Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting

Say their names - Victim name treatment
Proposal: Add victim names to first paragraph.

(Note this section was deleted at some point. I'm adding it back because I think removing it was not in keeping with Talk page guidelines. Above is concrete proposal to react to. Below is original section text)

“36 -year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, of Kenosha, and 26-year-old Anthony Huber, of Silver Lake, Wisconsin were killed by a young man from out of state.” Or similar should appear in the first paragraph.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/who-were-the-victims-killed-in-the-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-in-kenosha/2688161/

In my opinion this article currently fails the worst criticism of dehumanizing black lives and describing black and white victims in completely different terms.

Is there a Wikipedia policy/goal of treating white and black people equally.

(End previous comment)

Note: The victims were white, but I think the question still stands about the weight of victims names vs perpetrator?

Dw31415 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure if addding back my section that was deleted is appropriate, but I think commends are supposed to remain and be closed. There's probably issues with my comment but I'll review the article again and respond / close the section if the original issue was addressed. Dw31415 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Modified my section text to include definitive proposal Dw31415 (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement for other editors to respond, or keep responding, to talk page comments. The section you added here previously is in Archive 4. It received comments from four editors, who pointed out that that the shooter and those shot were all white, which your comments above do not show as your understanding. The people shot are all identified in the article's second paragraph. (I believe 'who did what' is almost always described before 'to whom'.) An administrator noted an "apparent misunderstanding" of the shooting's sources and closed the former talk section's discussion. —ADavidB 17:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Adavidb, thanks for the context. I'll edit the proposal to remove the issues around race. Do you support or oppose adding the victims names in the first paragraph? Dw31415 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with continuing to have those shot identified immediately afterward in the lead section's second paragraph. The NBC source you provided does the same. —ADavidB 18:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Adavidb, thanks for the consideration. I had trouble finding the history but I’ll go back and look at the other editor comments in the history  Dw31415 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Adavidb, so I think we can close this discussion section. I think that’s the proper way (instead of deleting). I’ll do that when I get a chance. Dw31415 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

"Self defense" (again)
I've just rolled back an edit by IP user @92.220.250.130 which described the event as "self defence" in the lede. I see there has been discussion of this topic most recently in February, and from my read of it no consensus was reached to use such language.

I rolled this back with AGF but upon further review of the user's edit history it seems they are engaging in edit warring on this page, and other non-constructive edits pushing a political agenda elsewhere.

In any case I will provide the opportunity to debate this further here, though I don't have the energy to engage with this any further myself. I will just offer this take before stepping away: I think it would be highly unusual for any reputable media org. to describe an action that was argued in court as "self defense" with no qualifiers, regardless of the legal finding. If anyone can provide WP:RS sources where this case has been described as such please do share. I would say it is appropriate to mention the trial outcome in the first paragraph, but exactly what wording is suitable I will leave to the legal buffs. Walkersam (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * anyone with two brain cells can just watch any 100% unedited video of the incident and understand it’s self defense I’m left wing and even I think it’s self defense he tried to run away got hit twice before eventually falling to the ground he had to choice but to defend himself and he immediately surrendered to the police 2600:8801:1187:7F00:B4B4:15B4:BF7D:BB (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally I agree with you in general but, as the article says, it took the jury more than 25 hours of deliberations spanning four days to reach a verdict of "Not Guilty" on the murder changes. I have not reviewed this but, as I remember it, the jury did not mention "self defense" in their verdict or supply any reason they reached that verdict (I'm guessing that Wisconsin law neither requires or allows that). That said, I'll note here that WP:DUE is an important part of WP:NPOV. Quoting from that: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.[a]" noting in the footnote, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered." It goes on to talk about minority views among RSs vs. more widely held views. I'm not sure myself which view about this are the more widely held views published by reliable sources. Maybe quantity ad prominence of viewpoints about this expressed in reliable sources (see e.g., this) indicates it has sufficient topical weight that there should be a section devoted to it in the article -- possibly a subsection under Acquittal. Just a thought. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we go with "Gaige Grosskreutz" or "Paul Prediger"
Grosskreutz changed his name to "Paul Prediger" after the trial. The article only says "Paul Prediger" in the intro and in a footnote mentioning he changed his name. It uses "Grosskreutz" everywhere else, which reads in a pretty confusing way. I say go with "Grosskreutz" throughout the article - he was Grosskreutz at the time and everyone who remembers the trial knows him as "Gaige Grosskreutz" and only mention the name change in some kind of aftermath section. Pabst blue ribbon led zeppelin (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * His new name should be protected and stricken from this record. He was victimized enough. This project should not engage in doxing innocent victims. ExpertPrime (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Victim? He attempted to execute Rittenhouse with his handgun. 78.136.162.214 (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We should use Grosskreutz throughout the article, for the reasons you state. His new name isn't relevant to this event, and especially since he has stated that he changed it to avoid harassment, WP:BLP provisions apply. — Goszei (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Rosenbaum - Registered Sex Offender - Pre-trial Rulings
The fact that Joseph Rosenbaum was a registered sex offender, and the fact that the judge ruled that this was irrelevant to the case and therefore could not be brought up by the defense was recently removed from the "Kyle Rittenhouse-Pretrial Rulings" section. I am concerned that it was not appropriate to remove this pre-trial ruling, as it may negatively effect the neutral point of view of the article. The other pre-trial rulings that benefitted Kyle Rittenhouse (not allowing the deceased to be called "victims"/not allowing to mention the proud boy meeting) were left in. Removing a pre-trial ruling that benefits the prosecution and leaving in the pre-trial rulings that benefit the defense inaccurately paints a picture that the Judge only made pre-trial rulings that benefitted the defense. 2603:7080:402:D900:E04D:710B:17D6:C13C (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)