Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse/Archive 1

Why redirect?
Why is this a redirect? See Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting. —В²C ☎ 20:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's no way this should be just a redirect instead of an article. He actually had an article for a couple months which received hundreds of daily views, but it was relegated to draft status:
 * This type of thing always happens anytime a new topic appears which is unfavorable to the leftist cause, agenda or narrative. It immediately gets nominated for deletion, and failing that, salient portions are removed, watered down, or ripped to shreds on the Talk page. The obstructionism by the thought police is galling and appalling. - JGabbard (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Does he need his own article?
From what I've seen all of Rittenhouse's notability comes from the Kenosha shooting and trial. None of his appearances or brands are particularely notable when viewed as seperate from the shooting and trial. Is there something I'm missing here? This seems like it should be under the Kenosha_unrest_shooting article since that is the only thing that currently makes Rittenhouse notable. If he receives coverage seperate from that then the need for this page can be revisited. Blocod (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I see very little that is notable beyond the shooting and it's aftermath. Certainly details like his family's financial hardships should not be in this article. I would suggest AfD with a merger of the few notable details into that article. Facts about his family should absolutely stay out as they become a BLP violation for those family members. Springee (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed the overly detailed personal information about the family. —ADavidB 06:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Adavidb, I've reverted that. The New Yorker is a green-level source at WP:RSP where editors "note the publication's robust fact-checking process." It gives pertinent info about the family's background and the subject's background. --Kbabej (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , please review ONUS and BLP. The New Yorker may be a green source and in general we wouldn't doubt the general reliability of statements from them.  However, verifiability doesn't ensure inclusion.  A lot of that content is about his family and they are generally not NOTABLE and certainly not public figures.  Such negative information, regardless of the source, is a BLP concern and should stay out.  Springee (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed again, serious BLP invasion. Per WP:ONUS, please seek consensus for inclusion. WWGB (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant information about his past and family shouldn't be included per WP:NPF and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Honestly I think this entire article fails WP:BLP1E and should just merge and redirect to Kenosha unrest shooting. Blocod (talk)
 * perhaps AfD is the way to go? I believe the subject easily passes GNG, so I do not agree with a redirect. --Kbabej (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Does he need his own article? Probaby not, but now that it has been created, there will likely be no going back, unless Rittenhouse decides to resume a quiet life and stay out of the public eye. Cedar777 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

source quality
Article already has significant problems with source quality. The subject is politically contentious and merits the use of high quality sources. Unless the content has been covered repeatedly by multiple independent, high quality, 3rd-party sources, it does not belong in the article. The page WP:RSP is a good starting point to become familiar with some of the sources that are considered high quality, marginal, or that have been deprecated. Anything flagged at RSP for marginal political coverage needs to be avoided and either replaced with a quality source or removed along with the marginal source. Cedar777 (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The Wrap does not appear to be listed alphabetically at WP:RSP. Is it known by another name, i.e., is it listed elsewhere on the chart? Many sources are not listed at all at WP:RSP and this does not make them reliable. Generally, multiple editorial staff indicate that a publisher has substantial oversight and fact checking of anything they publish. Sources with only one, more generic, leader/founder are less likely to have adequate standards for publication. WP:RSP only lists some of the most commonly discussed sources, many must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Cedar777 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Cedar777. TheWrap is actually one word on the WP:RSP list (TheWrap). It's confusing, because initially I wanted to look it up under "The Wrap". It is listed as a green-level high quality source. --Kbabej (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Kbabej, the issue with FwrdAxis (which does appear to have multiple editorial staff) is that they cite Business Insider as their source within the text of their article. Business Insider/Insider is only green for culture and its a matter of debate as to whether a given topic qualifies. It's best to avoid having this debate and to simply find a better quality source w/o these issues, such as the Guardian which you recently provided. Cedar777 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cedar777. That's why I added The Guardian. You can remove FwrdAxis if you'd like. Please review WP:RSP before adding/removing sources. Business Insider, which you added, is not a RS (WP:BI). TheWrap, which you removed, is a green-level RS. --Kbabej (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I now see TheWrap listed at WP:RSP which states "As an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics."
 * This indicates that a consensus of Wikipedia editors found TheWrap reliable within it's topic area . . . but there was "no consensus" as to its reliability for broader topics. Compared with the Associated Press and Reuters, neither of which have a disclaimer regarding topic areas, TheWrap is less reliable. Perhaps other editors will care to weigh in here.
 * Similarly, MIC seems ill-suited to provide content for a politically contentious BLP. The probability is high that like the Kenosha Unrest Shooting page, this page, a BLP, will also suffer from significant disagreements and politicization. One way to keep things encyclopedic, and as factual and neutral as possible, is to limit article content to statements supported by only the very best sources and multiple articles, e.g. content supported by 3 blue-chip publishers like AP, BBC, Reuters. Cedar777 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cedar777: TheWrap source is used for reporting the stats of people watching the Tucker Carlson interview, which is absolutely within their main topic area: television/media analysis. It's literally listed in the description you got from WP:RSP, which is "media analysis". So yes, that is within its topic area. It couldn't be closer to the topic area if it tried. It's not used for making claims about Rittenhouse's character, or impact on activism, or anything else.
 * As for Mic, the piece is written by AJ Dillenger, who focuses on politics for the publication. It also doesn't sound like you've reviewed their editorial policy (available here), which seems in-depth compared to some other common sources.
 * I'm not sure you have the experience with WP:RSP to be making those calls, if I'm being honest. You removed a green-level source in its topic area (TheWrap) and replaced it with a low-quality source not suited for BLPs (BI), for example. Then claimed TheWrap shouldn't be used for analysis on television stats, its area of focus. Have you even searched the RSP archives before making these assumptions (including about Mic)? --Kbabej (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Issues with TheWrap have been resolved. Please take a moment to review my bold edit as you are mistaken that TheWrap was removed, it was only tagged. I removed the Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, and FwrdAxis.
 * Business Insider was referenced in the article by FwdAxis which states "Rittenhouse’s asinine initiative is called The Media Accountability Project, which he classifies as a “tool to hold the media accountable for the lies they said,” according to Business Insider." Referring to something as "asinine" is generally done in opinion articles rather than by blue-chip news agencies. It's non-encyclopedic loaded language.
 * Policy suggests going to the root source, which in this case was Business Insider. We agree that BI is not ideal. However, BI does not present the information as an opinion column or use loaded language like FwdAxis. It is a marginal source that is marginally better.
 * MIC lists only one editor and no staff. Many small publishers have several. They might be fine . . . they might not. Either way it was not tagged as problematic.
 * The article is still tagged for content sourced to Vice ("There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications.") and Rolling Stone ("According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 . . ."). There are many, many green sources that have reported on Rittenhouse. Does every mention of his activity warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia biography? I am of the opinion that it does not as editors must discriminate and select the most commonly reported facts from the most solid sources. There are no clearcut answers as to exactly what needs inclusion. BRD is in effect and works well. For what its worth, I'm not planning to nominate this for AfD and the edits I have made are in an effort to improve the article and the encyclopedia. Some of the sources used to initially build this article were high quality . . . some of them were not. Vice and post-2011 Rolling Stone have issues but I have used them on occasion in other articles - it's really case by case. It seems the trajectory of edits to this page is moving it towards resolution of the sources and content multiple editors agree on, a positive development ultimately. I try to assume good faith knowing that all of us, myself included, can improve our understanding of various national and international sources and how the Wikipedia community assesses their quality, as source status at RSP changes and evolves per consensus. Cedar777 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Flew an airplane in the Kitty Hawk incident
...shot three men in the Kenosha unrest shooting is similar to writing The Wright brothers flew an airplane in the Kitty Hawk incident or Lee Harvey Oswald shot one person in the Dallas incident. Rittenhouse shooting people was the Kenosha unrest shooting. Properly it should be a wikilink, as I proposed earlier, viz: ... is an American conservative media personality who became famous for shooting and killing people during civil unrest .... -- M.boli (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Media personality?
Why are we describing Rittenhouse as a "media personality"? He is notable for shooting protestors and his subsequent acquittal. Sure, he gave a few interviews, which is typical after any major court case. He does not have his own radio or television show, or a newspaper column. I can find NO reliable sources that describe him as a "media personality". Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "conservative/Republican celebrity" would be more appropriate descriptors . . . "Kyle Rittenhouse is an American man known for shooting 3 men during civil unrest in Kenosha WI after which he became a conservative celebrity."Washington Post & City Journal Cedar777 (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Celebrity" is probably a better word to use. Many sources describe Rittenhouse as having had a "media tour". "Media personality" has redirected simply to the "Celebrity" article for over ten years; celebrity status has no requirement for one's own show or column. I would avoid tying his celebrity status explicitly to a party, as conservatism is broader.


 * [The linked Washington Post article is identified as "Perspective" (opinion?) and probably shouldn't be used as an article source. Likewise, the City Journal article's author is expressing opinion as to what Rittenhouse should do next.] —ADavidB 07:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the broader term conservative is preferable. I didn’t dig too deeply into the terminology most commonly associated with RH but the preliminary finding was that he was frequently described as an individual who shot 3 people in Kenosha with the more polarizing terms “vigilante” and “hero” appearing at regular intervals. The two articles above were supplied at talk mainly to illustrate that the terms “conservative” “celebrity” were being employed as descriptors by both publishers associated w/ the left (WaPo) and the right (City Journal). The WaPo article is written from a long range view by an historian/academic (the better quality of the two). City Journal has extensive editorial staff but is supported by the Manhattan Institute, a free market think tank. It would be better to have AP News, Reuters, and/or actual academic publications supporting a given term. Might be too soon for the dust to have settled.  Cedar777 (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Simply put: media personality who was involved is a crackpot lede sentence. It may have evolved from a sequence of well-intentioned edits, but the result is nuts. -- M.boli (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest then, @M.boli and @WWGB? There are many options. I've listed just a few below as an example. Note: These are not all green-level RS; I'm simply listing them to show the large variety of short descriptions being used in the media. List below:
 * "cause célèbre" (used in Politico, CBC, NYT, The Wallstreet Journal, among others)
 * "celebrity" (used in The Boston Globe, The Guardian, Complex, Vice, Mic, among others)
 * "gun-rights activist" (used in the Fort Worth Star Telegram)
 * "media star" (used by Salon)
 * --Kbabej (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Rittenhouse become famous for shooting and killing people. Period. Everything else happened as a result. You have twice reverted out of the lede the one thing that made Rittenhouse famous. Over and out. -- M.boli (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @M.boli, short descriptions are not used for "the one thing that [makes the subject] famous." Short descriptions are used for a "concise explanation of the scope of the page", per WP:SHORTDES. This BLP does not focus on the shootings Rittenhouse did; it encompasses his entire life and career, which includes a high-profile media tour, a video game, The Media Accountability Project, the commercialization of his image, laws being named after him, etc. In fact, the shooting/trial is the smallest part of this page. --Kbabej (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue under discussion is the lede sentence. What makes the topic notable is supposed to be in the first sentence of the lede. Who is Kyle Rittenhouse? Somebody who shot a bunch of people during the Kenosha unrest. That is what made him notable. -- M.boli (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @M.boli. The short description appears in the lead sentence, and you're editing both with a POV agenda. The fact of the matter is he is known for way more than the shooting, which is why this BLP exists. Otherwise, it would simply be listed at the Kenosha unrest shooting. Time didn't stop at the end of the trial; he's received intense media attention and has gone on to do a number of things. The original lead sentence incorporated the shooting ("...who became known for his involvement in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin"), but you removed that to basically call him a killer/shooter and leave everything else out. That's not what the lead sentence is for. --Kbabej (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * RH shot 3 men in Kenosha. A fact not disputed by RH or his legal team. He is known for shooting 3 men and sources great and small routinely make this point. It is nearly universal. This basic fact is at the root of why he is both lauded and despised. It is a mistake to neglect to mention it in the first sentence of the lede. One might more aptly say Dominick Black was involved in the KUS but RH was more than involved as he "fired an AR-15-style weapon eight times" - he was the primary shooter by all accounts that night. Cedar777 (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It already mentions that in the lead. To remove everything else, however, is an issue. The "everything else" is why this BLP exists. I still haven't gotten an answer when I asked both you and @M.boli what other description you would like to use. Only mentioning the shooting/killing isn't appropriate or accurate, as then this article would simply be info included at KUS. So what would you like? Cause célèbre? Conservative celebrity? Gun rights activist? --Kbabej (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears that you only addressed M.boli and WWGB by name directly above, rather than myself. The terminology research listed above is helpful. Although the strongest sourcing above is for Cause célèbre, I personally find the term a bit esoteric and still support "conservative celebrity" for the lede as it strikes the best balance between combined RS coverage. It's interesting that there is a Wikipedia page for Cause célèbre and it certainly should be discussed, sourced w/ the 3 strongest sources, and wiki linked in the body, possibly the lede if others also support mentioning it there. A conservative celebrity is readily understood, much less so with cause célèbre. Cedar777 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Using "his involvement" in the opening sentence is far too weak, and I don't think that wording will stand over time. I believe "being a focal point" would much more clearly summarize the initial attention he received without getting into the details of the linked case. The Atlantic used this language as the trial came to a close. —ADavidB 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair. An editor’s change to “…is known for shooting three people, killing two, during civil unrest on August 26, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin” is too extreme. Perhaps picking a short description from above (or one I hadn’t found) and combining it with your suggestion for the following sentence:
 * “…is a conservative media celebrity who initially became known for being a focal point in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin”.
 * Thoughts? —Kbabej (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic provides a solitary instance of framing the subject as a "focal point" in the article The Rittenhouse Trial Could Never Have Been What Americans Wanted. Used in context, here is what the Atlantic says in full: “The most striking element of Rittenhouse’s experience, and one of the reasons it became such a focal point for national attention, was the way he was treated by police.” As several editors have already stated above, Rittenhouse is known for shooting three men during the Kenosha unrest and indeed, the very first sentence of the same Atlantic article states this up front by defining him as "the teenager who shot three men during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in the summer of 2020".
 * I don't agree that the terminology of "focal point" stands out above countless other RS. It is an insufficient basis for the lede. Cedar777 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have specific alternate wording that would summarize this article's short shooting/trial section (covered fully in its own article) while not attracting continual addition of details that are beyond the scope here? —ADavidB 02:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The body of the article needs work. It is premature to be formatting an RfC-like process. A quality article should contain "essential information and terminology", and be "comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles." This applies to both the lede and a given section. A 1-2 paragraph summary of the KUS article is appropriate to include, particularly as it pertains to Rittenhouse. What is there in the article for Rittenhouse now is too minimalist. It is not "comprehensible by itself" for readers.
 * It is untenable to reduce the shooting and trial section and the lede to euphemisms or to gloss over the basic facts. RS overwhelmingly define the subject as the man (or rather teenager) who shot three people in Kenosha in 2020. A lede that more accurately reflects what RS say is here even if the body section on the shooting is currently half-hearted and anemic. The lede doesn't need to get into various perspectives on why he shot them, it just needs to clarify the basic facts that are not denied by anyone. Cedar777 (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

How about Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003) is a conservative media personality who became famous for shooting three people, killing two, during civil unrest on August 26, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

The persistent denial that shooting and killing people is what made Rittenhouse notable is incomprehensible. Even simple Google searches show 2 million results for "Kyle Rittenhouse" and 760k hits for the same name excluding a few common words related to shoot, kill, and murder. -- M.boli (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's far more to his part in the shooting than can be properly summarized in an opening sentence here. Adding a few shooting details would keep encouraging many more. The shooting and its aftermath are not the subject of this article. Details of the shooting and trial and associated focus on Rittenhouse are in the first linked article. —ADavidB 00:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy with "conservative media personality". We must include the shooting as that is the only reason Rittenhouse is notable. WWGB (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who says we must? He’s known just as much for the trial as he is the actual shooting, and then for the subsequent activities. I think the compromise suggested by ADavidB is the best option “…. who initially became known for being a focal point in the Kenosha unrest shooting on…” That covers the shooting and the other activities. The number of deaths, etc, do not belong in this BLP lead. —Kbabej (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't include "media personality" as a description in the lead. This is honestly part of why this article should be AfD'ed back into the parent article.  Rittenhouse is known for his involvement in the shooting.  It is reasonable for the lead to say that in the aftermath of the shooting he has been treated as a conservative celebrity or described as a cc.  We should not say he is one in Wiki voice since such a claim would needs some strong support.  Honestly, I'm not sure many sources find Rittenhouse himself to be that interesting.  Most seem to be interested in him due to what happened to him and the associations with firearms/self defense/frustration with the unrest in 2020 etc.  Springee (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon. The lede sentence makes sure to say that. The moon mission is described in a separate article, only a little bit in Armstrong's wiki-page. But the lede doesn't say Neil Armstrong was known for his involvement with the Apollo space program, even though his biography page doesn't contain the bulk of the moon landing writeup.

Every one of the sources named by @Kbabej above identifies Rittenhouse as the guy who shot and killed a bunch of people. Most of them do it in the first sentence. Yet they are the sources proffered as evidence that Rittenhouse isn't primarily notable for shooting and killing people. These sources -- most of which identified Rittenhouse as a killer in their ledes -- are offered in support of removing that information from the lede here, and possibly replacing it with a euphemism.

I think mentioning in the lede that Rittenhouse is a right-wing celebrity could be defensible. What is not defensible is removing what made Rittenhouse notable. -- M.boli (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Two of the three people shot by Rittenhouse died. He was acquitted of all the charges against him. Your wanting to start this article with "killed a bunch of people" does not show an interest in verifiable info or neutrality. The shooting article is linked in the first sentence. Changing "involvement" has already been proposed above. —ADavidB 11:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you haven't been following the discussion. My proposed language is above. It isn't too different from the language that @Kbabe reverted twice:
 * Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003) is a conservative media personality who became famous for shooting three people, killing two during civil unrest on August 26, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
 * Suggesting that shooting and killing people in the Kenosha unrest is not verifiable is beyond odd. Denying that this is what Rittenhouse is primarily known for seems almost willfully blind. To repeat again from above: the large list of references proffered as contrary evidence all mention this fact, most of them lead with this fact as a way of identifying him. Simple Google searching his full name "Kyle Rittenhouse" produces far fewer hits if you exclude common forms of "kill", "murder", "shot", etc. -- M.boli (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * My most recent response was to the bold-text claim that he "killed a bunch of people". I already responded to the proposed language for inclusion. The shooting and aftermath are covered in their own article. Saying how many were shot and died (or 'killed') is not a proper summary of Rittenhouse's part in the shooting, and it's not what this article is about. He was a focal point and was acquitted of all charges. Those who want to know more have the link to follow, and there is a small section about it within this article as well. —ADavidB 20:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @M.boli, I reverted this edit that changed the lead without consensus. There's an active discussion happening right now and with such a contentious subject its best to have consensus. I'm also confused when you stated "Adpot [sic] lede description from The Atlantic as suggested by @Adavidb in the talk discussion." If memory serves, ADavidB actually stated "Your wanting to start this article with "killed a bunch of people" does not show an interest in verifiable info or neutrality. The shooting article is linked in the first sentence." That's the opposite of what you've invoked their name for. Am I missing something? --Kbabej (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Lead proposals: There is a lengthy discussion above and multiple suggestions. Below I am trying to gain consensus for what (I think?) seem to be the most palatable options:
 * Option A: ...is an American media personality who became known for his involvement in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. (Leave as is)
 * Option B: ...is an American conservative media personality who became known for being a focal point in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. (Update on current language incorporating @Adavidb's suggestion; does not get into the details of the shooting)
 * Option C: ...is an American conservative media personality who became famous for shooting three people, killing two, during civil unrest on August 26, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. (@M.boli's suggestion; includes details of shooting and number of people killed)


 * I believe those are the options as I've seen them above. --Kbabej (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I find Option B the most palatable. I think it incorporates the fact the subject was more than "involved" in the shooting/unrest, but does not get into the details of the shooting (which could be endlessly updated with facts). --Kbabej (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * B (as I proposed it, with reasoning above) —ADavidB 00:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * None of the above: It's not at all clear Rittenhouse is known as a media personality.  He is know as a teen who shot three people.  Was he justified in doing so?  Was he doing something "good" prior to the shooting?  Were those who were shot "bad" people?  Those are all points that can be debated and which the media has debated.  However to call Rittenhouse any type of "media personality" is one hell of a stretch.  If this is the sort of thing that needs to be debated I really think an AfD/Merger is the correct direction for this article.  Springee (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, those points have been debated, but that article isn’t about that. This is a BLP of his overall life. His media tour, educational aspirations, laws named after him, merchandise with his likeness, his video game, etc. You’re focused on one point in time. The coverage of his life has extended beyond the trial. —Kbabej (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Kbabej, speaking of "merchandise with his likeness", the Kyle Rittenhouse t-shirts frequently depict him w/ an AR-15 and both games associated with his name are about shooting something (zombies and turkeys). Please perform a Google image search for "rittenhouse t shirts" and see what comes up on the first three pages. Gun imagery is routine as are references to shooting. There is a lack of separation between guns/the shooting and anything else he has received recognition and/or attention for at this time. Cedar777 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine, when he achieves those future aspirations and when RSs talk about those things and not his part in the 2020 shootings then perhaps we should consider these proposed leads (or this being a stand alone BLP). We aren't there yet and CHRYSTAL and similar suggest we should wait until these things have come to past before acting as if they have.  Basically everything that makes Rittenhouse notable as a BLP can be included in the shooting article and it's aftermath section.  Springee (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL certainly does come to mind, especially for the book. Speculation about a book hardly qualifies as a career. Too flakey - it may well never come to pass. Cedar777 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Luckily this article isn’t built solely around the book speculation and has a wide variety of coverage elsewhere. —Kbabej (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * C is the only option that isn't malpractice. Rittenhouse is notable exactly for shooting and killing people during the Kenosha unrest. I can see that he is a conservative media personality, so including that in some form is defensible. The exact number of people shot and number of people killed could be needless detail. So option C could be abbreviated to ... is an American conservative media personality who became famous for shooting and killing people during civil unrest in Kenosha ....
 * No responsible editor would write Neil Armstrong was a focus of the Apollo space program as the lede sentence. The ever-growing pile of rationalizations, evasions, and deflections to avoid describing his notability is incomprehensible to me. It isn't a violation of BLP, the reliable sources proffered as counterexamples do describe Rittenhouse's notability, a link and a generic euphemism is not a substitute. -- M.boli (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've reordered the lead to put his association with the shooting first and then note that he has a become a cause celebre second. I've also removed the video game from the lead as it seems borderline trivia. Given the recent add of memes sourced to low grade outlets like the Daily Dot I really think this needs to be merged back into the shooting article as the content not related to shooting just doesn't pass the 10YEAR test. Springee (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Springee, I am confused what you’re talking about? The Daily Dot is a green-level RS per RSP. Where do you get that it’s a “low level source”? Also, you removed the “celebrity” short description saying no sources stated it, when five RS did. Finally, you removed mention of the video game citing UNDUE. As a subsection, it can belong in the lead. I feel like your update was purely “I don’t like it” without doing one ounce of actual policy reading. Please review RSP, and LEAD, the latter of which describes what a short description is. —Kbabej (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have 5 sources that say he it's a celebrity. How many hundreds of sources don't say that? Sorry, 5 is not enough to put that in not only wiki voice but as the first descriptor.  The DD is only qualified green for internet trends.  Using it for BLP claims is something that should be done with great caution.  Finally, three game is a minor thing with very limited coverage.  The onus is on you to show it's due for the lead, not others to say out isn't.  Anyway, I think it's time to take this to AfD.  Springee (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added two more RS identifying Rittenhouse as a celebrity. If we had hundreds of RS that explicitly included "not a celebrity" in reference to Rittenhouse, this might be a valid point. Despite what brought it about, he has become famous. He was acquitted of all criminal charges, and there's no legal reason for him to be treated as one. —ADavidB 15:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Legally he is still a named defendant in a civil suit by the Huber family. Let’s not gloss over that fact please. RS have stated that many, many people were profoundly disappointed by the outcome of this trial, the judge’s conduct, the justice system, etc. Cedar777 (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, @Springee, I don’t think you’ve read the RSP page. The Daily Dot is a green-level source for internet trends. The source is used on this page to discuss the memes created about the subject, not contentious facts about his personal life. I’m not sure you’re looking at the sources and your points of contention objectively. —Kbabej (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with RSP. It's not a policy page and our has DD green for a narrow window.  Additionally, DUE applies here.  We'll figure out out after AFD.  Springee (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, a window for Internet culture. If you don’t think memes fall under internet culture you really need to take a look at if you have the competency to be deciding between what “low level sources” vs. green-level RS are. —Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You missed the part where editors are concerned about POV. Additionally, if you look at the supporting discussions vs the summary you will see editors have concerns about using that source to establish WEIGHT vs just some facts.  If we are going to put the meme stuff in the lead it needs to be very solid, especially since there is nothing that suggests Rittenhouse is creating these memes.  At best only that he seems to be rolling with it.  Anyway, when I get a bit of time I'm going to start an AfD with the suggestion that this be merged back into the KUS article.  We have serious POV issues here given this article claims, in wiki voice, that he is a conservative celebrity when most of the sources used to "support" that statement don't.  Springee (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is mentioning the memes in the lead. Maybe step back, reread the article, review RSP, and come up with a coherent argument if you are taking this to AfD. As it stands, you’ve called a green-level source on internet culture talking about memes a “low level source” and have erroneously stated the memes are in the lead. I think you may be confusing you not liking it for a lack of notability, but I’m worried about the competence in reviewing BLP notability if you don’t check sources against RSP and don’t know what the lead contains. Just my two cents. —Kbabej (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead refers to use of his likeness. I would suggest you drop the "I don't like it" claims.  Yes, DD is a poor source for establishing weight.  Per RSP, "Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. ".  This article has a lot of issues starting with the opening sentence.  Springee (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I don’t think you’re actually reading what you think you’re talking about. The lead says “His likeness has been used to sell varied products, especially T-shirts.” Is that’s what you’re conflating to talking about memes? Politicians sharing memes and selling varied products with his likeness are not the same thing, and the former is not mentioned in the lead. And you can suggest I drop the “I don’t like it” claims, but I’ll be bringing those up at AfD given you really haven’t made a coherent argument yet. First the ref dismissal of green-level sources, then twice stating memes are mentioned in the lead when they are not. It doesn’t appear to me you’ve actually even read the article - much less the sources. If you have, your interpretation of what’s actually written isn’t factual, so I have doubts this goes beyond “I don’t like it.” —Kbabej (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Springee, I just went back and reviewed the “undue weight” claims from DD. The only thing sourced to DD is this sentence: “Besides Biden's video, memes using Rittenhouse's image have spread on social media.” You’re worried a RS is used for 12 words (!!!) stating the undisputed fact the subject’s image has been used for memes? I’m actually flabbergasted you think 12 words from a RS stating a basic fact is undue. I cannot take your arguments seriously if you think that is in any way a realistic claim of undue. —Kbabej (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Kbebej, I'm also worried that this article makes a claim about celebrety status despite the fact that most source, even the ones cited to support it, don't actually support that he is personally a celebrety (there is a difference between an individual who is a celebrety and a cause celelbre). You also missed that most of the video game section is sourced to DD. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Except you were solely talking about the memes “in the lead”. Stop moving the goalposts and changing your arguments. As for the video game being sourced to DD, that’s completely appropriate given it’s a RS. And it doesn’t even have a subsection or a mention in the lead. —Kbabej (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

OR and unsourced additions
I'm concerned with a couple of the additions that have been made to the article recently. It appears as if recent additions are veering into original research and going against consensus.
 * 1. @Adavidb, you changed the sentence "He began attending a quick succession of Republican and conservative events described as a public relations campaign and publicity tour" with the addition of the following bolded words: "He began attending a quick succession of Republican and conservative events described by non-supporters as a public relations campaign and publicity tour." What does "non-supporters" mean? I've never heard that phrase before in regard to reliable sources, which include The Independent and Vanity Fair for that sentence. Do you have a source describing those two sources as "non-supporters"? If not, this would fall under original research and should not be introduced in the article.
 * I'm okay with the removal of these words.—ADavidB 20:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2. @AzureCitizen, you changed the sentence "While there, he shot three men, two of whom died" with the addition of the following bolded words: "While there, he shot three men who pursued him, two of whom died." This is an unsourced addition, as the AP article cited for this sentence does not mention the subject being pursued. Please do not add information into sentences that are not supported by the sentence's attribution. Additionally, it seems as if you added this sentence against consensus, as in the preceding discussion on this talk page, @Adavidb and @M.boli did not agree with its addition. I also do not agree with its addition, but looking at the time stamps it seems as if only Adavidb and M.Boli had replied to you at that point. Please do not add contentious, unsourced information to an article (especially a BLP) against consensus.

Trial summary
A criminal trial consists of both prosecution and defense. It is initiated by prosecutors who bring the charges. This is then followed by the defense arguments, formally put forth by defense attorneys and supported by a defendant. If one has a criminal trial, they were charged by prosecutors with something. To properly summarize this, one could list the specific charges, or summarize the arguments for prosecution and the defense against those arguments. AP News summarizes the closing arguments by both parties during the criminal trial. In my view, it is vastly preferable to summarize these argument in a single sentence for the biography rather than listing out each of the charges and how it was ruled on by judge and jury. Some readers/editors may strenuously disagree on the personal level with the prosecutors, however, it is a fact that this was their premise for charging the defendant. Without mentioning the prosecution and their general argument, half of the picture is obscured. It is a completely unbalanced summary. Cedar777 (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Cedar777, what I am hearing from this suggestion is you don't think the 'Shooting and criminal trial' section is balanced enough because it doesn't specifically list the specific charges? Is that correct? If so, I don't think it's necessary and expanding a section that already covers the basics. The place for a listing or of the charges is at the Kenosha unrest shooting article, where they are already covered in detail.
 * Right now, the section reads "While there, he shot three men, two of whom died. His trial began on November 1, 2021. The judge dismissed two of the charges and, on November 19, 2021, Rittenhouse was acquitted of the remaining charges by the jury after he argued his actions were self-defense." I don't even think that's necessary. I think it should read "While there, he shot three men, two of whom died. His trial began on November 1, 2021 and ended November 19, 2021, with his acquittal." We do not need a blow-by-blow of the trial, the dismissal of certain charges, or what he was charged with. Every single reasonable reader with any common sense will see he shot three people and then went to trial for it. For more info, they can go to the main article.
 * Again, this is a BLP about Rittenhouse's life, not the place to have a blow-by-blow of the trial or sho0ting info. That already exists on WP. --Kbabej (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A quality article should contain "essential information and terminology", and be "comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles." Your idea that a major pivotal event or events for a given subject just shouldn't be addressed in their biography is bizarre. I cannot think of any other Wikipedia article that fails to provide a summary of the essential information and terminology in their coverage of the subject. Many readers don't want to digest the entirety of the KUS article or click on the link and they shouldn't have to do this. No editor is trying to repeat the KUS article at length. It needn't be one extreme or the other (virtually no content summary or total content list). Condensing the basics into a well balanced paragraph is required in addition to listing the main article link. Cedar777 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cedar777, I would argue this article does contain essential info and terminology and is comprehensive, since this is about the subjects life, not his trial. There is a difference between the two. Your opinion of "many readers" (where did you get that?) not wanting "to digest the entirety of the KUS article or click on the link and they shouldn't have to do this" confuses me, since every tangential piece of information on a subject cannot be contained in one article - that's why hyperlinks exist to jump to related articles. That's why the main article template exists. If readers want to read about the trial, there is an entire article for the shooting and trial. This article is not about that. It's a BLP.
 * Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on you to convince editors the information improves the article. I do not think it does, and I think the inclusion of the judge dismissing two of the charges is a level of detail we don't need. --Kbabej (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Other editors (including Springee and M.Boli) have expressed similar concerns that the Shooting and trial section, a pivotal moment it the subject's short life, is minimalist to the extreme. Cedar777 (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Great. They also haven't weighed in here as to the inclusion of this content, which you must gain consensus on before adding, per policy. Adavidb and I have both stated the section should remain minimal so it does not snowball into yet another trial article, as is happening. I've also removed the weirdly placed "legal representation" section which was buried at the bottom of the article (not chronologically) and was again about his trial and his representatives. I'm not sure how else to convey this article is a BLP about Rittenhouse's overall life, not his attorneys and representation for a trial. --Kbabej (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmm . . . after the deletion of a large number of quality RS in this edit, it's quite possible that the primary issue here is WP:OWN rather than WP:ONUS. The unreleased video game is meant to raise fund for his legal defense. The Media Accountability Project is also directly tied to his legal efforts. Who Rittenhouse hires and fires as his his legal representatives, per RS, are relevant as legal defense and offense is such a massive part of what RS have to say about this subject. His legal activities are ongoing. Cedar777 (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But all the removed info was from the last trial, correct? If it’s for the current civil lawsuit, then yes, it should be included, but I read that as having to do with the first trial. Did I get my timeline messed up? It is possible I did. —Kbabej (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked over the section again and I’m really confused. You want the historical information of who represented Rittenhouse in his criminal trial included in a BLP as its own section? That really has no bearing on his life whatsoever and should be covered in the KUS article. How would inclusion of that help the reader understand his life? It’s ridiculously undue.
 * He is being sued in a civil suit, but none of that info is about the civil suit. It’s all about the original trial. ??? —Kbabej (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with some of Cedar777's concerns here. Kbabej, do note that this article is basically less than 1 month old .  As such basically the whole thing is subject to ONUS etc.  There is no stable, consensus version of this article.    Springee (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Springee, that's fair, and I'll keep that in mind going forward. I think the biggest issue I see with this page is the addition of material that doesn't have anything to do with a BLP's scope. A section on the subject's former legal team during his trial just seems oddly undue, and I'm genuinely confused by its inclusion. That seems like it should be at the KUS article. The legal representation section was longer than the actual shooting and trial section. I'll of course abide by consensus, but I don't see how this in any way meets the scope of the page. --Kbabej (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, to be fair, @Springee, we have different goals for this article. My goal for this article is to have a stable, quality BLP article. Out of your first four edits on this talk page, three of them advocated for AfD. And with the fourth you also called for an editor (me, actually) to abide by ONUS when I wanted information included that was eventually taken out per consensus.
 * In thinking a bit more about your comment, you have called for ONUS on 6/27, then stated the entire article is subject to ONUS a few moments ago. Fine, I can agree. But then you're concerned when ONUS is used for removing a section of material added by one editor that hasn't gained consensus? --Kbabej (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is there is very little notable about Rittenhouse beyond the facts, details etc associated with the shootings. Even the subsequent lawsuits and the "Kyle's" law's are basically aftermath of the original shooting.  A case can be made that some of that content may be due in the original article but this article goes into too much detail and in a very unbalanced way.  Springee (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Springee, I'm having trouble following your train of thought. What is it you are actually concerned about, because to me it seems as if you're talking about multiple topics? As I see them, those topics are:
 * 1. Removal of the legal representation section. You said you shared some of Cedar777's concerns. You also stated the entire article is subject to ONUS, but concerned when ONUS is used to remove material you say "may be due in the original article"? Are you actually concerned about the removal of that specific material? Because it sounds like you agree with ONUS and agree it belongs in KUS.
 * 2. Your assessment with the article is that it is basically an extension of the shootings/aftermath of the shootings, correct? I can understand that view, but I think the subject is notable as a standalone BLP. It doesn't sound like we will be able to convince each other of our position, which is neither here nor there. If you do not think the subject is notable outside the shootings, wouldn't the removal of information having to do with the shootings actually bolster your argument in the long run (ie: there's nothing left after removing the trial stuff)?
 * 3. Your concern that "this article goes into too much detail and in a very unbalanced way". Okay, what are your suggestions then? You've mentioned AfD many times, but I actually haven't seen a lot of suggestions from you about how content can be improved or changed. When I asked what the short description should be, you didn't give any examples of what it should be, just what is shouldn't be.
 * I'm happy to discuss if there are concerns in how this page is being edited (specifically my edits); I'm just not sure what you're actually concerned about/advocating for here. --Kbabej (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This article has a lot of problems. There are an excessive number of quotes by many individuals that are cherry picked in a way that is odd. Instead of deleting these seemingly arbitrarily chosen quotes, some of my content additions have been provided to get the article back to the facts, in proper context. One or two of the quotes in and of themselves aren’t necessarily a problem, but taken all together as a whole and presented without context, the result is skewed. Examples of some of the odd areas and quotes include: Mentioning white supremacy repeatedly and naming Biden, quoting the subject questioning the sitting president’s manhood but not addressing that Rittenhouse’s first lawyer, Pierce, has legitimate ties to the far right, that he allegedly arranged for Rittenhouse to have two meetings with Proud Boys members and that RS state that Rittenhouse himself eventually fired Piece over that issue. The white supremacy issue doesn’t start and end with Biden. Omitting Pierce and deleting the RS that support the content is whitewashing. Later in the article, Rittenhouse is given another long quote, courtesy of Fox news, that starts with "Me and my team have decided to launch The Media Accountability Project as a tool to help fundraise . . .” What sort of team do you suppose he is referring to here? Naturally it’s his legal team, the one he needs to go after high profile individuals and entities with defamation suits. His legal team through time is relevant, and Linn himself is notable as a defamation attorney. There is crossover between civil and criminal. The fundraising parties have been recognized by RS for quite some time. They are far more relevant to Rittenhouse’s biography than to the shooting article. Cedar777 (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * John Pierce was a lawyer that Rittenhouse briefly retained before his trial and quickly deposed of. It is an extremely minor aspect of the trial in Kenosha unrest shooting (in fact one I can't even find mentioned there?), and in your edits, you made the summary of (his defence in) that trial almost exclusively about Pierce. That does not make any sense to me. Endwise (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Endwise, please take a moment to carefully review the edit history. You are mistaken that my edits regarding Pierce were a summary of the criminal trial. They were added to an existing section initially named “Legal” that another editor had renamed “Legal defense”. Pierce set up a fundraising structure and represented Rittenhouse as both his criminal and civil attorney. It was never in the “Shooting and trial” section of the article. Cedar777 (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, you're correct that I confused where that section was, my fault on that one. I do think we can mention Pierce somewhere, particularly for the fundraising side of things (iirc wasn't there also some dispute where Rittenhouse was trying to chase money from Pierce who wouldn't give it to him or something?). I think though that Pierce himself would still be a relatively minor aspect of such a discussion overall; he continued fundraising and retaining (civil) lawyers long after he got rid of Pierce. Details like what the prosecutor said about Pierce in Rittenhouse's trial, Rittenhouse's subsequent lawyers blaming Pierce for the Proud Boys fiascso, etc., seem quite minor.
 * So TLDR, an expansion of Rittenhouse's non-trial related legal pursuits would make sense here, but I think such a section shouldn't be exclusively focused on Pierce, and the details about Pierce should be summarised with more brevity. Endwise (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Lindy Li reaction
Thank you for the suggestion, @Cedar777, on removing the following reaction I had added to Marjorie Taylor Greene nominating the subject for a Congressional Gold Medal: "Political commentator Lindy Li called Taylor Greene a "sick joke" for introducing the bill, and pointed out former recipients included George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, Winston Churchill, Robert F. Kennedy, and Mother Teresa." You had said (in part) "this sentence w/ a name dropping list is odd and unnecessary." I reverted myself and removed it. Agreed it is probably unnecessary, especially with the long list of former recipients. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Hello @Thunderbolt4000. You've changed a RS stating the subject is White to another saying the subject is half-Hispanic. The Snopes article actually says something different than what you've attributed. The article says while an officer listed him as Hispanic during a traffic stop, the Kenosha Police Department lists him as White, as do other reliable sources. They write: "'Meanwhile, multiple reputable news outlets (such as The Associated Press and Reuters) reported Rittenhouse was white. No evidence other than the above-displayed record pertaining to the Aug. 19 traffic stop — which, as we noted, carried a disclaimer that law enforcement noted “Hispanic” based on a subjective look at Rittenhouse and was not a self assessment — indicated that the 18-year-old was possibly any race other than Caucasian.'" If you're read the Snopes article, you'll see it does not claim he is Hispanic, or half-Hispanic. --Kbabej (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You've updated the sentence to say: "He is Half-Hispnaic. [sic]" There are multiple problems here. The sentence should read: "He is half Hispanic." The multiple errors include erroneous capitalization, unneeded punctuation, and a misspelling of "Hispanic". Please read what the sources say (because in the source you've provided it states the subject is not Hispanic), and please pay attention to what you are writing. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"Shot three men who pursued him"
M.boli, your edit summary here indicated you deleted "who pursued him" as a "weaselly description". Weaselly is defined by Websters as "not direct and honest". Why would the words "who pursued him" be not direct and honest? It's clear from the lead of the Kenosha unrest shooting article that they pursued him and that their pursuit was a key part of the events precipitating their shootings. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that adding this phrase is weaselly as it implies blame. Two men pursued Rittenhouse AFTER he shot someone else and he fled the scene. It is a biography of Rittenhouse. The focus should remain on who he is and what he has done first and foremost. He attended on the third night of unrest, he brought an AR-15, he shot three men, he became a conservative celebrity. Cedar777 (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I generally agree. On the primary topic page this phrasing was carefully weighed.  I would suggest using the phrasing established there.  The fact that the lead skims over so much of the KUS content is crazy.  I also don't think sources really support the "conservative celebrity" part.  I really doubt most conservatives see him as a celebrity and the sources mostly say he became a cause celebre rather than he as a person is a celebrity.  The current article lead makes it sound like the shooting was an incidental event in his life rather than the pivotal moment.  The lead spends more effort talking about media appearance and a video game than it does the entire shooting.  Springee (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * One provided source uses "celebrity cause"; the others don't. Sources that say conservatives don't see Rittenhouse as a celebrity might support that suggestion; otherwise it's original research. I previously suggested 'focal point' (perhaps similar to 'pivotal moment'), but that was not supported by editors here. As a summary of this article (not the KUS article), the lead does cover Rittenhouse's life beyond the trial. Regarding the video game subsection, the lead includes only that he "announced a video game to raise funds for legal defense". —ADavidB 18:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How many sources don't describe Rittenhosue as any kind of conservative celebrity? If we are going to use that in the opening sentence it needs to be rock solid.  Even the WP quotes a conservative who disagrees with the lionization of Rittenhouse .  Now look at the list in the lead and what they actually say.  The first two sources, The Globe and NBC News appear to say he is a celebrity.  Next is the Boston Globe which only makes the claim in the article lead.  It's well established that source leads shouldn't be used to support claims.  The body of the article doesn't say celebrity.  Next is a WP opinion article (perspective) which says he has been celebrated and treated as a cause celebre.  It doesn't say he is a celebrity and as an op-ed article we shouldn't care either way.   Next we have Slate offering the perspective of an "expert on the far-right".  That expert says, "He’s a celebrity for many of these right-wing militia groups".  So that isn't saying he is a celebrity to conservatives.  NPR says he is part of a celebrity cause for the far right (are we claiming "far right"=conservative?  The Nation quotes Rittenhouse's attorney in context.  He certainly isn't claiming he is a celebrity among conservatives.  The Conversation says, "Rittenhouse and his celebrity among right-wing extremists".  Are we going to claim right wing extremist is "conservatives"?  Finally we have NBC News talking about his TPUSA appearance with the comment, "overnight celebrity status".  That doesn't say he is a lasting celebrity.  The sum of all this is sufficient to claim he has been celebrated or became a cause celebre in some circles but it's nowhere near sufficient to claim, in the opening sentence of a BLP and in wkivoice, that he is a "conservative celebrity". Springee (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If the existence of reliable sources that don't mention something meant other reliably sourced content that says it was unusable, WP articles would be a lot shorter. Different sources don't have to be in lockstep in their language, and I wouldn't expect them to be in a nation with free press. The Guardian and NBC News sources, the first two which you acknowledge "appear to say he is a celebrity", should be enough. The term "conservative" was agreed to in prior chat, but "right wing", as used in both of these sources would suffice. We're not predicting his future celebrity status, but including what reliable sources say he is now. I'm curious what policy has established that a source's lead paragraph(s) are not usable. (I get that a title alone is not reliable.) —ADavidB 23:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To make a claim like that in Wiki-voice and as the first claim in the lead you need to show it is nearly universally acknowledged. The Guardian does say it but we need to also keep in mind the editorial bias of that source. The NBC source only mentioned celebrity status at the very end of the article and qualified it, "into a celebrity among right wing fans".  So what about right wing people who aren't fans? Regardless, finding a few sources that agree on a claim means it may be DUE to include the information as as an attributed claim.  It does not mean the claim can make it to the lead.  Also don't conflate "far-right" with "conservative".  This is all around really bad writing.  Springee (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Springee, have you looked through the sources in the cite bundle? It doesn't appear you have. You keep making the claim it's a "few sources". He's been called a celebrity by a wide variety of RS, including (but not limited to): The Guardian, NBC News (x2), The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Slate, NPR, The National, and The Conversation. And those are just the ones listed on the article; there are many, many more. Whether you personally agree with him being called a celebrity, it's a perfectly acceptable short description and is widely used in RS.
 * Also, The Guardian is a green-level RS at RSP. Where are you getting the belief that there is "editorial bias" with this specific article calling the subject that? Also, when you mention NBC called the subject a celebrity "at the very end of the article", that does not matter. I've never seen a policy on WP saying a description of a subject has to appear in their first paragraph or in a certain point in an article. That's laughable. --Kbabej (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would you ask if I've looked at the sources when I just listed the sources and my review of them? And yes, I say it's a few compared to the number of sources that discuss Rittenhouse.  Additionally, most of the sources *don't* say he is a celebrity.  Instead we have a few editors who are distorting what the sources actually say to make the claim.  The Guardian being a green source does not make it free from bias nor does it mean we have to accept any claim they make as truth.  Do keep in mind that many source mix their own commentary with statements of fact.  That is something we are told to be aware of in WP:RS, "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact."  His celebrity status is commentary, not a statement of reported fact.  Springee (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is worth asking exactly how are RS defining the subject per supporters, i.e., are they routinely described as the more specific far right subset of conservatism, or as gun rights advocates, or as conservatives more generally. A close reading of the sources, one by one, would help to tease out the overall picture of how RS make sense of the subject over time. Cause celebre is a more challenging term to grapple with, but there is likely a good and solid reason that many RS have defined it in precisely those terms. Cedar777 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The Kenosha unrest shooting article's lead says that Rosenbaum "chased" Rittenhouse before he shot him. What's the difference between "chasing" someone and "pursuing" someone? The presence of the three words "who pursued him" was a straightforward way to state the basic facts of what happened, answering the question that will be begged by readers when they read that he shot three men without giving any indication as to why. I see that another editor already tried to add "in self-defense" in place of "who pursued him" after the latter was deleted, likely sensing that the answer as to why is missing here. I suspect that will continue to be a perceived problem for editors who come to this article for years to come, wondering why this isn't being addressed, etc.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It wasn't "straighforward." A lot of complicated events happened. Your analysis is backwards: if the event was as simpleminded as Rittenhouse "shot men who pursued him," the reader is left wondering why was there a trial. -- M.boli (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Links are given for a reason. We don't have to get into everything here. Including some detail does beg for more, though, which I had resisted with former wording. —ADavidB 19:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In the trial, he shot the last two men 'who pursued him,' after one of the hit him with a skateboard over the head and knocked him to the ground. That was the third attempt of self defense. The first was shooting the first man who attacked him at the business he was defending against looting and he was running around cars from the mob, then he was 'pursued' by the mob finally being knocked down by one of the men he shot and killed, the second was maimed. That was why he was able to successfully claim 'Self defense' and there was video footage that the STATE held back from defense until the judge made them produce that exonerated Kyle. AND the worst crime of the media was to perpetuate the lie via implication that the victims were black when they knew from the beginning that all three of the victims were white. Being 'straightforward' this entire article would tell the story of how he was defending the building from looters, was attacked and shot the first man to protect himself, was pursued by a mob, hit and then shot the remaining two men and THEN turned himself in when the rest of the MOB was then retreating. SouthernYiayia (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @AzureCitizen, I’ve removed that wording from the section. Not only is it unsourced (the AP source for that sentence doesn’t mention that), it’s likely undue. —Kbabej (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @AzureCitizen, you seem to be adding lots of information to the 'Shooting and criminal trial' section. A friendly reminder this article is a BLP of Rittenhouse, not for coverage of the trial, which is extensively covered in depth at the Kenosha unrest shooting article. The information you've been adding would be best there, IMO. This article is for Rittenhouse's life outside of the trial. --Kbabej (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, from what I can discern, I added "who pursued him" to that section, and then after you reverted that, I added that Rittenhouse "argued self-defense". Can you itemize what other items you're referring to when you state that I am "adding lots of information"?  AzureCitizen (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could have used different verbiage. What I meant to say is you seem focused on additions to that section, but my main point remains: this article is a BLP, not a rehashing of the trial. —Kbabej (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cedar777 How is saying he shot "3 men who pursued him" questionable in the slightest? He was chased by the first guy, and he shot him. Afterwards, he was chased by two other guys, and he shot them.
 * The phrase in question is 100% factual and I don't see at all how you could argue it's "weaselly". Oktayey (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Rittenhouse was pursued, that is out of the question and an accurate description of what occurred, though you can take your choice of words, if you want to twist it in the pursuer's favor, you can use the loaded attempting to apprehend, pursuing is the least loaded term we have unless you want to use chasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:1DCC:D192:F42:194A:A033 (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's dishonest and misleading to just say "killed 3 men"
He killed them in self-dense because they chased him. 1Trevorr (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @1Trevorr. Where are you getting the verbiage the subject "killed 3 men"? Are you talking about the lead? That currently states the subject "shot three men, two fatally." --Kbabej (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I mean to say "shot", but it's dishonest to leave out the reason why. He was acquitted because the jury determined that he shot them in self-defense. 1Trevorr (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a misrepresentation. Juries never make such determinations. They merely determine "guilty" or "not guilty" of charges. No juror ever mentioned "self defense". WWGB (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that we aren't following NPOV in the criminal trial portion. We should include some facts about the interactions between Rittenhouse and those shot.  Right now, it gives the implication that he came there to protect businesses and just shot 3 people, and that's a gross oversimplification of the events.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Kyohyi! We actually have an entire article about that, which you can read at Kenosha unrest shooting. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, patronizing responses are not helpful. The existence of the other article does not mean that we aren't failing NPOV in how we present things in this article.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kyohyi, it is not meant to be patronizing. This article is a BLP on the subject's life, not a rehashing of the Kenosha shooting events/trial. We already have the article on that; this article's scope is Rittenhouse's life beyond those events. --Kbabej (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet we still cover it in part, and that coverage needs to be compliant with NPOV, which I am asserting it is not. We don't need to re-hash the whole other article, and no one is suggesting that we should.  But what we are including in this article is a gross oversimplification which fails WP: IMPARTIAL.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kyohyi, the ONUS would then fall to you to advocate for inclusion via consensus. I do not agree with its inclusion, but I'm also not the arbiter of this article. It looks like an IP added it and was quickly reverted by another editor, who reminded them about getting consensus on this talk page. --Kbabej (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I brought up why we should add such content up above. Is it your position that it is okay that we include no information on the interactions between Rittenhouse and those he had shot?  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kyohyi I've made my position clear (you must have consensus, and I do not agree with inclusion), so I suggest rereading my comments above. The reasoning behind those comments is scattered throughout this talk page over multiple threads, but it's neither here nor there, because I have already made my position clear. You aren't going to convince me about this by calling me patronizing and asking reductive questions, so I would respectfully suggest you focus on convincing other editors to gain consensus if you want the information added. It appears as if multiple editors do not currently agree with its inclusion (me, @M.boli from their comment directly below, and @WWGB from reverting the IP additions). I may be misconstruing their opinion, however. --Kbabej (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how the shooting and criminal trial section has the POV problem @Kyohyi and @1Trevorr claim. The paragraph accurately summarizes the event and its repercussions, with a main-article link to the more detailed article. The addition of because Rittenhouse was chased is a misleading reduction of the incident. There was an indictment and a complicated three-week trial to sort out the details of what happened and the culpability, including who chased who and when and why. (@Kbabej was correct to point out the main-article link, it is unfortunate this was read as "patronizing.")

If there is a slant to this paragraph, arguably it would come from including Rittenhouse's claims (he claims he went to Kenosha for a particular altruistic reason, he claimed self-defense at trial) without the opposing claims. But I think that is a judgement call, and pretty unimportant. -- M.boli (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how a section which includes more information is a greater misleading reduction than a section that omits more information. It isn't an accurate summary since it does not include any information on the actions of the people who were shot.  We don't need to re-hash the entire trial, but we can't have nothing.  --Kyohyi (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You are merely playing with words. You could describe anything you want to add as "more information" and then claim more information is, perforce, better. Nonsense.
 * Because Rittenhouse was chased reduces a complex and ambiguous event to a simple-minded sound-bite. A sound bite that serves only to excuse Rittenhouse, not to explain anything to the reader. In your version, the reader would be justified in wondering why there was even a trial. Further, as @Kbabej points out, the complexities and narrative of the shooting and the trial are the subject of a different article, for which there is a main-article pointer. If you add because he was chased then you logically have to add a lot of other narrative about what happened. @Kbabej and I are telling you the same thing in different ways.
 * The current text isn't bad. So far you have very little argument. There doesn't seem to be a lot of point to engaging. -- M.boli (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The more descriptive points from the lead of the Kenosha unrest article could be borrowed and adapted here on the Rittenhouse BLP so that it's not so ambiguous as to what happened. Consider this phrasing, which is about 40% longer than our current synopsis:

If we used that phrasing instead, what complexities of the shooting and trial would anyone say are still being left out? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That summary may reduce the complaints and impulse edits. I would adjust the word order in one sentence to "At a trial in November 2021, prosecutors sought to portray...". —ADavidB 12:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This summary is world's better than what's in the article. The prosecutor comment could be wordsmithed better.  We could present it as "Prosecutors brought (insert charges here) against Rittenhouse.  Rittenhouse presented a case of self-defense, and Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges."  That's meant to be high level order of information not exact wording.  --Kyohyi (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That strikes me as a lot of narrative detail. As long as there are two articles, one on Rittenhouse and one on the shooting incident, it seems cleaner to keep them separate. And there will be disagreement about which narrative details constitute a useful but fair summary. But I also understand about complaints and impulse edits. Anyway, though I disagree -- I think the current paragraph is fine -- I wouldn't oppose the change. (I still oppose merely saying because he was chased or in self-defense.) -- M.boli (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We do need to be very careful that we don't present the impression that Rittenhouse's self defense claims etc are not true. We don't endorse them as true but we also do not present them as false.  I do agree that just saying he shot 3 people without providing context is a problem.  The ultimate solution is probably just close out this article.  Springee (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Springee, a friendly reminder content disputes are not valid deletion rationale. --Kbabej (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I wouldn't propose AFD to address this issue.  However, it does address some of the issues raised by myself and others in the discussion here .  As was mentioned in that discussion Rittenhouse is little more than a BLP1E.  The material here beyond that related to the shooting, prosecution and trial are largely not important and can be integrated into other articles ore removed entirely.  Springee (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue here is how to summarize a trial that already has an extended explanation on another article, on an article where the information is already summed up on the same page the trial is explained on. In other words, this is a fork. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @AzureCitizen, thank you for the suggestion. While I opposed the simple addition of "because he was chased", this seems like a much more balanced paragraph than that. I think you are likely right it may reduce impulse edits. While I agree with @M.boli about keeping the two articles separate (one for the shooting/trial, and one for the BLP), it seems there is an appetite for a slightly more fleshed out paragraph than what is currently there. I would not support expansion beyond what you are proposing, however.
 * It seems in my view as if there is a consensus to add the paragraph. Obviously AzureCitizen agrees as the proposer; M.boli said they wouldn't oppose the change; @Kyohyi said it's "world's better than what's [currently] in the article"; and I am fine with it as well. Both @Springee and @FrederalBacon support deletion of the BLP altogether, but from what I'm reading don't seem to have any arguments about updating the section wording while the AfD plays out.
 * AzureCitizen, would you like to implement the paragraph? I'm not giving "permission"; just trying to step back from editing the article a bit per @Cedar777's 7/11 suggestion I may be taking an ownership mentality with the article. Since that suggestion, I have been thoughtful about what changes I am making and have only edited the article four times (I am not counting reverting text mistakes I made). One of those four edits was removing a run-on sentence I had previously added, per Cedar777's suggestion (the Lindy Li response); and the edit today was simply adding a source when the previous source was removed for being an op-ed. For large(r) section restructuring, I'll let others implement. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No reason not to try fixing things. If the AfD fails then I'm sure more efforts will be made to fix this article.  I'm holding off on suggesting/making changes until the AfD is over.  Currently it looks like the article will stay.  Springee (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a fair view! —Kbabej (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Appreciated everyone's input and good to see there is rough consensus to expand the details enough to ensure that readers don't puzzle over their absence. As mentioned by ADavidB, hopefully that will reduce impulse edits and complaints going forward. In just a few minutes, I'll implement the replacement paragraph using the same sourcing from the other article.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * An expansion of the shooting and trial section was warranted for this subject. I also included that Rittenhouse fled the scene of the first shooting per the main article. While the defense won their case in Kenosha, it is still essential to summarize both the key prosecutorial arguments and the key defense arguments to cover trial basics. An AP News source from the closing of the trial was substituted for USA Today from the opening. Readers will invariably come to both articles (KUS and Rittenhouse's page) with a strong sense that one or the other argument was the correct one but its not for editors to frame. RS covered prosecution and defense arguments at length and here we need only summarize these in a balanced way. Cedar777 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

NPOVN discussion
To get more eyes on this topic and the issues with the lead I've opened a NPOVN discussion here [] Springee (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the NPOVN discussion is clear that saying he is a celebrity is problematic. Based on the feedback from that discussion I would suggest that this article is merged into the KUS article as a bit of an "afterwards" section. That will address issues of how we neutrally address Rittenhouse's actions the day of the shooting as well as allowing some space for a summary of his post acquittal activities. Springee (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello @Springee. I object to the merger, so it will need to go through AfD. --Kbabej (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Since this article wasn't merged back into the original article I think the issues noted at the NPOVN need to be addressed. The first is the opening sentence of the lead.  Tying Rittenhouse's notability to being a "conservative celebrity" (a claim which the majority of sources don't support) vs to his involvement with the KUS is a big issue.  Springee (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you would like a different short description, what do you suggest, @Springee? A weak consensus determined "conservative celebrity" is the best option, and it is supported by RS. What other suggestions do you have? --Kbabej (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've opened up a new discussion at the bottom of the talk page, since the other short description discussion was very long, and then the topic was opened under this header as well. Maybe best to start the discussion afresh! --Kbabej (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Short description
Given the AfD determined the subject is indeed notable, the AfD nominator has taken issue with the subject's short description. Given the extended discussions above, I thought it might be best to open a new discussion to discuss this. The current short description describes the subjects as a "conservative celebrity", a description applied after weak consensus determined this was the best option. Here are some short descriptions I've found:
 * "celebrity" (used in The Boston Globe, The Guardian, Complex, Vice, Mic, among others)
 * "gun-rights activist" (used in the Fort Worth Star Telegram)
 * "media star" (used by Salon)

I find "celebrity" to be the most accurate, as that's how the subject has been treated since the acquittal. Open to other editors' thoughts! (Courtesy ping: @Springee.) --Kbabej (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I noted the problem with "conservative celebrity" before the AfD discussion and mentioning it here is a red herring. Second, I think this edit  is far better:
 * is an American teen who became known for his trial and acquittal after he shot three men in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The circumstances of that shooting made him a cause célèbre with some conservative and gun rights groups. 
 * I can see an issue with "is an American teen" as that won't be true in a few years.  Perhaps something more like "...as a teen he became known for...".  Regardless his involvement in the shooting should be the primary thing.  Also, he shouldn't be called a conservative celebrity or anything else that puts the focus on him vs on what he represented (gun rights against government over reach, a failure of the legal system to hold someone accountable etc).  I would also dispute the claim that the current lead has any consensus.  The NPOVN discussion should make it clear this lead fails NPOV.  Springee (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting "cause célèbre" as the short description? We can't just have "American" for the short description, since you don't want "American teen[ager]"; I agree the latter is not appropriate. To me it sounds like you almost want nothing as the short description, but that isn't how BLPs work on WP. In the sentence you've suggested, the only short description listed, "American teen", is one you summarily reject.
 * There are two issues you're discussing here. First is the short description, for which you've never provided a suitable suggestion or alternative. The second issue is the lead sentence, which is separate. I'm fine adding "cause célèbre" to the opening paragraph, but we can't not have a short description. --Kbabej (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with American conservative celebrity. I was persuaded of Rittenhouse's celebrity status during the earlier discussion of the lede. There are sources describing him as such, and also the right-wing media articles read to me like celebrity news coverage. For the lede sentence, mentioning that Rittenhouse became notable for shooting people is needed. Rittenhouse's celebrity-hood has outlived his use as a right-wing cause célèbre. By way of comparison, the short description of George Washington is President of the United States from 1789-1797, but the lede sentences show he is notable for being first president, a Founder, leading the Continental Army, etc. -- M.boli (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @M.boli, thanks for the thoughts. I agree the "cause célèbre" is outdated; he has passed into being a celebrity. And I've definitely come around to agreeing him shooting people is needed in the lead. --Kbabej (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources don't support calling him that in wiki voice. That needs to be widely used, not just used in some sources.  Also, a number of the listed sources do not support the claim.  For example, "celebrity cause" is not the same as saying he is a celebrity.  Springee (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources do. And the "celebrity cause" is used in one source, which I think you've misrepresented. The quote says "The trial and Rittenhouse himself have become celebrity causes." Regardless of the one "celebrity cause" quote, the RS use it extensively. You still haven't come up with an alternative, and editors came to the consensus it worked in a previous discussion. If you don't like the current short description, I suggest coming up with an alternative (which has been suggested multiple times) and then trying to gain consensus. As it stands, you have two editors in this discussion supporting the current wording, backed by a number of green-level RS, compared to you saying "I dont like it" without an alternative. --Kbabej (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You claim they do so please provide the quote from each that supports the "conservative celebrity" label. Also, show that this is a widely used label vs something that comes up with a keyword search.  For example, would say 30% of the first 30 news articles about Rittenhouse use that term?  I don't see that the current text has consensus (it looked like no more than half the editors supported it and almost no one at NPOVN supported it).  It stands because editors aren't interested in edit warring it out. I have provided a neutral alternative. Springee (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Springee, for readers' and editors' ease of access, I've done a cite bundle in the lead with quotes, where the word is even bolded. You should be able to access that easily. You have not provided what constitutes an alternative; you rejected your own alternative of "American teen" (not acceptable because it's time-referenced, and because it's slang). I will leave the discussion here, as you do not seem to understand you have not provided an alternative. I would suggest reviewing WP:SHORTDES, which states that a short description is (in part) "a very brief indication of the field covered by the article." Your narrative of "an American teen who became known for his trial and acquittal after he shot three men in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin" is not an accurate description of the subject today. You have been saying from your first edit on this page you do not think the BLP is anything but an extension of the "parent" article. Community consensus rejected that argument through the AfD. You are still viewing the subject as only connected to that event, which is obviously not the case and not why the community kept the article. The short description describes the subject overall, not at a moment in time. Until you have a reasonable actual short description to !vote on (since you have not presented one), I will likely leave this discussion here. Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at this edit, I looked at the sources at the time and showed that most didn't support the "conservative celebrity" tag either because the claim was poorly supported in the source (or was not in the body) or used phrasing that doesn't mean "conservative celebrity". The ONUS is on you to support the claim, not me to prove it wrong.  Springee (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim is supported in RS, and by community consensus. If you want it changed, gain consensus to implement. --Kbabej (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I showed in the link, no it's not widely supported by sources (a requirement given how it is being used). Additionally, the previous discussion ended with about an even number of editors opposing as supporting thus no-consensus for this new content.  Springee (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've opened an RfC below. --Kbabej (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022
Requesting an edit to add clarification to the nature of the provocation referenced in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Kenosha unrest shooting" section, as to avoid the ambiguity of it becoming misleading to readers. Suggested changes are sourced from the same article that was originally cited.

Adds "by bringing a gun to the protest" after "participants".

Section to be changed:

At a trial in November 2021, prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse was seen as an active shooter and had provoked the other participants while defense lawyers argued the affirmative defense of self-defense, stating that he had used force necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

After changes:

At a trial in November 2021, prosecutors argued that Rittenhouse was seen as an active shooter and had provoked the other participants by bringing a gun to the protest while defense lawyers argued the affirmative defense of self-defense, stating that he had used force necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. OuchBees (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I thought the prosecutor claimed Rittenhouse aimed the gun at people, not just had it. Clearly the gun was part of the issue but towards the end of trial the prosecutor tried hard to show Rittenhouse aimed the rifle at one or more people.  So while the gun was part of the provocation I'm not sure this requested change would make it clearer or not.  Springee (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Media Accountability Project
This consists of baseless legal threats, so I reverted the Snopes fact check, but I think it should be removed altogether. It's a BLP problem to be insinuating that people are going to get sued for no reason and then not do it. Andre🚐 23:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Most of the article, outside of the shooting, can be described by the subject "almost" doing something. Almost suing someone. Almost going to college. Almost making a video game. Almost getting a book deal. Almost getting bills named after him. Most of this article, outside of the shooting and the profile he got because of the shooting, isn't notable. I brought this up at the AfD and got an (albeit very polite) "I'm done talking to you". FrederalBacon (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I !voted to keep the AFD but I agree that this article could be trimmed down a bit. Andre🚐 23:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We have entire categories and articles on things that have "almost" happened. It doesn't preclude them from being a part of a WP article if they are reliably sourced. --Kbabej (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The question is though, are those things that almost happened notable? Sure, I'll concede that even though his media appearances are pretty much all related to his one event, that is not what BLP1E is, and because of his media appearances, he has garnered enough coverage in reliable sources to keep his article.
 * I still think there appears to be too much weight given to certain things, particularly under Personal Life, and his "Career" (I question why it's called a career section when it doesn't actually detail anything of a career), and in fact believe that most of the article needs a major re-write, but given the absolute controversial nature of the subject, I don't think it's going to go well, and shouldn't be done without significant discussion here first. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'Personal life' section has two short paragraphs about his educational aspirations, which seem fine to me. The 'Social media use' coverage can be moved to 'Commercialization and use of his image' since it no longer covers his own personal media use.
 * I agree about the 'Potential book' part in 'Career' section. It hasn't happened, or even been announced. It's speculation about a possible book. The Media Project has already started, so that should be kept. The video game has been started as too, so should be kept.
 * But I agree with discussing first; a very contentious page indeed! --Kbabej (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My thought is that calling opening a fundraiser to potentially sue people for defamation related to media coverage around him, and making a video game, a "Career" is extremely generous to the subject. The latter should be discussed in the commercialization of image section, right next to the other video game he is already involved in.
 * As for MAP....well, from their own website: "The Media Accountability Project “TMAP” is the official fundraising vehicle for helping Kyle Rittenhouse hold the worst offenders in our activist media accountable in court." It's not a "Project", it's a fundraiser so he can sue people. Not sure holding a fundraiser counts as a career. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I did have a question about the infobox at top right listing Rittenhouse as having TMAP as his "organization." Is it really an organization?  The template help page says that the organization field is for "Non-employing organization(s), if relevant".  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I also have the same question about us linking to it as an "External Link". At face value, we have a link to a fundraiser favoring the subject as an external link. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , why did you restore this Snopes reference . I removed it since it wasn't in reference to something Rittenhouse said.  Instead it appears to be an unsourced claim that Rittenhouse won a lawsuit that he hasn't claimed to have even filed.  Also, if we are going to remove a statement that Rittenhouse intends to file suit (regardless of his actual intent) why keep the source that implies he has already filed?  Springee (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I just explained I restored it. It fact checks his claim of filing suit and points out it's baseless, "Rittenhouse has said that he feels he was treated unfairly by the news media and has threatened to file lawsuits against certain media personalities, such as “The View’s” Whoopi Goldberg. But as of this writing, there was no pending case involving Rittenhouse and “The View.”" Then other editors edited the article which changed the meaning of the sentence and removed the statement that was being fact checked. Andre🚐 02:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did Rittenhouse say he has filed the lawsuit? As for the legal merit of his claims, I don't think Snopes is reliable for that sort of claim.   improved things by making it clear this wasn't a factual claim.  Currently we do/did have sources saying he intends to file suit.  I'm OK with taking that content out (though I suspect it could be RS'ed) but leaving the Snopes bit in while taking the other part out is questionable.  I think it should be removed again.  It doesn't serve any purpose since it doesn't say what Rittenhouse has done or is claiming to do.  Springee (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The version I reverted to did not use the Snopes source in the same way that M.boli did in his edit. I have no particular desire to see the Snopes source if it's not being used to fact-check Rittenhouse's threat that he would sue Whoopi Goldberg. I'm happy to remove the threat as well as the fact check. Andre🚐 02:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Um...is this not a clear POV issue? "It fact checks his claim of filing suit and points out it's baseless" is pretty clearly an intent to give that sentence a certain slant, that is, to make his claims appear baseless. Nothing against Andrevan, I don't even think he wrote the sentence, or wrote it this way. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's a fact check of his substance-less legal threat. The text that was relevant from the Snopes source was, "there was no pending case involving Rittenhouse and "The View." If we don't say he threatened to sue then we don't need the Snopes debunking of his legal claim. Andre🚐 02:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a fact check of his substance-less legal threat. But it doesn't even do that, he DID threaten to sue, that's pretty clear. It debunked a fake story going around that he had already won. The legitimate threat to sue people that he made was completely separate to the alleged win against The View. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It fact checked both the claims of a case, and stated that there was no case pending. It's not needed in the article if we are going to just remove the whole bit. Andre🚐 02:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it's completely irrelevant to the article. I don't think it's necessary to include snopes debunking a viral story about the subject. People can make up anything about anyone on the internet, just because one of them was about someone relevant enough to warrant an "official" fact check doesn't mean that story is relevant to the BLP, since it isn't actually about the person. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one who originally added it to the article, I simply reverted its removal. But if we're going to have baseless legal threats in the article, it's relevant to have a reliable fact-checker pointing out that no lawsuits were ever filed. If we just remove the lawsuits that is a fine solution. It was being used for the line in it about no lawsuits being filed, and not for the fact check in the headline. Andre🚐 02:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The lawsuits include pretty much the entirety of the current activism section. If anything, considering the fact that it appears that "The Media Accountability Project" is simply just a fundraising arm for the subject of the article, and not what most people would call an "Organization" or a "Project", I argue the entire section needs a rebalance for weight, potentially being lumped in with an entirely different section, if a suitable place can be found. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Andre🚐 03:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it is a mistake to mix the sources reporting on a viral satirical article and sources reporting on the activities of Rittenhouse.
 * Both the AP and the Snopes articles (there were others also) reported on a rumor which originated in a satirical article.
 * If and when Rittenhouse sues somebody, it will appear in the news and a description of his factual lawsuits would be in this page. It is also possible that the MAP is a scam, it raises a lot of money without taking any legal actions. The news article exposing that scam would be in this page.
 * I figure that if the viral rumor material belongs in Wikipedia, it would be here for the benefit for readers who had heard the rumor and looked to Wikipedia for information. But I can also see that this rumor may not be notable enough. -- M.boli (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your rationale makes sense. Andre🚐 03:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In regard to the link of TMAP in the "external links" section, I want to specifically address this, and ask for input from those interested.
 * We link to TMAP in external links as the official website of the organization. Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, number 19, Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered. The reference to "should be linked" essentially refers to WP:ELOFFICIAL in this case, which states that the official website of a subject has to meet both of the criteria of
 * The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
 * The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
 * I'd argue that the link, while meeting the first criteria, fails the second, as it doesn't cover any content related to the article, it sells merch and raises funds for him, and acts, I suppose, as a central place to watch his interviews, despite it actually just being an embedded Youtube player. As such, I think it's safe to say the external link to TMAP should be removed.
 * Also, why does he have an IMDB external link? FrederalBacon (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't know, fine to remove both links. Andre🚐 13:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @FrederalBacon He has an external IMDB link because he's appeared on a number of television shows. Those links are included for more than just actors. --Kbabej (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are media appearances, as himself, which are already covered in the article itself. It isn't used as a reference, it isn't relevant to the article in any way shape or form. FrederalBacon (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. He's appeared as himself 19 times in interviews, and 60 times as archival footage. That's way more than what's covered in the article itself. It is very relevant; him parlaying his infamy into these interviews/projects is why he's notable. --Kbabej (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Following up, WP:LINKSTOAVOID, number 1, specifically says we should avoid external links if they are things that are, or should be, simply covered in the article. Those media appearances are covered in the article. FrederalBacon (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @FrederalBacon They are not. Without counting, maybe 1/4 of his appearances/interviews are covered in the article. Are you willing to incorporate the rest? --Kbabej (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is up to you if you want to incorporate the list, but per LINKSTOAVOID, I have removed the link, as the media appearances already has a section. I also removed TMAP, since it fails WP:ELOFFICIAL. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't need to incorporate the list, as it's covered in the IMDB link. It's very standard WP practice to include an IMDB link for a subject who is a high-profile "talking head" on television interviews. I don't care about the TMAP link, but the IMDB link doesn't make sense to remove. I've reverted the change. --Kbabej (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can remove TMAP, and discuss the IMDB link further, I'm good with that. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the TMAP link one way or another, but you may be reverted if another editor disagrees. In reviewing this discussion (which I have not done in depth) it appears you may be the only one advocating for the TMAP removal at this point. I won't revert, but someone else may since there hasn't really been a consensus one way or another. --Kbabej (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am allowed to BOLDly remove the links, you are allowed put them back in, now we discuss (BRD cycle). However, I still wholly thing both links completely fail the guidelines. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Not sure why you'd unilaterally remove them in the middle of a discussion, but that's your prerogative I guess. I don't care about the TMAP link, but the IMDB link makes total sense and is routine practice. I still haven't heard a reasonable explanation about why it should be removed other than you just not liking it for whatever reason. --Kbabej (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave you a perfectly reasonable, policy based explanation above. It meets criteria 1 of LINKSTOAVOID, as it should be covered in the article. I wholeheartedly reject the assertion that this is because I do not like it, I have gave precisely zero impression that is the case, have given completely policy based arguments the entire time, and I ask you to retract that "not liking it for whatever reason". FrederalBacon (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But your explanation isn't based in policy, as I pointed out. I pointed out maybe 1/4 of the appearances aren't included, which you agreed with saying "That is up to you if you want to incorporate the list", admitting they aren't all included. If only 1/4 of the appearances are covered, the IMDB link is useful. You can mention LINKSTOAVOID all you want, but the fact of the matter remains the 19 interviews and 60 archival footage listings are barely covered in the article. And when I said 1/4, I meant of the first section. None of the 60 archival listings are mentioned. It remains relevant, standard practice, and needed, as the appearances aren't covered. --Kbabej (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have NOT said it is not based in policy, you just disagree with my interpretation of it. I STILL call on you to retract your statement, as that is a clear misrepresentation of my argument. Disagreeing with my policy argument doesn't mean my argument isn't based in policy.
 * but the fact of the matter remains the 19 interviews and 60 archival footage listings are barely covered in the article Because they have to meet notability. We don't need to cover every single time a talking head appears on TV, there's hundreds of them, and they appear nightly, on dozens of different shows. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You've made your position clear, and I've responded. You haven't done any work trying to incorporate even one of the additional listings in the IMDB list to try and incorporate them. We are not going to agree. I think it's useful, and you don't. I don't understand the impetus to remove something that can be very useful to WP readers, and something they would likely expect. Until a consensus is reached by additional editors weighing in, I'm going to leave this here. --Kbabej (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the latter part, as considering the fact that you STILL have not retracted your aspersion that I was only rallying against this because I didn't like it, despite my absolute rejection of the same, statement of policy (not of personal dislike), and clear and polite request to do so, twice, I have no reason to continue with this conversation, and would, AGAIN, ask for you to withdraw your casted aspersion on my intent for the removal of this link.
 * Other than that, consensus will not be the two of us, so I would obviously agree that, now BRD is in effect, we need more input. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Image
The above discussion about imdb caused me to notice: imdb has a much better image of KR than the image currently in the article (and its predecessor). Is there any way we can use it? I have no idea about the protections on imdb's images, and clicking on the image didn't reveal and useful metadata. Here it is: picture Without the "I'm famous for getting away with murder" smirk some editors will object. But I think it is worth considering -- M.boli (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the one currently in the article is much, much better. It's cleaner and isn't a mug shot. It's also more recent. I am not very familiar with image copyright; I only use images that have been uploaded by someone else to Wikimedia. --Kbabej (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mugshot for a public personality, for someone who was acquitted of the crimes they were arrested for, by a jury? And the editor who is wanting to include it, wanting to include it to remove a "I'm famous for getting away with murder" smirk? That appears to influence the POV of this article, so I'm saying no. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The current and immediately previous picture are neither captioned nor described with I'm famous for getting away with murder smirk. But in the context of what makes him notable --- killing people and being acquitted --- it is a natural, unflattering, reading of the image. I know some editors will prefer the smirk. But it seemed to me that neutral voice suggests we find an image without it.
 * But no matter, to my mind it isn't a big issue. The problem occurred to me when I saw the non-smirk image. And possibly can be argued both ways. -- M.boli (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't full understand the point you are making, I would like to though. Your statement is that the current picture is non-neutral because he appears to have a little bit of a smirk in it, one that you refer to as a "I'm famous for getting away with murder" smirk?
 * I also take issue with the idea that he "got away with murder". He was acquitted by a trial of his peers based off the evidence presented at trial. Like it, don't like it, agree with it, disagree with it, whatever, that's the fact of the matter. To me, changing the image to closer associate him with a crime he was not convicted of isn't neutral. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The current picture really does make it look like he is a daytime gameshow host rather than someone who killed two and seriously injured a third person (regardless of the circumstances). However, I don't think using his mug shot is appropriate given he was acquitted.  We do need to be careful with the use of most of these images.  I'm not sure that fair use allows Wikipedia to use a picture just to show what Rittenhouse looks like.  Springee (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it makes him look like a "gameshow host", whatever that means. It's a clear, recognizable, high-quality picture. It doesn't matter if editors think it makes it look like he's smirking or a "gameshow host". Using a mugshot when a picture of this quality is available is laughable and completely non-neutral, as @FrederalBacon said above. --Kbabej (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Make it look like he is a daytime gameshow host rather than someone who killed two and seriously injured a third person (regardless of the circumstances) And OJ Simpson's picture was taken of him during a sports broadcast, instead of making him look like a guy who got away with (in my opinion) something considerably more heinous than what Rittenhouse did. The point is: It's not a matter of what it makes the subject appear like. It's just a picture, to illustrate the subject to readers. The picture shouldn't be changed to change the way the subject appears to the readers, that's literal POV editing. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the current picture which has the POV problem. In the context of the lede paragraph and what he is known for, the smirk says "I got away with killing people and it's great!" (I won't use the word "murder," no problem.) The image before this one was a bit more pronounced in that respect. The two O.J. Simpson articles, since somebody raised that example, show a mug shot in proximity to the information about the killings and trial. An image of Simpson smirking next to a discussion of his trial would be problematical in the same way this picture of Rittenhouse is.
 * But this isn't to my mind a problem worth fussing over. I didn't know the imdb picture was a mug shot, but I agree it is a lower quality image. It simply occurred to me upon seeing a non-smirk image that a more neutral image might be better. Over and out. -- M.boli (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading too much into his facial expression. Is the mug shot even freely licensed? VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, now that I fully understand your point, your concern is that because he is known for the shootings, a picture of him with a relatively straight face, maybe a bit of a smile or smirk, looks inappropriate to you, and you want to change it to a mugshot. That's a literal POV edit. You don't like the POV of the article and want to change it to something that you feel is more appropriate. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I said what I think and feel. @FederalBacon's radical reinterpertations telling me what I think and feel do not strike me as productive contributions. I think I am done. -- M.boli (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not telling you what you think and feel, you're making it clear that it is your opinion that the subject has a smirk in the picture that is currently featured, you dislike that, because you feel it isn't neutral, because he is primarily known for a shooting, and you think the picture should be his mugshot. What I'm telling you is that to do so would be a POV edit. You said you didn't even know it was a mugshot, I'm not sure why you're having an issue with it, knowing now that it IS a mugshot, I think you'd be in agreement that to do so would be a POV edit, especially considering the fact that he was acquitted of the crimes the mugshot is from.
 * You raise the issue above of OJ's article featuring his mugshot closer to the article about the murders and trial. If you can find a copyright free version of it, in my opinion, feel free to do the same thing in this article, it makes sense to me to feature the mugshot in the same way it is in OJ's picture. However, just be aware, while I would not revert it if it were added in that way, someone else most certainly would. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While saying you are not, it comes across as if you are. In providing your reworded summary of M.boli's words and position, you tend not to frame it as your own reinterpretation, but as M.boli's. Such response easily appears as annoying arrogance, and doesn't help bring about a consensus. —ADavidB 18:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The photos on his page are fantastic, I instantly noticed that too. His PR-team is doing a great job. Good luck trying to change anything about that, I sure wouldn't even consider investing the time going into an edit war over that. 89.245.20.80 (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2022
"On August 25, 2020 when Rittenhouse was 17, he shot three men during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin that followed the shooting of a black man, Jacob Blake, by a police officer." to: "On August 25, 2020 when Rittenhouse was 17, he shot three white men during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin that followed the shooting of a black man, Jacob Blake, by a white police officer." BarrieM (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Age in the opening sentence.
I'm not sure of the best way to integrate this content into the opening sentence but it should say he was a teen at the time he came into the public eye. I added something to this effect but it was removed. Part of my concern is saying he is and "American man" seems a bit odd. While yes, he is an American and a male that isn't the notable part. Most news stories say something to the effect that he is a "teen who did X". We shouldn't start the article by saying "he is a teen" since that won't be true in a few years. However, part of what made his story such a big deal was that he was 17 at the time of the shootings. Many people noted that a 17 year old was carrying a gun (or that he was legally allowed to carry the gun). I think that he was a teen at the time needs to be part of the lead. Pinging editors who recently made edits to the lead Springee (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it’s fine in the lead; I don’t have strong feelings one way or another. Not every single thing can be incorporated into the first sentence though; it’s getting long and cumbersome enough as is. —Kbabej (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the opening sentence was long and awkward. I'm sure some better suggestion exists. Springee (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "is an American man known for his trial and acquittal after he shot three men, two fatally, at age 17, in what he testified"
 * Just add his age to the part about the shooting. I agree with Springee that his age was a notable part of the event, and should be included in the lede.
 * It might make it too long though. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What about splitting the opening sentence? The first sentence talking about who he is and his role in the shooting, and then the second sentence can give context to the shooting regarding it being a part of the Kenosha unrest.
 * is an American man known for his trial and acquittal after he shot three men, two fatally, at age 17, in what he testified was self-defense, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The shooting occured during the civil unrest in Kenosha, in August 2020, following the shooting of Jacob Blake. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That could be construed that the victims were 17, not the shooter. Also, a sentence with five commas is problematic. Better to write a further sentence to explain. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * is an American man known for his trial and acquittal in the Kenosha unrest shooting. At age 17, Rittenhouse shot three men, two fatally, in what he testified was self-defense. The shooting occurred during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, following the shooting of Jacob Blake. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I endorse this proposed rewriting of the opening paragraph by FrederalBacon. Three sentences is far better than one very long sentence. —ADavidB 11:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a version that avoids the rather obvious and unimportant "American man". I understand this was added as a replacement for the earlier subjective descriptors we used to have. Regardless, I think the proposal addresses my content concern and the "American man" is just a style/awkward wording concern so I'm ok with this solution while holding out how for a more elegant one. Springee (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the phrase "American man" doesn't quite feel appropriate here. If celebrity overstates his notability, "man" understates it. I think there should be a better descriptor, but I'm not sure what it should or could be. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I endorse this proposed rewriting as well. Thanks @FrederalBacon! --Kbabej (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll wait until the end of the evening here, it's mid afternoon now, with three people okay with it, I'll wait to see if there are any objections and make the change then. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's been updated. Should we add a note to the part about the "in what he testified was self defense" like note b here to better explain why it was that? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Follow up Hey, just a quick follow up to the lede edit, does anyone have any problems with changing the description of the shooting in the lede? I was thinking about something like "At age 17, Rittenhouse fired shots at four men, hitting three, and fatally injuring two, in what he testified was self-defense." to cover the shots at the fourth person that wasn't identified, since he was charged with those shots. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think mentioning the 4th shot is WP:UNDUE.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To me it's just a more complete, accurate, brief description of the event. He was charged for the shots he fired at that person, which was part of the trial and acquittal that is mentioned for his notability. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with the 4th person being mentioned. However, from a prose POV I feel like that sentence is something from the middle of a multi-sentence summary rather than an opening sentence.  It feels like the middle of the story, not the summary. Springee (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So more in body than lede? I think that's fair. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * He was also charged with recklessly endangering the safety of Richie McGinniss (who testified that he felt something whiz by his lower leg and had to stamp his feet to check if he had been hit) but that too is WP:UNDUE for the lede. The overwhelming majority of RS briefly define Rittenhouse in terms of being known for the shooting of three men: severely injuring/maiming Grosskreutz, and fatally shooting Huber and Rosenbaum. Cedar777 (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Completely disagree those two charges are comparable. McGinniss was not shot at, he said he felt a bullet fired at another person whiz by him. The unknown subject was shot directly at, twice, and considering the fact that the two shots fired at that unknown person were the initial part of the second confrontation, where Huber was killed and Grosskreutz was shot, I think the two missed shots on the unknown person warrant inclusion. It’s also mentioned in pretty much every single source that breaks down the shooting. I understand maybe not the lede, but we should at least mention it in the body for the brief description, as it is currently not. FrederalBacon (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"in what he testified was self-defense"
This sentence is weak sauce. It should read something like this: "After a widely publicized trial in November of 2021, which hinged on his claim of self-defense, Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges." Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Tondelleo Schwarzkopf I agree it should be adjusted; the current wording implies his claim of self-defense lacked reasonable standing. Oktayey (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that is a better structure. Is there a way to avoid the term "hinged".  It sounds like this was a suspense novel instead of a real life murder trial.  Perhaps "in which he used a claim of self defense"?  I'm not in love with that either.  Hinged is correct in that he admitted to doing the act, but the question was if he was reasonably claiming self defense. Springee (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not know why the Jury acquitted. They did not, nor did they have to, disclose their reasoning behind the acquittals. They could have thought he was guilty as sin but didn't like the prosecutor. We do not know why, and thus, we can not say he was acquitted due to his self defense claims. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What if we found RSs that said the trial was about self defense? You are correct in that we can't know why the jury said not guilty.  I mean it's theoretically possible they didn't believe that he actually committed the homicides even though Rittenhouse said he did.  Still, coverage of the trial did say it was about self defense.  Pointing to that coverage could avoid claiming what the jury was thinking while still making it not seem like the claim of self defense was incredulous. Springee (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the way it is now is just about as neutral as it can be worded. Giving any implication that his self defense claims were legitimate is not neutral, just as giving the implication that they were not legitimate is not neutral. He said it was self defense. The jury acquitted. It is not up to us to provide a logical explanation for the way those two are connected, if they are even at all. The facts are stated, the reader can draw their own conclusions. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

We could state the facts in the lead in chronological order while avoiding phrases like "in what he testified" or "hinged on his claim" when we get to problematic part about self-defense. For example, suppose we changed the lead to read:

That's roughly the same size as the existing lead while reducing it from three sentences to two that follow events chronologically. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I added the suggestion  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this, implies correlation between his claims and the acquittal. I actually believe this exact wording has already been removed for neutrality before. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While I think the version above is better from a copyedit standpoint, suppose the second sentence was replaced with:
 * Would you see that as an improvement? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, we just can't create the implication that he was acquitted because he testified he acted in self defense, because he didn't even have to prove self defense, the prosecution had to prove it wasn't self defense. I think that's what a lot of people don't understand when they ask for the inclusion of stuff like this: Rittenhouse didn't prove it was self defense. He didn't have to prove it was self defense. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, it's an improvement over what's int here now Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Associated Press: Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges Friday after testifying he acted in self-defense in the deadly Kenosha shootings... This is perfectly neutral and supported by RS.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 22:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This version sounds good to me Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This version sounds good to me Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Personal life
Given that personal life only has a subsection of education aspirations, which to me seems a bit reduntant, is there 1. A place educational aspirations could be rolled in elsewhere, or 2. openness to dropping either "Personal Life" as section or "Educational Aspirations" as subsection and just either having Personal Life or Educational Aspirations being the section heading? FrederalBacon (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What about merging this into his family/history section. We could change it to a general "personal" section which would include his history and future plans (with in reason).  I'm not opposed to dropping the section entirely though as we drop these sections the question of why this BLP was split out from the parent article starts knocking.  Springee (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Rolling it into his early life and family makes sense. I'd also be fine with just dropping the "Educational Aspirations" subsection and leaving the whole thing under Personal Life, without the unnecessary subsection title. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t think it belongs in personal life. Inside Higher Ed and others covered it as a matter of public interest. He has a lot of fans but he also has as lot of individuals in higher education (faculty, students, staff) who do not want him associated with their school. Cedar777 (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this interpretation. It's hard to say it's his personal life when it's as high profile as it is that he was attending, and then protested out of, a school. FrederalBacon (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)