Talk:Kenosha unrest/Archive 7

Biography?
The section on Kyle Rittenhouse is very sparse as it is. A brief description of him shooting three people and that's it. Nothing else in the info box besides birth date, living in Antioch and the high school he attended. Perhaps more info should be added?--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. 123453334 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't see this as needed. Rittenhouse is only significant due to this event (BLP1E).  Aspects of his life which aren't related to this event are UNDUE for this article.  Springee (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The articles for Brenton Tarrant and James Alex Fields Jr. have info on their political leanings leading up to the events which is what I was thinking in particular.--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Plastic bag
This item seems to be very persistent, and is reported by various sources, but I'm not in favor of including it without more information. After all, why would someone throw just a plastic bag? That only raises questions. Nonreliable sources have suggested it was a sling for a missile, first guessed to be a Molotov cocktail and later a brick. Still waiting for a reliable source. Pkeets (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should see how often RSs mention this. Having watched the video this wasn't like throwing an empty trash bag at someone.  Clearly it had something in it.  It might have been nothing more than a water bottle in the bag but it wasn't empty.  But, Rittenhouse was running away and may not have even noticed.  Basically the significance of the bag, if any, is really hard to tell at this time.  Thus I would ask if sources typically talk about the bag when saying what happened.  If yes, they I would include it.  Springee (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If Reliable Sources say or imply the bag was empty, then that is what we must go with. Remember, WP:BDP applies to Rittenhouse, including on the talk page.  --Super Goku V (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So far they haven't said one way or the other. Having watched the video my concern is "threw a bag" doesn't match with what I'm seeing.  What I see is "threw something that was in a bag".  However, we can't add "what I see" since that is OR.  I haven't seen any RS say anything other than throw a bag so if included that is all we say.  As I said above, I doubt the bag entered into Rittenhouse's mind since he was facing/running away at the time.  Still, that is OR as well.  Ultimately, if we are on the fence I would say leave the bag out until it is shown to be important.  If a majority of the sources mention the bag then we follow the leader and mention it as well.  Springee (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a really clear video of the event, followed by a slow motion repeat. You can clearly see there's a weight in the bag, and Rittenhouse reacts, hunches his shoulders and turns to look at Rosenbaum at that point, then resumes running and disappears behind the cars. If I understand this witness correctly, he's pointing out another gunman. Rittenhouse's lawyer  says Rosenbaum assaulted Rittenhouse from behind. This, plus accounts that Rosenbaum tried to grab the gun, are certainly what set off the first shooting. So far, there's no mention of what the weight in the bag was in reliable sources, but we might consider what might be released in the future. Pkeets (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We should just attribute the statement. The prosecutor's charging documents say it's a bag. We should not speculate much further. Rittenhouse's lawyer calls it an assault, which it technically can be considered.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In the NYT video breakdown you can see there is a gun shot behind Rittenhouse at about the same time the bag was thrown. His reaction may have been to the gun shot, not the bag. Springee (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

What you guys "see" in the video yourselves is all fine and dandy, but all that matters is what sources say.  Volunteer Marek  02:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop interjecting to lecture and berate other editors. 1) discussion of primary source content like videos published in reliable sources is allowed, 2) everyone's aware that a secondary source interpretation is required for content in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First, this is a talk page and a more congenial tone doesn't hurt. Second, no one is claiming our opinions superseded RS.  Springee (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a source that mentions the bag appears to have contents, plus a link to the complaint documents that describe it as an "object" later identified as a plastic bag. It appears even the police are looking at the videos, though. Pkeets (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Most RS say plastic bag, so we should say plastic bag. If more RS appear saying other things, we can change what we say. Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a compelling reason to include it as I don't see sources saying how it impacted the events in question. I was simply an easy to identify/describe event in the video.  But, I haven't surveyed how many sources do/don't mention it.  If it seems to be commonly mentioned when describing events then we should do the same.  We should not say anything about bag contents since I don't recall any RSs saying anything beyond "threw plastic bag".  Springee (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there was disproportionate focus early on about the plastic bag because it was the only part of the video where you could see what was going on. I'm not sure this detail is especially important (it might be, i'm not sure), what matters is that there was some sort of confrontation or altercation between RittenH and RosenB that preceded the shooting. More information is sure to come out soon. WP:NODEADLINE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Plastic bag reports: ABC, Washington Post ("appears to be"), WBEZ, New York Times, WSJ ("according to the complaint"), Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Politifact, CNN ("appeared to be"), Republika (Indonesia), FR24 News. There's plenty more. Bondegezou (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

One must not let the main thing out of sight: Throwing something at someone while you are chasing him is always a hostile act. Legally, the decisive factor here is whether Rittenhouse could legitimately assume that his life was in danger. What was actually in the bag is secondary in comparison. From Rittenhouse's point of view, it could have been Rosenbaum's lunch box, or two fragile bottles of ammonia and chlorine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CC:2F17:5300:15D2:B163:CD09:278 (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That sort of thinking is WP:OR. The question from our end is what sources say about it and how much focus it's given.  Several sources mention it, but they all merely mention it in passing, and it doesn't seem to have gotten any sustained coverage as news about the topic developed, so I'm of the opinion that we should probably omit it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Grosskreutz, hands in the air
The source provided for this statement is an AP report, which reads "Court records said Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, appeared to be holding a gun when he approached Rittenhouse after he shot at Huber". It is highly inappropriate to replace that with "Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his hands in the air, though he also seemed to hold a gun at some point in the confrontation according to footage and court records." without, at a minimum, providing sources that say this. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WBAY says, "Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air and moves towards Rittenhouse."
 * WBEZ says the complaint says, "Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air [and] moves towards the defendant"
 * KIRO Seattle says, "In the photo, as Huber holds his chest, Rittenhouse points his weapon at Grosskreutz, who has his hands in the air."
 * Politifact says, "Grosskreutz took a step back and put his hands in the air, but then moved toward Rittenhouse"
 * Plenty more available. Bondegezou (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * These sources do not say say he approached with his hands in the air. In fact, some imply the opposite "Grosskreutz took a step back and put his hands in the air, but then moved toward Rittenhouse" - And all of them ,  quoting or describing the court document, also say he was holding a gun in his hand when he was shot , not the mealy-mouthed " he also seemed to hold a gun at some point in the confrontation ". Trying to reconnect (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air and moves towards Rittenhouse." Is "approached" not another way of saying "moves towards"? I see no problem with "approached": clearly supported by multiple reliable sources. I do not understand your claim that These sources do not say say he approached with his hands in the air.
 * I concur that we can be more specific than also seemed to hold a gun at some point. Bondegezou (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to "moves forward" over "approached" or vice versa- but I don't think the sources support the statement "approached Rittenhouse with his hands in the air". Rather, the sources support that at some point, he had his hands in the air, at some point he retreated (hands position unknown) and at some point moved toward Rittenhouse (hands position unknown). This may seem like a minor difference, but it not. The statement "approached Rittenhouse with his hands in the air" would imply he was shot unreasonably. Trying to reconnect (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How does "Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air and moves towards Rittenhouse" (WBAY citation) not support "approached Rittenhouse with his hands in the air"? Bondegezou (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I read all sources as saying that GrossKreutz approached with his hands in the air, and had them in the air when he was shot. --Aquillion (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"Trying to reconnect" is not in the least ambiguous. Why is "Bondegezou" pretending to be confused. RocketCityChas (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not pretending to be confused. Please WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

- updated with sources from CBS, Politifact.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Great coverage on the two deaths.
Neutral, exemplary of wikipedia. The only weak part is the lede and the title of the section "Fatal shooting of protesters" and "On August 25, a civilian armed with an AR-15 style rifle shot three protesters". Note that this POV is only present in the lede and pretty much dissapears with the extremely detailed timeline of events.

A neutral lede would look something like "a series of altercations/confrontations/skirmishes/fights culminated in three protesters/belligerents being shot, two fatally."

The opposite non-neutral POV, would look something like "Three protesters were shot, two fatally, after protesters assaulted a 17 year old counter-protester armed with an AR-15 style rifle who had been providing medical services and private property protection."

Additionally there's some information that could be relevant that's currently missing. The first fatal victim appeared on a video, earlier during the night, repeatedly asking another armed counter-protester to "shoot him" while approaching them, a description of the video in in itself will not be hard to get a source for, but an interpretation will be relevant during the trial in establishing the character of the first victim, and consequently the events leading to the first death, with the second death being an inevitable escalation of conflict. Something to come back to when the character of the first victim is brought up in the trial, especially if the video is mentioned in sources covering the trial.

Another information that is missing, but is slightly less likely to appear in the trial, is the criminal record of the 3 victims, all of which had at least one conviction, I recall something about illegal gun ownership as well, which might be linked to the gun of the surviving victim.

All in all, nitpicks and details that might be relevant in the future. Good job to everyone involved.--TZubiri (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I really can't figure out what your comment is intended to do. It sort of feels like negging? But, in any case, the sentence you label "NPOV" is no such thing. Three people were shot, two of them did die, and nobody is denying that he fired the shots. Your "opposite example" is different in that it claims an attack that is merely asserted by defence lawyers. It would have happened before the start of the available videos.


 * The actually NPOV counterpoint of your example would be something like "A 17-year old murdered two peaceful protesters". We don't say that, and with good reason, even though it is asserted by lawyers in much the same way as your version of mutual attacks, namely the attorney general and prosecutors in the indictment. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The purpose is to congratulate, to express conformance and admiration for the article.

The assaults were recorded actually:

"Around 11:45 pm,[86] video footage showed Rittenhouse being pursued across a parking lot.[80] As an unknown person fired a shot nearby, Rosenbaum chased after Rittenhouse, throwing something in his direction,[87][88] identified in some reports as a plastic bag.[89] According to Kenosha County prosecutors, Rosenbaum tried to take Rittenhouse's rifle from him.[90]"

"another video, Rittenhouse was filmed as he continued to be chased down the street by several other protesters before tripping.[46] At that point, one of the protesters is heard yelling, "Get his ass". After he fell, one of the men who had been chasing Rittenhouse began to kick and attempt to disarm him, with Rittenhouse firing two shots, missing this man. Another protester, Anthony Huber, next struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard.[93][94] According to court records and video footage, Huber struck Rittenhouse's shoulder or head/neck area with his skateboard,[91] and tried to grab the rifle.[95]" TZubiri (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Another similar summary is found in the article lede paragraphs.

"On August 25, two protesters were fatally shot and a third was injured by Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois. Rittenhouse was charged with first-degree intentional homicide and other charges; his attorneys have said his actions were in self-defense."

And in the Shooting of Jacob Blake article:

"On August 25, two protesters were killed and one seriously wounded;[49] a 17-year-old male was arrested the next day and charged with first-degree intentional homicide.[50] His defense lawyers argue the shootings were in self-defense.[51]"

These summaries are pretty neutral compared to the lede of this articles "fatal shooting of protesters" section, since it clarifies that at least the defendant claims delf defense. It only misses interpretations of self defense by uninvolved third party sources. TZubiri (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Consider the following source https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/27/kenosha-protesters-killed-who-were-they-anthony-huber-joseph-rosenbaum, it is used to back the fairly innocuous statement:

"Kenosha resident Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Silver Lake resident Anthony Huber, 26, were killed,"

But let's take a look at the contents of the article itself:

"The two men shot dead when white armed extremists disrupted a Black Lives Matter protest and at least one agitator opened fire on a group of protesters in Kenosha have been identified"

Now this is a very early report, and this paragraph is not included in the article, but it shows an evident example of a POV that villanizes Kyle Rittenhouse. I have encountered an interesting explanation for this phenomenon, from https://quillette.com/2020/09/08/police-violence-and-the-rush-to-judgment/

"An inquisitorial climate developed in which everyone was expected to take a side without unseemly hesitation. Are you on the side of social justice or are you on the side of racial oppression? Silence on this question is violence, we were told. As a result, a rush to judgment is disfiguring how we consume and understand reports of events unfolding rapidly in confusing circumstances. The political biases of the loudest voices may be obvious and their manipulations may be crude, but doubt and restraint risk accusations of callousness and racism, which is often motivation enough to declare one’s allegiance before the facts are in."

and

"Observers who reserve judgment until the facts emerge do not always end up ratifying received wisdom, because tidy political narratives rarely reflect the complexities of reality."

" Once again, determinations are being made by commentators and activists about excessive force, racist motives, and systemic causes before the facts are in."

The article also talks about a 2014 case were a similar event happened, and claims that, although later investigations revealed that the initial interpretations were false, the initial interpretation persisted.

"It is worth remembering that, in the wake of the 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown at the hands of police officer Darren Wilson, it was generally agreed that Brown died while trying to surrender, his hands raised as he begged the officer not to shoot him. But “hands up, don’t shoot” did not happen. Wilson was cleared of all charges in two state investigations and by Barack Obama’s Justice Department because the evidence supported his version of events. The truth of what happened in Ferguson remains disputed to this day by those whose biases preclude a fair-minded assessment of the facts. On August 9th, Joe Biden tweeted, “It’s been six years since Michael Brown’s life was taken in Ferguson—reigniting a movement. We must continue the work of tackling systemic racism and reforming policing.”

The claim that emotions weigh more than facts is also known as post-truth

--TZubiri (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox montage proposal
I propose that the following montage be used in the infobox. The black square is a placeholder for a Fair Use photo of marchers similar to this. –dlthewave ☎ 18:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I personally approve, good start. We just need a fair use picture of a nonviolent protest to balance it out and we'll be good to go. RopeTricks (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For that to be appropriate, maybe the article needs more than five scattered sentences about a non-violent protest, because that is all there is in our article. Lightburst (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with fair use, but it seems like we could use the image I linked above in accordance with WP:CCP and WP:NFCI #8b. I'd like to hear from someone who has more experience with this since copyright is really important to get right. –dlthewave ☎ 02:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * —your suggestion is that 50% of the imagery in the Info-box be devoted to imagery denoting peacefulness. I oppose that. It is misleading. This article might not even exist if the demonstrations were peaceful. Why not accurately represent what transpired? There is no reason to misconstrue anything. We are not cultural warriors. We should be realistically representing what transpired in the incident that we are addressing with this article and we are already misleading the reader simply in the changing of the title from Kenosha riot to Kenosha protests. Can we please stop tampering with the actuality of what transpired? That is CNN's job with their references to things like "fiery but mostly peaceful protests". Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop peddling nonsense, Bus stop. It's not just CNN describing what is going on as "protests". Here is some international coverage:
 * * The Guardian:, , , ,
 * * Die ZEIT: ,
 * * Le Figaro: . Robby.is.on (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just checked out your links u|Robby.is.on. You provided 7 links. 5 of them are from August 29-Sept 1 when the whole thing was over already over (1=08/29, 3=08/30, 4=08/30, 5=09/01 6=09/01). The two other links you provided that are from the 08/26 show chaos. (The 2nd=08/26 and 7th=08/26) ...so I hardly think this does much to add to the peaceful protest narrative. Lightburst (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support this. I get Bus stop's concern about the ratio of coverage vs ration of "peaceful" in the picture but I don't agree this is a problem.  I think the picture of military vehicles and burned out properties gets the riot part across sufficiently well.  Springee (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this image serves our needs best because we see multiples of high-priced consumer objects burned to uselessness. We should be capable of deciding which single image best exemplifies the subject. I think there should be one image at the top of the article. When you create 4 small images you get 4 small images and this is less visually impactful. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The intent of using a fair use image has been stated as photo of marchers similar to this. WP:NFCCP (Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.) would prevent such fair use, because it occurred in a public place and so a free equivalent could potentially be created. Was nobody else there with a camera that day?
 * Even if NFCCP#1 could be demonstrably met, a fair use image within a montage would almost certainly be inappropriate, see WP:MONTAGE The components of a collage or montage, as well as the collage or montage itself, must be properly licensed; and (as with galleries) fair-use components are rarely appropriate, as each non-free image used in the creation of the montage contributes towards consideration of minimal use of non-free images. The "as with galleries" parenthesis refers to WP:GALLERY where we find Fair-use images should almost never be included as part of a general image gallery, because their "fair use" status depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of analysis or criticism). which then directs you to Fair use. In that, we are advised (at WP:NFG) that User-created montages containing non-free images should be avoided for similar reasons. Within the scope of NFCC#3a, such montages are considered as multiple non-free images based on each non-free image that contributes towards the montage. If a montage is determined to be appropriate, each contributing non-free item should have its source described (such as File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition to Responses
Can we include in the Responses section that CNN covered the events in Kenosha with a giant fire in the background while a chyron read "Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests After Police Shooting", which was widely criticized by othernews outlets,   and Brian Stelter even admitted in an interview that the choice of words was a mistake. It also became a meme (citing KYM mostly for context). --Steverci (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I would oppose such additions. That's really a discussion of CNN and if they are biased on their coverage.  It isn't about the Kenosha unrests/protests.  Unless it can be shown that CNN's coverage or more broadly, media coverage in general, affected the outcome of events this shouldn't be part of this article.  Springee (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And how exactly did Tucker Carlson getting social media "backlash" affect the outcome of events? --Steverci (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to justify that content either. Springee (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think an article should go where sources take it. All articles need not conform to the same template. The coverage of this incident is itself noteworthy. It is noteworthy due to an obvious level of destruction combined with a lackadaisical response from some quarters of the news media. I don't think this should be in the "Responses" section. Wouldn't it deserve a section called "Coverage"? I think inclusion of a WP:FAIRUSE image of Omar Jimenez standing before the fire with the CNN chyron reading "Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests After Police Shooting" would be justified in explaining both visually and verbally the abysmally inaccurate coverage provided of this indisputably destructive incident. Pinging and pinging . Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I feel like these things should generally be top down. Discussions of CNN's coverage or Carlson's comments are kind of beside the primary topic.  This comes up regarding the question of reciprocity of weight.  By that I mean, if topic A is has weight for inclusion in topic B does that mean B has weight for inclusion in A?  I generally feel the answer is no but, that is my opinion.  Springee (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but that is illogical. We do not don blinders when we address a subject with an article. "Relevance" is a key question, along with reliable sourcing. Is it relevant, according to a substantial number of reliable sources, that CNN engaged in the downplaying of this incident? I am reading "Clowns. Irresponsible clowns. It’s not even funny. Months of enabling violence and destruction by ignoring and downplaying it, thereby eliminating any pressure on politicians to take action". The Kenosha unrest did not take place in a vacuum. Various entities impinged on the ultimate outcome. Politicians at all levels of government, police, protesters, rioters, and news media—all interacted to produce the end result, which the article addresses. There are various indications of journalistic downplaying of violence and destruction. By highlighting one especially glaring and widely reported example we alert the reader to this aspect of the subject we are addressing. A Wikipedia article is never the entire story. When we include one small indication of a facet of a subject, we alert an interested reader to the possibilities of further research. Conversely, when we totally omit any mention of a relevant and widely reported aspect of a subject, we are doing the reader a disservice. Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I would support including this under a new Coverage section. --Steverci (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Not seeing enough WP:RS coverage for inclusion. On WP:RS/P, Fox (which you cited twice) is yellow for politics for a reason and is labeled as partisan, making it an especially bad source for highly-charged culture-war back and forth like this over how to frame a topic.  Washington Times is also yellow, and is similarly tagged as highly partisan.  Newsweek is yellow and considered low-quality today.  Obviously Know Your Meme is not an WP:RS (it is WP:USERGENERATED, and that one is even tagged as "being researched and evaluated", meaning it hasn't received even the minimal level of attention they give stuff.) NZ Herald and The Hill are the only particularly usable sources, and they present it as a relatively minor bit of social-media back-and-forth, not the breathless tone taken by the more partisan sources. I'll also note that some people above are arguing that this should be used to make some sort of larger argument about coverage, which is plainly WP:SYNTH (the two reliable sources covering it don't say anything of the sort, just that there was some mockery on social media.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Suit: Facebook 'empowered right wing militias'
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/kenosha-facebook-lawsuit

“Facebook, where most of the conspiring took place, failed to act to prevent this harm” ... “Despite over 400 reports of the Kenosha Guard’s event page and its call to arms, as well as the violent rhetoric throughout, Facebook failed to remove the page from its site until after several deaths, injuries, and extensive harassment occurred.” --217.234.67.113 (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Incidentally I added a claim backed up by this article. The source chain is as follows.

Buzzfeednews
"As to Kyle Rittenhouse, this lawsuit is errant nonsense but may provide a golden opportunity for obtaining documents and sworn testimony from Facebook to bolster Kyle’s future defamation case against Facebook for falsely accusing him of mass murder," Wood told BuzzFeed News, referring to Facebook's decision to designate the incident a mass shooting and remove Rittenhouse's account and any content celebrating his actions. "Thus, I view the lawsuit as a blessing in disguise.”

Washingtonexaminer
Buzzfeednews cites washington examiner through hypertext. Washington examiner states:

" Facebook will remove posts that it deems to be in support of alleged Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse.

“We’ve designated the shooting in Kenosha a mass murder and are removing posts in support of the shooter," Facebook said in a statement to Breitbart News. "

Breitbart news
Washington examiner cites Breitbart explicitly and through hypertext, their article reads:

"Facebook is officially designating the actions of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old who allegedly killed two people and wounded another in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after being mobbed and attacked by rioters, a “mass murder,” despite the fact that this has not been proven in court. Facebook confirmed that it would remove any posts that support Rittenhouse."

Analysis
The first source is the only one to contain comments by Lin Wood, (one of?) the shooter's attorney(s), this will help with notability. The second source is more specific. The third source is from a banned source.

I'll use the the second source first, then the second source to back it up with notability and relevance. No need for comment, I just needed to think out loud apparently.

--TZubiri (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I realized that the Breitbart source and the washington examiner source are not interchangeable. A facebook spokesman allegedly gave statements to the breitbart reporter. I have added the name of the reporter as the source, Breitbart news as the publisher, but published the url of Washington Examiner to avoid the block. This isn't evasion because it doesn't rely solely on the reputation of a blocked source, if this turns out to be fake, it's washington examiner's reputation on the line.

A google search reveals a similar source https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/2/facebook-removing-posts-support-kyle-rittenhouse/. Neither washingtontimes nor washingtonexaminer have public whois information.

I personally disregard the comments by washington examiner and washington times. I have no idea who they are and their reputation is worthless to me. Buzzfeed has become very well known after FinCEN, there's two authors for their article and they got comments from Lin Wood, so highly reliable source there.

Breitbart news' source is published with a name and surname of a journalist who published a book on the subject. Includes a direct quote of the Facebook spokesman, but doesn't include the name of the spokesman. Suspicious, but hiding the identity of a source and placing the reputation on the journalist is common practice.

I have request for Breitbart to be whitelisted on this specific occasion at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist--TZubiri (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for tracking this down, but the other sources are only reporting what Breitbart said, and don't claim to have done any additional verification. So the alleged Facebook policy is still only as reliable as Breitbart itself, which according to current Wikipedia consensus, "should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability". Smyth (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If the other sources are considered reliable then I'm OK with them citing Breitbart as their source. RS says a source that is cited by others is an indication that the source is reliable.  I'm not suggesting an overturn of the Breitbart RS discussions but if source B is willing to report what source A said then we should assume that B finds the claim plausible enough to put their own name on an article with that content.  Essentially they are vouching for that particular report from A.  That said, a quick web search and we have a WSJ op-ed talking about this [] as well as Reuters [] so we shouldn't have issues finding better sources.  Still, if Breitbart was the source that broke the news it does make it harder to justify deprecation vs just treating the source with caution (I'm not a fan of the deprecation efforts in general)  Springee (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Breitbart was not the source that first broke the news, because I've found several reliable sources from several days earlier, which I've now added to the article. One of them also mentions this video from August 28 in which Mark Zuckerberg himself uses the words "mass murder". Smyth (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm certainly fine cutting in favor of more mainstream sources. Springee (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a moot point since more reliable sources (ABC News and The Guradian) have been added. The organization that "broke" the news has no special significance; it's common for mainstream sources to publish a bit later (due to more time spent fact checking, perhaps?) and we should use those sources as soon as they're available. –dlthewave ☎ 17:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)