Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting/Archive 2

Flashes OK symbol, prosecutors "asked that Rittenhouse be banned from associating with members of any “violent white supremacist groups,” including the Proud Boys
-- Doug Weller talk 10:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I had added another account of this same notable incident to the article, which was rapidly deleted by who has deleted dozens of my edits on the subject of Post 1932 American politics. Doug Weller . I'm reverting Springee's deletion, given this second reference to the same incident, provided by Weller from an independently reported story in the Washington Post, and adding material from the Post story. Googling the words: Rittenhouse, Proud Boys and bar resulted in 1,470,000 hits, substantially more than "much ado about nothing" Activist (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Activist, you were reverted and didn't get consensus before restoring. No, this is not due given this is a BLP1E subject and this relates to crime. Springee (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller. Given your "logic," Springee, it follows that the entire section should be removed. Tell me why that conclusion is invalid. Activist (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an article about an event, not Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse is a key player in this event but all things Rittenhouse are not this event.  What do these photos have to do with the event?  How do they impact the event or if Rittenhouse is found guilty or innocent?  BLPCRIME applies here as does the idea that we should do no harm.  We have no way to judge the post release event.  Was the kid just happy to be out and had no idea these people were getting him to do stuff that would look bad or is he really a neo-nazi?  We don't know but we shouldn't set up content that would open the door to speculative and prejudicial conclusions that may not be true nor relevant to the article topic.  Springee  17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (Weller talk), (Springee talk) Rittenhouse is mentioned in this article in the infobox, six times in the lede, is named in two subsection titles, in the titles of 54 references and 69 times in the WP article text itself. He was flashing the white supremacist sign and took his mom (which enabled him to drink, legally), to the bar where the white supremacists were hanging out and where they were serenading him, captured on CCTV and cited by the prosecutors. A WP search for Kyle Rittenhouse defers to this article. You might want to consult the Wikipedia article on Occam's Razor. Activist (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There was also a video that reportedly showed Rittenhouse getting in a fight with other teenagers. It also isn't due for this article as it isn't about the event in question.  No, what he does while on bond is also not relevant so long as it doesn't directly impact the trial.  This article is not meant to be a place to post negative things about Rittenhouse.  You are welcome to raise this at NPOVN if you think that will help.  Springee (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - I'm going to restore this content. I'm a little confused by the initial "BLP1E" objection. BLP1E tells us we shouldn't create articles for subjects notable for one event. It doesn't tell us to remove verifiable background information.
 * If the objection is that the we dedicate too much space to the "OK" hand signal thing, then cut it down to size. Don't delete it. It was widely covered. NickCT (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NickCT, I don't think this addresses my concerns. First, just because it was widely reported doesn't mean we need to include it.  This is BLP content about a person who was notable for only one event.  That means we always err on the side of caution/don't do harm.  Second, this article is about the event, not Rittenhouse.  This might make people less sympathetic to Rittenhouse but it doesn't change the facts related to the actual night of the shooting.  As for this specific event we have no way of knowing if Rittenhouse sought out this sort of bad attention or if this was a case of someone who had just spent 2 month in jail feeling good that someone was interacting with him in a positive way.  We don't know if Rittenhouse actually supports any of the associations that are being made here.  I mean I have to say, were it not for Wikipedia I wouldn't know that my universal diver's sign for "OK" is now a racist gesture.  This is why I'm always concerned about incorporating material like this in articles.  It can imply a relationship that doesn't reflect the feelings of the person in question.  For this reason I removed the content as UNDUE and BLP1.  Springee (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Particularly re "don't know if Rittenhouse actually supports any of the associations". I happen to think some of the news coverage was a little quick to judgement. Maybe, you're right about this. Maybe the coverage is unfair. Maybe that will make a WP reader less sympathic towards Rittenhouse. All that said, our role here on WP isn't to judge the "fairness" of the sources. We only judge whether information is verifiable (this information is). Then we judge if it's WP:DUE. Content is due if we give it the same WP:WEIGHT sources do. RS clearly gave the hand gesture at least some weight, so we should give the information some mention.
 * I'm still a little confused by your WP:BLP1E argument. I agree Rittenhouse is a BLP1E, but I don't understand how you're tying BLP1E and DUE together. Those are different policies governing different questions (i.e. whether someone is notable enough for an article, versus whether information within an article is given enough or too much weight). NickCT (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, Springee seems to just make up arguments to erase critical information. It is clearly the case that the ok symbol was flashed, it is sourced that this is seen as a White Power symbol, it is part of the aftermath and the understanding of the motivation of Rittenhouse. It doesn't say, he is a white supremacist. So it is relevant and sourced.--FantinoFalco (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please wp:FOC not editors. Your claim this is part of the "motivation or Rittenhouse", is wp:OR and illustrates one of my big concerns here.  We don't know that but you are jumping stating a conclusion based on incomplete facts.  Springee (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NickCT, BLP1E because Rittenhouse is only known due to the shooting thus we merge information about Rittenhouse into this article vs a stand alone Rittenhouse article. That brings up the second issue, is this material DUE? This seems to be about Rittenhouse, not the Kenosha Shootings.  Yes, Rittenhouse wouldn't have been notable in that situation or likely in that situation were it not for the shootings but that is still a bit of a stretch.  Consider this, how does it impact the reader's understanding of the events of that night if Rittenhouse is found guilty vs innocent?  Well I think we can agree the legal verdict will be a significant part of the total story.  What if Rittenhouse gets a DUI next week but is found innocent in the end and the judge refuses to allow the DUI evidence into the case?  What would the DUI tell us about the events that night?  Nothing really.  FFalco helpfully illustrated a concern, readers may assume this event reflects Rittenhouse's feelings/motives vs just reflects on his short term poor judgement.  It's quite possible the judge is saying don't do that because he understands it makes conducting a fair trial that much harder. We simply don't know and critically, we can't help the reader know what to make of this information.  If this event impacts the outcome of the trial is needs to be added to this article as it would be significant.  However, we can't know that until after the trial.  Since there is no deadline for edits we can wait until after the trial.  If this event isn't significant in the trial then why include it?  That brings us to wp:DONOHARM.  Not policy but still something to consider.  As we have discussed, this material really can present a lot of different views of Rittenhouse and only one is likely to be correct.  Are we making a better article if we include content that could lead readers to a false conclusion?  Is it harmful to Rittenhouse to have material which could lead to a false, adverse conclusion in the article?  I would say yes.  That is why I'm against this content.  Springee  02:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (talk), (talk), (talk), (Weller talk), (talk). Thanks for your explanation, Springee, that your understanding of the meaning of the "O.K." gesture has sprung solely from your experiences while being submerged in the murky depths and that only the Wikipedia article on that sign provided you with an alternative interpretation. I Googled the sign, plus "white supremacists," and got just 2.5 million hits, and found that it has been commonly identified as a "white power" sign for only the last four or five years, so I can understand how that interpretation might have entirely escaped you. After all, when Richard Nixon used the sign, with both hands, when getting off planes in Latin America, over 60 years ago, he did not know that it had a scatological meaning in those countries. He was equally misunderstood when he flew to Australia and, getting off another plane, flashed the "V" for victory, sign, in a place where it had obscene connotations, as had been common throughout the British Commonwealth for over a century. So you share that Nixonian perspective. I further absolutely understand that Wikipedia readers and editors might see that your having consistently entirely deleted my well-sourced edits in WP articles about right-wing politicians dozens of times as some having some negative connotation, that they might mistakenly believe you might have been propelled by personal animus toward me, and/or a desire to portray such politicians in an exclusively favorable light, where obviously all that you're concerned about is maintaining a consistently objective on-line encyclopedia. I have to applaud you for your neutral and thoroughly even-handed involvement. Finally, I would be thoroughly distressed if any editor here would somehow read any negative intent in my remarks in this post. Activist (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Activist, you are projecting. You can't know what Rittenhouse understands about the OK sign.  I can assure you its featured in my PADI dive manual and not as a way to say you are a racist.  Has the sign been coopted to mean something new, yes.  Do you know for certain that Rittenhouse was aware of that or the other racist implications of what he was doing?  No.  Can you say for certain racism was Rittenhouse's motivation?  No.  Are you aware that the shooting victims appear to be Caucasian?  Please do not suggest what you think my interpretation was.  BTW, your understanding of the V for victory sign is perhaps confused.  Churchill used it as Nixon did.[].  Regardless, this is no off topic.  I'm debating opening a BLPN discussion regarding this content for the reasons outlined above.  Springee (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Focus on policy. It's good that Springee is being cautious about BLP content. WP:BLP says we should be. If he's misapplying WP:BLP you shouldn't take that as a personal attack. And for the record, you may want to brush up on hand gesture trivia. It's a reverse "V" (i.e. palm away from viewer) that has obscene conatations. Forward "V" (i.e. palm towards viewer) has the same "V for victory" meaning that it does in the US, as demonstrated by Churchill. NickCT (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Rittenhouse is only known due to the shooting thus we merge" - yes.
 * "This seems to be about Rittenhouse" - Sure.
 * "wouldn't have been notable in that situation" - So your logic here is that b/c BLP1E says Rittenhouse isn't notable, therefore subjects relating mainly to him also aren't due/notable? That's sorta perverse logic. The fact is, we absolutely know the hand gesture thing is noteworthy b/c reliable sources have made note of it. You seem to be taking WP logic and trying to impose it on sources, which is the wrong way around. The whole basis of WP:NOTABLE and WP:DUE is that notability and "due-ness" is a function of coverage in sources. You're imagining yourself some kind of judge of content. You're not. You're just a collator of content already judged by the sources. Regardless of whether those judgements are fair or unfair. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a way to think of it is similar to the logic here []. Basically we have event A and event B.  They are tied together by object R.  These recent articles are about R and B, but this article is about A.  This material doesn't really tell us anything new about A.  Also, while I agree this got a good bit of coverage, that coverage seems RECENT.  It was very much a flash in the pan with lots of sources cranking out a quick story that is little different than the next story.  Were this not a BLP I would be more inclined to err on the side of inclusion but the BLP, especially given this could be nothing more than a kid who did something dumb after being locked up for 2 months.  Springee (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * B may be relevant to R's role in A; and thus B is relevant to A. If the hand gesture wasn't possibly relevant to the shooting, why do you think journalists are reporting on the gesture? NickCT (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest... /rantish... I think it was any easy story for the writers of what is in effect a 24hr news feel to push out. Once one talks about it the rest quickly re-report the same thing to ensure those views go to their website vs a competitor's.  It's also possible that this scores on the outrange factor.  Last fall it was clear many news sources felt Rittenhouse was clearly a bad person regardless of the facts or a lack of trial.  They may be right but until such time as that is proven we should be careful about piling on.  I apologize that that is a bit of a rant about "what motivates today's media" and it isn't something that would be recognized by Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.  Back to B contributing to A.  It may be but until a source says B contributed to A, I think we leave it out.  This is the same feeling I have about adding Rosenbaum's legal and possibly mental issues.  Those things may foretell his behavior but we don't have a RS saying that and since this is a BLP we should err on the side of exclusion.  Springee (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is certainly relevant to the topic; like many articles about shootings, this one covers the accused perpetrator, aftermath and legal proceedings within its scope. We also aren't saying that he used a "white supremacist hand gesture". The phrase we're using, "all three gestured an "OK" sign with their hands, a symbol sometimes used by white supremacists", is neutral and doesn't state that Rittenhouse knowingly flashed a white power sign. Even if it was all a very strange coincidence, this is something that has received news coverage and is pertinent to the case. –dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The association is the problem. Again, I think this needs to go to BLP given the NOHARM thinking associated with BLP subjects.  Springee (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee you are policing content. Wikipedia is about publishing relevant information, even if you don’t like it. A shooter killed people and him being possibly a white nationalist is relevant as demonstrated by articles about him. You can soften the wording if you want and add disclaimers. But I don‘t understand how this violates NOHARM. --FantinoFalco (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FFalco, please WP:FOC. Editors are allowed to disagree in good faith.  As you say, Wikipedia is about publishing relevant information.  That information may be relevant if the article were about Rittenhouse.  It's not relevant in my view given this article is about the events in Kenosha.  Springee (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Springer. Kenosha was an unrest with people being shot. The character of the shooter is clearly relevant. --FantinoFalco (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In my view this has been included too early. The source reports that the prosecutors in this case are seeking to deny the current terms of R's bail on the grounds of the claims they make about the events at the bar. But these claims are attributed by the source to the prosecutors, specifically to something in their motion. At this point, then, it may turn out that these claims are just claims that prosecutors made in a motion which was dismissed. In that case, the content would clearly be undue in the article. So we need to wait and see whether these claims are verified. Or, if we're going to keep it in, then at the very least we need to attribute the claims, and the alleged significance of the claims, to the prosecutors, and not state these things in wikivoice. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you need to discuss this revert []. The only consensus is that this material belongs in the article in some form.  That doesn't mean the form should be a needlessly wordy and poorly written form.  The version you restored states the prosecutor's motives then quotes the prosecutor saying what their motives are.  In addition to being redundant it gives excess weight to speculative claims by the prosecutors.  The length of text divoted to this material is equal to that devoted to the second confrontation.  That actually involved someone being shot.  Rather than restoring it you should have discussed the content here.  I support the reduced length version.  Springee (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , please respond to my comment above; your revert is not responsive to my concerns. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I read my edits last night and didn't understand what you were objecting to. So I've gone back to it this morning and still am baffled. I kept the existing references and almost all of the existing text. In one of my edits, I changed a comma to a period. In another, I changed a descriptor, "lit on fire," to "burning." I added two brief quotes from the prosecutor, with a reference, added a modifying adjective. I eliminated the cluttering and distracting reader direction to Wikinews. What, exactly, are you referring to as "poorly written?" Activist (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, poorly written. You say what the prosecutor claims then quote them.  Why both (why either).  Shinealittlelight was correct.  Unless you can justify your specific text I'm going to restore their version.  Springee (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You aren't being responsive. Read my critique above, and compare the shortened version that I wrote to the current version. The main thing is that the claims about R need to be attributed to prosecutors in their pending motion and not in wikivoice; the second thing is that a pending motion about R's bail status really isn't due in an article on the Kenosha event. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ,,, Is that sufficient? The problem, I think, was that I thought you were talking about different edits. Activist (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is what sufficient? I don't understand your comment. The point is not difficult. Prosecutors in the Rittenhouse case have claimed in a pending motion that Rittenhouse associated with white supremacists at a bar. If we're going to say this--and it seems undue to me, but whatever--we obviously can't state their allegations as fact in wikivoice, but we need to attribute it to the prosecutors in their pending motion. Are you disagreeing with me about this? Why did you revert my edit, which incorporated this point? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored the version that puts all the claims out of Wiki voice and on the prosecutor as well as is more condensed. Springee (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I support the longer version which paints a more complete picture of what took place at the bar. A factual description of the security footage in Wiki voice should not be an issue. –dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is the longer version gives undue weight to the speculative motives/associations made by the prosecutors. The additional detail about what the prosecutor says happened is less an issue than this part, "The motion asserted, "The defendant's continued association with members of a group that prides itself on violence, and the use of their symbols, raises the significant possibility of future harm to, or may serve to intimidate, potential witnesses," in the criminal case".  Yes, what the motion asserted is attributed but but the part about intimidating witnesses is pure speculation.  It suggests a level of association between a BLP subject accused of a crime and alt-right groups which simply hasn't been established as well as suggesting that Rittenhouse might be using such an association to threaten potential witnesses.  That seems over the top. Are you OK with a middle ground like this:
 * Prosecutors in the case subsequently requested a modification to the terms of bail including a prohibition on that he be prohibited from consuming alcohol and from association with known white supremacists. The request resulted from security footage, obtained from Mt. Pleasant, Wisconsin police which showed Rittenhouse drinking beers in a saloon and standing alongside and serenaded by five "Proud Boys," who sang "Proud of our Boy."  The request included a photo of Rittenhouse with with two individuals showing an "OK" sign, a hand gesture frequently used by white supremacists, accompanied the prosecutors' motion. 
 * This slightly condenses the text covering the "what" without removing an specific detail. It does remove the speculative claims by the prosecutor. Springee (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I know you are well aware of what the BLP says, and what it means that there are discretionary sanctions in the BLP and the AP area. What I do not know is why you are seem so intent on getting so close to that edge where someone is going to take you to ARE and get you topic banned--it seems pretty clear to me that you are going up against a consensus of experienced editors who make stronger arguments than you do. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that is unfair here. We have 4:2 for having the material in the article at all.  That isn't an overwhelming consensus.  Additionally, after NickCT restored the material I have never removed it.  I did support Shinealittlelight's shortened version of the text.  With respect to the long version or the short version we have 2 editors who favor the shortened version and 1 who favors the longer version.  Springee (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "overwhelming", but I did say their arguments were stronger. Sure, that's just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I'm concerned about your approach towards deletions on this page and your deletions of large blocks of material, especially given the contents of editorial policy as per Revert only when necessary: If you care about improving this page, why not correct errors and improve the added material incrementally? Noteduck (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * it is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit
 * your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit

Break
The current version of the article has:

"Prosecutors in the case subsequently argued that the terms of Rittenhouse's bail should be augmented on the basis of security footage they obtained from Mt. Pleasant, Wisconsin police which secured the evidence after receiving a complaint. They requested that he be prohibited from association with white supremacists. The video showed Rittenhouse drinking beers in a saloon and standing alongside and serenaded by five 'Proud Boys,' who sang 'Proud of our Boy.' A photo of him with two of them, all flashing an 'OK' sign, a hand gesture frequently used by white supremacists, accompanied the prosecutors' motion. The motion asserted, 'The defendant's continued association with members of a group that prides itself on violence, and the use of their symbols, raises the significant possibility of future harm to, or may serve to intimidate, potential witnesses,' in the criminal case.

The conditions of his release were changed on January 22 so that he cannot consume alcohol, have access to firearms, or associate with persons or groups known to be a threat to others based on race or religion."

Several problems with this. First, the sources say that the video was used to confirm that R was at the bar, not that he was serenaded or flashed a symbol. Second, the claims that he was serenaded or flashed a symbol are in every source attributed to prosecutors. Third, the text in the article now is way too long-winded. I am proposing this revision:

"On January 22, a Judge in the case modified Rittenhouse's bail conditions, ordering him not to consume alcohol, have access to firearms, or associate with persons or groups known to be a threat to others based on race or religion. This order was based on prosecutors' allegations that Rittenhouse was engaged in behavior that could intimidate witnesses, including associating with members of the Proud Boys and displaying hand gestures associated with that group."

If I'm missing something in the sources with regard to the security footage, or somewhere that the allegations aren't attributed to the prosecutors, please point that out. Otherwise I think this version hews much more closely to the sources, and has the added benefit of focusing on the actual decision (which seems far more significant) rather than the motion.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. It seems silly to include both the pre-modification and post modification statements as if the judge decided to grant something different than originally requested.  Springee (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Drmies talk, Noteduck talk, Talk, FantinoFalco (talk), dlthewave talk, NickCT talk Prosecutors seek restrictions on Rittenhouse after bar stop]You're missing a lot, flashing the white supremacist symbol (or the scuba diving symbol, as Springee insists, as they were all about to go diving together in Lake Michigan or in Bikini Bottoms with Sponge Bob, one presumes, and just were practicing their moves). The prosecutors, in asking for the restrictions, attached the photo and the video to their motion. The serenade is not in question, and its context should not be removed. Numerous editors have reviewed the content and have objected to such a scrubbing. In addition, Shine, you removed a citation from ABC News although it was obvious that it supported text below, leaving the KRCR-TV referral to the removed citation an orphan, as would have been clear when you removed it as a "duplicate." In your version the references to the "allegations" or in this case, solid evidence, and Rittenshouse's underage, though legal (three beers in 90 minutes) drinking since his mother brought him to meet with his "bros." So we might put the question, as in theater directions, "What's your motivation?" Activist (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the consensus was the general material should be included. How it appears has not been decided and the longer form has no more consensus vs the shorter version.  Additionally, it makes little sense to talk about what the prosecutors request when we can say what the court granted.  In this case they appear to be one and the same.   Springee (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's really one question here. Do RS attribute the claims to the prosecutors or not? If so, we should do so. If not, we should not. That's it. Since I have seen only attributed statements in RS, that's what we should do too, following RS. Unless RS that does not attribute can be provided that's all there is to say. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Activist, please don't put "talk" in those pings--it's not pretty. Look, like this: User:Activist ., I'm a bit baffled by the grammatical problems in this version, especially given this lengthy dispute about this text; it seems to me that if one continues this editorial dispute one should be very careful. I don't really understand the objection to this text--it's not much longer, and like (I think?) I don't see how this violates the BLP. And I really think that these BLP1E concerns are going too far. But then, it seems to me also that there's not much fighting anymore, and that's good. Activist, I object to your "controversial" in this edit; that should not be done in Wikipedia's voice, not for a relatively unknown person (unless I'm missing something) based on one single newspaper article. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the version in question is Shine's proposed text above. It hasn't been added to the article at this time.  One of the reasons for this change is the earlier text was written when this was a request and the judge hadn't approved it.  Since that time this text was added right after the earlier, long text [].  Look at the text we currently have in the article.  Early on it says, "They [prosecutors] requested that he be prohibited from association with white supremacists.".  The next paragraph says, "The conditions of his release were changed on January 22 so that he cannot consume alcohol, have access to firearms, or associate with persons or groups known to be a threat to others based on race or religion." Since we now know the outcome of the request why waste space with the initial request?  It shouldn't be controversial to streamline these two paragraphs. Springee (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The version proposed by Shine is egregious. The character of the shooter is clearly relevant. The sources make it clear that Rittenhouse, according to prosecutors: None of this information should be omitted. It's hard to see Shine's suggestion - especially things like their unjustifiable removal of the term "white supremacist groups" from the paragraph - as an earnest attempt to improve this page, and hard to imagine the removal of the current version as anything other than partisan whitewashing through omission. Shine and Springee, try to put aside partisan bias and work to make this page better. OPPOSE in the strongest possible terms, unbelievable it's even come to this. Noteduck (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) S
 * was in a bar spending time with Proud Boys and drank three beers with them
 * was photographed flashing the O.K. sign with the Proud Boys (which the Proud Boys of all people would know is associated with white supremacism)
 * had the song "Proud of your Boy", adopted by the Proud Boys as an anthem, sung to him by five PBs - the sources specifically use the term "serenade"
 * Oppose Shine's proposed version is vague and leaves the reader wondering what events led to the change in bail conditions. Sources invariably include the details about drinking with Proud Boys at the pub and we should too. We can reasonably discuss whether this should be said in Wiki voice or attributed, but there's no reason to omit the incident entirely. –dlthewave ☎ 04:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * so perhaps you would prefer a version like the following?
 * Or, if not this, what? Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or, if not this, what? Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Shine, why remove these details? Why omit any of these details? It's hard to see this as anything but scrubbing the article to be as favorable to Rittenhouse as possible. I think it's worth mentioning the amount of time Rittenhouse spent with the PBs and perhaps the fact he stayed for three beers as well Noteduck (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the fact that they were singing the song PBs have adopted as an anthem specifically
 * the association of the "OK" gesture with white supremacists and the far-right, including the PBs
 * the term "white supremacist groups" from the paragraph

Note about BLP1E

 * I want to stress to those participants who wish to invoke WP:BLP1E, that it does not apply in this instance. The subject matter is of a not insignificant historical import. The decision as to what and what not to include about the latest incident (or anything else) is a purely content matter. The reliability of sources about whatever is to be ascertained in the usual way. El_C 23:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2021
can I post an image on Kenosha unrest shooting? Superstarlucas (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  EN  - Jungwon  08:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Rittenhouse violating bond agreement
and bond raised, should be included:
 * https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/02/kenosha-prosecutors-say-they-cant-find-kyle-rittenhouse.html
 * https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/03/us/kyle-rittenhouse-alleged-bond-violations/index.html
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/02/03/kyle-rittenhouse-bond-violation/
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-request-arrest-warrant-kyle-rittenhouse-after-he-allegedly-violates-n1256667
 * https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-bond-violation-arrest
 * https://www.npr.org/2021/02/03/963806676/wisconsin-prosecutors-seek-kyle-rittenhouse-arrest-and-higher-bond --77.183.153.199 (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we already have a paragraph about this, right above the section "Second amendment legal defense". Is there any specific addition or change to the text you'd like us to make? – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * oh, sorry, didn't see that - thank u! --77.183.153.199 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's one teensy little detail: Rittenhouse's attorney, Mark Richards, countered in his own motion Wednesday that death threats have driven Rittenhouse into an "undisclosed Safe House.” Richards said he offered to give prosecutors the new address in November if they would keep it secret but they refused. He said Rittenhouse has stayed in constant contact with him. Hmm... it's almost like they're trying to stack the deck in their favor. TheKing&#39;sMongrelSon (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the background of this needs to be included even if we attribute the statements to Rittenhouse's lawyers. Vice [] noted that in November Rittenhouse's lawyers asked about having the address sealed against FOIA requests due to safety concerns and claims of threats made against Rittenhouse but the DA refused the request.  Per this source [] the DA recently said the public should be allowed to know where Rittenhouse lives.  The Rittenhouse's lawyer also claimed a local police chief told the lawyer to put the old address on the form.  If we only tell the "not at address part" it looks like Rittenhouse was trying to flee or mislead the court.  With the additional information it looks like Rittenhouse may have been given bad legal advice based on a legitimate fear and that the DA may have put Rittenhouse in a compromised position.  It certainly changes the impression of the situation.  Springee (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅., I made the requested edit. Thanks for suggesting. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added the part about the DA refusing to keep the address under seal. Springee (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the fact is that public records are public records unless sealed by a court. The district attorney cannot unilaterally choose what is and isn't public, and the DA told Rittenhouse's attorneys what they had to do - petition the judge to seal that information. Their apparent failure to do so is not to be blamed on the DA. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof, while I understand that the DA said the refused as they feel it should be a public record, the sentence in question is what Rittenhouse's attorney said. I would suggest the content you included be added as a second sentence. I think the Vice article provides a bit better coverage:
 * Corey Chirafisi, a lawyer working with Richards, emailed Kenosha County assistant district attorney Thomas Binger in November asking to keep Rittenhouse’s new address under seal, the filings show. Binger refused, citing Wisconsin’s “proud history of open records laws,” but cracked open the door to changing his mind if there were a “specific, tangible, and imminent threat that would justify secrecy.” 
 * It should be clear that, according to Rittenhouse's attorney, the defense team specifically asked to keep the location sealed and the DA refused vs the defense team just decided this on their own. For that reason I would ask that you make your edit a second sentence. Beyond that, well this is going before the judge on the 11th so I don't see any reason to make a much of changes until the thing gets decided. Springee (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally feel this is too much detail, and I like the trimmed down version that I originally inserted. It may not be appropriate to give a play by play of the trial in this level of detail. But I don't feel strongly enough to edit it out yet. Just mentioning it. It also doesn't help that the legal argument is kind of weak (Rittenhouse's lawyers: "we can ignore the court's rules because we requested X weird exception and got no response/a weak response"), and Rittenhouse's defense team could also be lying. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The impression I get is that Rittenhouse's big name attorneys are screwing things up. I got that impression from listening to various youtube lawyers talk about the topic.  It has been suggested that at least one of the big name attorneys may have been doing this to address his own fiscal issues.  This certainly comes across as the defense counsel screwed up rather than Rittenhouse personally, willfully, disobeyed.  Anyway, I think the detail is important but I wouldn't object too strongly if you want to restore your version.  To some extent all of this is too long.  Per my arguments regarding the previous bail modification, this pre-trial stuff isn't strictly relevant to the shootings since it neither talks about what happened the night of nor the legal findings/decisions when the trial is completed.  Springee (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse was not "struck with a skateboard"
This article claims that Kyle Rittenhouse was struck by a skateboard by victim Anthony Huber. This is completely false as is clearly shown in the video. While the skateboard does make contact with Rittenhouse, it is incidental to Huber trying to disarm Rittenhouse and it lightly touches Rittenhouse at best. This article should be corrected to not spread misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.145.162.69 (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The aggressor rose a skateboard over the victims head while charging towards them. The skateboard was then swung, and forcibly hit the victim in the back of the head.

“struck” is an appropriate depiction of the events seen in the video Boredenthusiast (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Struck is disingenuous as is allegedly struck removing hisi cap. There's clear video evidence that shows Kyle being assaulted which is the legal definition of what occred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:ED06:C200:C02D:EB13:DCD2:20BA (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

GLOCK Semi-Automatic Handgun
Why is the Glock not mentioned, but the AR15 is? 2607:F2C0:949A:5900:B170:7174:56C4:CA83 (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the article says He was armed, allegedly illegally, with an AR-15 style rifle[3] and one of the victims had a handgun. Is the handgun mentioned there the Glock you're talking about? Also, if you'd like us to update anything, feel free to mention precisely what you would like changed, to what, and provide a URL source for it. Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the Glock. Pkeets (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific type of either gun isn't overly significant. I don't think any sources claim the handgun was fired, it was just brandished.  As such it doesn't really matter what type of handgun.  AR15 is borderline generic at this point.  In this case it is useful to say this was a semi-auto rifle and it was clearly visible on Rittenhouse.  I would argue that the basic outcome of this event wouldn't be any different if the rifle were say a Mini-14, one of many not-AR .223 semi-auto black rifles or even a semi-auto .223 "traditional style" rifle. Unlike "handgun" there isn't a universally accepted, non-cumbersome, generic term for what are often called/pictured in the mind as "assault weapons". Since it was in fact an AR, the media typically referred to it as such and the term is at least semi-generic, I think it's fine for this article.  Springee (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Association with white supremacists
Later, the prosecutors in the case argued that the terms of Rittenhouse's bond should be amended to include a prohibition from association with white supremacists is obviously referenced by the citations at the end of the sentence immediately after this, and it also obvious that the entire paragraph follows on from that point. The initial IP removal was more than likely being a typical Proud Boys supporter being in denial about their white supremacist nature. FDW777 (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That section should be rewritten. Part of the issue is we are treating the prosecutor claims as if they weren't a hostile source.  Now that the judge has ruled on the matter it would be better to strip the section down to what the judge actually said vs what the prosecutor has claimed.  A problem with this statement is the leading implication made by a prosecutor who has a bias towards vilifying Rittenhouse for their own needs.  What we didn't include what that Rittenhouse's defense team replied by reiterating that Rittenhouse had no affiliation with any such group [].  We shouldn't treat the prosecutors claims as any more reputable as those of the defense and once discussed we really should limit most things to what ever the judge agreed with (not exclusively but in most cases)  Springee (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Seems fine as written. it's clear that the change in bond terms was in response to the prosecutors' argument, and it would be confusing to leave out this detail. We don't want to leave the reader wondering whether the judge made this decision on a whim. –dlthewave ☎ 19:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it gives too much weight to accusations that have not been shown to be true. The level of detail could easily be cut down without removing useful context.  Note that this extended version didn't have consensus, just that people gave up arguing. Springee (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Rittenhouse section
A possible issue: because Kyle Rittenhouse redirects to the #Kyle Rittenhouse section, the first sentence in that section is returned to inquiries to Siri (not sure about other agents, I saw someone complain about this on twitter). Because the first sentence in that section is Kyle Rittenhouse was described as having participated in local police cadet programs and expressing support on social media for the Blue Lives Matter movement and law enforcement, it provides a rather misleading introduction of the person. Perhaps there's a way to start that section with a more appropriate description?I'm not watching this article, just dropping this here for consideration by interested editors. Schazjmd  (talk)  18:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Should we be writing these articles to optimize them for AI smart devices? This is a tough one and probably a good topic for something like VP.  In context of our article this makes sense as Rittenhouse is introduced in the lead.  We could point straight to the lead of this article instead.  I don't think Wikipedia should be editing articles such that Alexa, Siri etc searches take priority over site visits.  That said, I also understand that many battles for what should be in the first few sentences of an article are often motivated by what will appear in a Google sidebar vs requiring an added click.  Anyway, I think the section should start with what makes sense for this article, not what makes sense for Siri.  Springee (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say this concern applies equally to all users; the lead, not the Rittenhouse section, is where we explain why Rittenhouse is notable. The section doesn't stand alone and would be quite confusing to read out of context. For what it's worth, Google Assistant and Google Search both go straight to the intro. Further research would be needed to determine whether this is because they're smart enough to find the most relevant part or too dumb to follow the section tag. –dlthewave ☎ 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (Even though I don't watch this article, apparently I had Kyle Rittenhouse on my watchlist and saw the change.) I think 's solution of changing the redirect to point to the article rather than the section both fixes the issue and makes sense overall, since as points out, Rittenhouse is introduced in the lead. Thanks!  Schazjmd   (talk)  20:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think pointing to the top of the article also makes sense. It keeps the context which is important in this case.  Springee (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed the redirect. –dlthewave ☎ 21:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

2nd Amendment related defense section
I'm looking for suggestions on ways to update the Kenosha_unrest_shooting section of the article or possibly remove it. There are two sources in that section, one is an Bloomberg OP-Ed, the other is an NBCNews story that cites John Pierce, a lawyer no longer on the legal defense team[]. I don't see evidence that the current defense team has any intention of using Pierce's ideas about militias etc. Perhaps a way to address this would be to attribute those statements to Pierce himself then note that he resigned from the defense team 2 months later. While I don't like using the Bloomberg OpEd, I don't think it's statements about the basic laws of Wisconsin are controversial. However, it's not clear that others are viewing this as a stand your ground case. It appears Rittenhouse was actually retreating vs standing ground but that is my OR. Anyway, the Bloomberg article is not about a 2nd A based defense but how Wisconsin laws might apply in this case. Probably best to leave that to legal scholars vs OpEd writers. Springee (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that the argument that Rittenhouse was part of a "well regulated militia" was exclusively just the lunacy of Pierce, and now that he's been dropped I can't find any RSes talking about this line of defence (or to be fair any sources explicitly claiming that that legal argument has been dropped), so my assumption would be that they're no longer going to argue it. I don't know enough about the case to know the detail of what his current legal team plans to argue, but this section should probably either be a) around a sentence long and be about Pierce, or b) deleted, probably with newer detail inserted instead. I'm not familiar enough with the case to know what those newer details should be, though. Volteer1 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for removing this. I almost removed it myself a couple of times. The legal arguments seemed quite weak, and I don't know if an encyclopedia is the appropriate place to include a defense team's planned legal arguments before a trial has started. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2021
change physically confronting to chasing and attacking 184.90.45.161 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ BLP issues regarding this. FDW777 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * We go by what reliable sources say. Both the old wording and this new proposed wording aren't great. I have changed the sentence to say At the first location, Rittenhouse was pursued by a group, a gunshot was fired into the air by a third party, a person lunged at Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse fired four times.[5] At the second location, Rittenhouse tripped while fleeing, three people rushed toward Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse fired four times. Based on the New York Times source. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYT source is quite scant with details, here's a AP source for the phrasing as it was before, already used in the article: . The problem with the edit you've added is that you've given a lot of detail about events leading up to the actual shootings, and then left vague details of what actually happened during the shooting. If the lead is now too bulky we should leave it as it was before, but if not, we need to include the extra detail that I added regarding the physical confrontations – we shouldn't be misleading people via omission. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . I would prefer we choose a different wording than "physically confronted". I don't know what that means, it seems vague. I like my "list of facts" approach because it avoids POV and reaches no conclusions, it just states facts. I'm fine with your edits to expand the "during the shooting" details. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can possibly understand the issue there. Copying the prose from the article, the three people he shot at:
 * One of the men who had been chasing him allegedly jumped and kicked Rittenhouse while he was still on the ground – Rittenhouse fired twice but missed the man
 * Anthony Huber, "made contact" with Rittenhouse's left shoulder with a skateboard as they struggled for control of the gun. As Huber was pulling on the rifle, Rittenhouse fired once, and
 * Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse while he was still on the ground but stopped and put his hands up when Huber was shot... When Grosskreutz moved again towards Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz in the arm, severing most of his bicep.
 * Is there a way to summarise 1) "jumped and kicked", 2) "made contact... with a skateboard" and 3) "moved again towards"? Perhaps just "rushed toward Rittenhouse and confronted him" would be better, I'm open to suggestions though. I feel just saying "rushed towards" is not a great summary. Edit: Looking at the last sentence of the lead, Rittenhouse's attorneys say he acted in self-defense upon hearing firearm discharge and in response to the numerous physical confrontations by protesters, "physically confronted" actually possibly makes the most sense in conforming with that. Again, very open to suggestions though. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Daily Caller
While there may be reasonable concerns about things the Daily Caller has published, that doesn't apply to this article since they are not cited directly. CBS and The Daily Beast make it clear that these are things the reporter has told investigators, and no matter what you think of the Daily Caller's reporting it's a lot less likely he'd be prepared to lie to the police. FDW777 (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed. Richie McGinniss is a witness. It's irrelevant how reliable Daily Caller is as a source, because we're not using the Daily Caller as a source. We're including what a witness in the shooting said to investigators. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I was confused as to why witness had been put in quotations in one edit. Jhurley85 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

"flashing an "OK" sign, a hand gesture frequently used by white supremacists"
I hope people reading this realize that this hand gesture is used much more by non-white-supremacists all around the world, including Africans and Asians of all skin colors. Just because many white supremacists drink from a public water fountain in the main square, does that mean everyone else should stop drinking from it and do we condemn the people who built the drinking fountain for the public to use? These kinds of statements are super biased and tend to paint something with a certain shade that is completely subjective. Since Wikipedia claims to be objective, I think these statements should be removed or clarified with something like: "flashing an "OK" sign, a hand gesture frequently used by white supremacists [which is also popular all around the world with all kinds of people, including Africans and Asians of all skin colors]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04.142.112.100 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UCT) (UTC)


 * The usage of the hand gesture as a white supremacist symbol has been extensively documented. Check the relevant article. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Rittenhouse then fired at Rosenbaum four times, and he died shortly afterwards.

should be Rittenhouse then fired at Rosenbaum four times, who died shortly afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.14.232.4 (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Make sure to sign your posts! ― TaltosKieronTalk 21:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Made contact?
The article says “Next, according to court records and video footage, another protester, Anthony Huber, "made contact" with Rittenhouse's left shoulder with a skateboard as they struggled for control of the gun.[44][45][46][41] As Huber was pulling on the rifle, Rittenhouse fired once, hitting Huber in the chest, perforating his heart and right lung, causing his rapid death.[34][47]”

Why is made contact in quotations? Did he or did he not make contact? If it's unclear (although it's stated there is video footage), supposedly made contact seems better than putting the words in quotations. Jhurley85 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The words "make contact" are quoted from the last of the sources provided for that sentence, thus the quotation marks. As I recall, whether the skateboard made contact with Rittenhouse was a point of contention in prior editing of this article, with other verbs (e.g. 'hit', 'struck') having been used. This is a direct quote from an ABC source regarding court records and its inclusion here seemed to resolve the issue. —ADavidB 14:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jhurley85 that we should remove the quotation marks. I do see that the abc7NY source has "make contact" in quotations. It's possible from context that they are quoting Hannah Gittings, Huber's girlfriend, but it's much more likely that they are scare quoting. We shouldn't duplicate the mistake; if we are quoting that source, we should do so exactly and make it clear which source is being directly quoted. If we are scare quoting, we should stop. I'll probably edit out the quote marks soon if no one objects and point to this talk section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be better to say something like "source X said the board made contact" or similar. The intent is to clearly attribute the statement without making it look like the Wikipedia editors are casting doubt on the statement.  Springee (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll have to skim through a few sources to see how most are handling it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of "unrest" in article
Why is "unrest" used in this article, and other articles from around this period, as opposed to "riot"? Riot is used on plenty of other pages in a similar context, shouldn't this be kept standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎50.107.105.191 (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The word "unrest" is used because editors of the Kenosha unrest article discussed the name and the consensus was not to use "riot". See Archive 6. —ADavidB 07:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That decision ought to be revisited- the damage estimate put out by some local sources was $50 million. I also think the reason Rittenhouse and others went there, to stop arson, is not given much attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1cd0:1710:d85b:f278:aeff:d881 (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really think people would agree to change this article's title before the title of the Kenosha unrest article is changed, so your efforts would probably be better spent over there regarding the article title. Regarding arson, there's a paragraph in the subsection on Kyle Rittenhouse explaining his stated motivations for being there (protecting that business, and that the business had arson damage the previous night). I'm not sure there's much more to say. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even if a RfC resulted in a clear consensus to change the title here, this topic should follow the lead article. Springee (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)