Two or more assailants with just "personal weapons" against one individual can justify use of lethal force in self-defense if a "reasonable person" (grand jury or trial jury) would be in fear of death or maiming in the defender's position. --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A skateboard is a weapon if you use it as one. People have been killed with far less. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. skateboards are not weapons. Neither are rocks. He was just an innocent skateboarder who was swinging his skateboard around in a carefree manner when the shooter walked into his swinging. The shooter should have been more careful to not get hit by the skateboard. Please take right wing hate off Wikipedia. There is no place for it here. The Nytimes video shows exactly what happened: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html 86.93.208.34 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah. Antifa has been using skateboards to bludgeon people regularly, especially in the Pacific Northwest. But I was also talking more specifically about the third victim, who was brandishing a handgun at the shooter. Wsw248 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You clearly have a broader definition of "weapon" (and of "Antifa") than I have. But in any event, I haven't seen any evidence of an attack...with weapons on the shooter, apart from the skateboard hit. It isn't even clear to me that the shooter saw the handgun, and he certainly wasn't "attacked" with it. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Anything can be used as a weapon during an assault. Regardless, I'm not sure "pursuers" is the right framing of this.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would favor Pursue. "Pursue" is neutral (as you note) -- a person can "Pursue" in an attempt to apprehend or in an attempt to do harm.  We cannot know the state of mind of the people pursuing the shooter.  Furthermore there is video evidence that both victims who died were at the same 3rd location with the shooter arguing (including yelling "Shoot me, nigga!" at the self-styled militia) before the shooting happened.  This means that one reasonable interpretation of the events is that *both* victims who died chased the shooter down a street from the third location, together.  As for the 'paramedic' I don't believe he is known to have been at the third (initial) location. Still in the primary source video where he is shot, he can be seen feigning surrender while surreptitiously drawing a pistol, so his motives (in my opinion) are also possibly ill-intentioned.  I hope I've made the case that the motives are sufficiently ambiguous that using verbs to imply one is inappropriate. Maddata (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be trying to assign motives without sourcing, and we certainly shouldn't be using the talk page to suggest that someone who pulled a gun on a person who just shot someone has "ill intent". –dlthewave ☎ 20:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, there's reason to suspect that the guy who pulled the handgun (Grosskreutz) did intend to shoot Rittenhouse. His friend posted on Facebook that Grosskreutz regrets hesitating before "emptying the mag" into Rittenhouse (mind you, that interaction occurred after the two fatalities were already shot). Of course, this is hearsay and not a WP:RS, but on the other hand it's not wild, arbitrary speculation, either. Wsw248 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "Pursue" is what reliable sources are calling it, so that's the word we should be using. We certainly shouldn't call it an "attempted apprehension" or try to piece together motives without sourcing.
 * At this point, media reports are basically "one video shows x, and another video shows y." Our article will have to be limited to this level of detail until a bigger-picture account of what took place is released. –dlthewave ☎ 20:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * So, let me get this straight... Your concern is that pursuing can be interpreted to involve multiple intentions (e.g., pursuing as in chasing prey, a goal, etc.) It can be read as if the pursuers has intent to harm him (which we do not know). However, you then say several men attempted to apprehend him. You're making an argument against implicit assumption while advocating it be replaced with an explicit assumption? MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry guys they were all peaceful protesters, and the gun that guy was carrying was overwhelmingly peaceful. When a man who pulls a gun on someone lying on the ground, and later claims he wished to kill him, we're supposed to not make assumptions about whether he wanted to kill him, because assumptions are bad. But we are supposed to assume that he somehow had good intent. Sorry, that's just your political bias showing. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 10:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The innocent peaceful protesters were only attempting to peacefully apprehend the white by peacefully hitting it with a skateboard of peace, kicks of peace and one innocent peaceful protester pulled a gun of peace in an attempt to peacefully incapacitate the white with a peaceful bullet of peace. When it shot them unprovoked, as whites are prone to do to innocent peaceful humans. 92.5.204.252 (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "one innocent peaceful protester pulled a gun of peace"
 * Maybe it was a colt peacemaker. 2600:6C5A:657F:F417:2D30:FABC:20EA:527E (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Expressed vs. actual intents
Feds Charge ‘Second Amendment Militia’ Members Who Allegedly Wanted to ‘Pick People Off’ During Kenosha Protests. soibangla (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you proposing?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am simply providing some evidence that suggests some “vigilantes” may not have been there for the reasons they said they were, hence my inclusion of the word ‘expressed” in the lead, which had been removed. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Expressed is in there now. I added it just based on the sources already in the article without seeing it had been there before. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional Footage - what are the rules on these sources?
Hi,

I'm new to editing on wikipedia so I'm not sure how the rules on sources work here. Multiple additional (what I assume to be cellphone) videos have surfaced which might offer some additional context to the Rittenhouse shootings. These include, for example, a video of Rosenbaum pushing a lit dumpster which is put out with a fire extinguisher shortly prior to him being shot; footage of a brief exchange of words between Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse as well as someone yelling out asking for Rittenhouse to be "craniumed" in the moments after Rosenbaum was shot.

Are videos like these considered to be reliable sources? Would they even be considered relevant to the story? I read that twitter (one of the sources of this footage) is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia but I'm not sure how that applies to video footage as opposed to tweets.

--156.62.34.1 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We rely on what WP:SECONDARY reliable sources say happened in videos and to point us to important parts of them. Except for the most uncontroversial things (cf WP:BLUE & WP:CALC), we avoid explaining events from WP:PRIMARY sources (see also WP:NOR).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)