Jump to content

Talk:Kenosha unrest/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Split proposed

Rough consensus for split – The raw vote count is 38 in favor of splitting and 16 opposed. The main argument in favor of splitting, phrased several different ways, is that there is enough coverage in RS to support the independent notability of the shooting and that the shooting's notability overshadows that of the protests at this point. Editors also argued that the upcoming court case will all but guarantee notability. Editors opposed to splitting raised concerns that this is still news and not indicative of long-term notability, and that splitting now could encourage the inclusion BLP-violating content about a minor. Many arguments on both sides were quite poor, with several editors neglecting to provide any real rationale, and others providing explicitly politically motivated rationale that are not backed by policy (although ironically there was little consistency among these votes). However, even if we discount every poorly-worded argument, and even the arguments about future notoriety from the court case (which is arguably WP:CRYSTAL as the case is not underway), there's still a strong majority in favor of splitting the article, primarily backing the argument that there is sufficient attention already present in reliable sources. Early oppose arguments about NOTNEWS are also weaker at this time. Thus, I think there is a consensus in favor of splitting. While the discussion asked people to suggest potential names for an article split, as this is itself controversial, there was limited discussion of this and no consensus within this RfC. Discussion of potential article titles should therefore continue. signed, Rosguill talk 20:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi all,

It seems the incidence itself, the shootings from Kyle Rittenhouse, has got enough reliable media comprehensive coverage to the point that I think it could sustain a notability test. Do we want to split this section to a separate article? If so, what's an appropriate title?

(Nominator update Aug 30): please also note the nominator understands the the shootings from Kyle Rittenhouse is arguably a bad title. Please support or oppose whether to split the article, and if you support a split of article, what do you think is the best title. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 21:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Kyle Rittenhouse deserves his own article. RobotGoggles (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @RobotGoggles:, started as The_shootings_by_Kyle_Rittenhouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinbenlv (talk • contribs) 20:15, August 27, 2020 (UTC)
No, we do not need that WP:CONTENTFORK. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the challenge @Muboshgu:. In my opinion they are substantially different topics and the shootings how becomes notable by itself. Could you help start the official process addressing this disagreement, some kind of "Request for Split"? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. They are the same events. There is the tendency to try to cover every aspect of an ongoing event without long-term perspective. This isn’t Wiki News, after all. See how the content evolves over time before splitting stuff off so soon. VikingB (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Currently there's a suspect, but we cannot say that he's the one who did it and we don't even have a coherent narrative of what took place. It doesn't make sense to have a standalone article for something that lacks basic facts and is easily covered by a couple of paragraphs in the current article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support While related to the Kenosha protests, this is a separate event that occurred in the timeline that I believe warrants it's own article. It doesn't just encapsulate the Black Lives Matter movement, but also Gun politics in the United States and several other congruent issues. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Technical support on the grounds the incident is the most notable part so far, but opposed as it hasn't been detailed enough on here to warrant the split and also opposed due to the non-neutral proposed article name. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I still believe that the suggested name is non-netural, but we have enough information to split and likely should given the issues discussed elsewhere on this talkpage. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (Same User) Amending this to give my full Support since nearly every single section on the talk page is in regards to the shootings along with there being enough information to split off into a new article. It has overtaken the protests entirely here. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Also would like to add that I think the article shouldn't be titled "The shootings by Kyle Rittenhouse". I would prefer something like the "2020 Kenosha protest homicides", to be more in line with other high-profile shooting events such as the 2017 Las Vegas shooting Bravetheif (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The future has arrived. Coverage of the shooting is over 40% of the article. Let's split now. Bondegezou (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support split now. Seems to be notable in its own right, subject to its own legal analyses and RS discussion, clearly distinct enough to be split now, can be written about separately and sustain its own notability. It's a mess to the structure of this article to keep it here. Wasn't so sure earlier, but it's a quickly changing area. The_shootings_by_Kyle_Rittenhouse is clearly not a good title, though, so we should figure out a decent one before split so we don't immediately need to bash it through a 7 day RM process. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    Changed to neutral. I still believe the handling is trending on the lines of a BLP violation, but per MrX below I don't think this is necessary if we follow that sound advice. Further, a splitting only encourages loading the article with the individual's background (as per BLP1E we can't create an article on the person anyway), which would be supported by RS (as they're doing what they do, which is digging up the person's past), and that obviously only furthers the BLP violations here. We can discuss the merits without a split at this time. A split may become necessary at some stage, but it's an organisational decision really and we can get around it. In conclusion, err on the side of not splitting at this time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose For now, doesn't seem necessary. SQLQuery me! 16:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - This has received independent coverage, has its own legal proceedings, and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this article should focus mainly on the protests themselves rather than have a large section dedicated to the shootings. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Title should be 2020 Kenosha protest shootings per naming convention and to differentiate from the shooting of Jacob Blake. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with many of the opposer that the proposed title was not good. What I am trying to say the incidence is different from protest itself and now somewhat notable with comprehensive coverage. To avoid WP:BLPCRIME, consider using a even less point-y name something like The Tuesday Fatal Shootings During Kenosha Protest xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@User:Xinbenlv Article titles should be precise and concise per MOS:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE. I feel that title fails both those criteria. While "Tuesday" makes sense knowing the context of the Kenosha protests, in isolation it is ambiguous. The preceding "The" is also unnecessary. I already suggested a title, but I prefer the other suggestion of "2020 Kenosha protest shootings"
  • Oppose Keep it as part of this "protests" article, of which it is a part. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Since this is being taken into court, it should result in enough coverage for a separate article. I think the title should either be Kyle Rittenhouse shootings, Jacob Blake protest shootings or 2020 Kenosha protest shootings GeorgeMHall 21:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:BLPCRIME at this time. In addition, he is technically a minor. I was surprised we use his name in the article. I think the shooting should stay here for now. Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The shooting is already drawing intense public controversy, debate, legal analysis and a court case. It's rapidly evolving into a more serious issue than it already was to begin with. There's definitely enough coverage to split it as is, and there will only be more as this case develops. This is already over a third of the article, and it's definitely possible for the shooting to become a bigger issue than even the protests. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - There is already enough content to support two articles, and it's 100% certain that more will be written in the coming days, weeks and months. Putting it all into this article will make this article too long. The new article should be called something like "Kenosha protest shooting" or "Kyle Rittenhouse". Lev!vich 15:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support a Rittenhouse article Sadly. pbp 16:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - This article is now much less than 100 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - This deserves more coverage and it will almost certainly expand. It doesn't matter that he's a minor or a horrible person. --User:Sirkh1 7:01, 29 August 2020
  • Support - This article is only going to grow once the legal proceedings get under way. The extradition hearing has been postponed to Sept 25, presumably so the defense team can research the issues, and the DA might drop the charges or they might accept a plea, but given who the defense team is, I doubt that. It's become a political issue and will likely play out to establish Constitutional self-defense issues. I would recommend naming a new article after the legal case, currently listed as: State of Wisconsin Plaintiff vs. Kyle H. Rittenhouse Defendant. That's where further developments will take place. Pkeets (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This event is receiving a lot of coverage, and there is enough information for this incident to have its own article. This reminds me of how Ian Tomlinson and the 2009 G20 London summit protests have separate articles. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The story of Kyle Rittenhouse and the shootings that he was involved with is leading news right now, separate from the Kenosha protests, with just as much if not more coverage as the shooting of Jacob Blake, and there is more than enough reliable information to spin out a separate article on Rittenhouse and the ongoing developments in his criminal case. Internet Esquire (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Light Oppose Not enough notability to warrant an article. See WP:SUSPECT. Nightvour (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah. Killings by Kyle Rittenhouse would clearly be inappropriate, and Kenosha protest killings would scream "why isn't this merged" and just cause confusion, so what title do we use becomes the question? I see no obvious suitable title, and that's an equally big issue here, and really just begs the idea that this shouldn't be split. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This shooting that killed 2 people is already an international news story all by itself, a lot of evidence has been reported by now. It is a complex case and there are many legal issues involved that have little to do with protesting or the subject of the protests. Debate should be about a good title I think. Zorba1968 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is getting significant media attention and deserves to have its own page at this point Anon0098 (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The Rittenhouse case by far overshadows the protests and the deaths are not an appendage to them, though there admittedly is a connection. Shai-Huludim (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the coverage is overwhelming on both topics – both should have articles. Aza24 (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support coverage is extensive regarding 17-year-old killer Kyle Rittenhouse. cookie monster (2020) 755 23:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support As a user who created an Arabic version of the article and following the news of the accident I support the splitting. The event will be in the media for a long time because of the court.--جار الله (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The legal issues around the incident alone are enough to warrant a split, but the timeline of events also supports it. Nosecohn (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless we going to start separate articles on other destructive acts that occurred in the "Kenosha_protests", such as various acts of arson and instances of looting. Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bus stop If you can name a single case of one such destructive act being individually noteworthy and covered as widely as the Rittenhouse homicides, then by all means start a new article. Whatever your personal view on him and his actions, Rittenhouse should be split because sufficiently covering all the details of it as reported in the media would overtake this whole article. Bravetheif (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, Bravetheif, maybe you're right. An article on "the Rittenhouse homicides" may be warranted. I don't feel super strongly one way or the other about this—I am undecided. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you trying to imply by that selective quote that I am not being unbiased? What do you think "homicide" actually means? It means "the killing of one person by another". Unless you mean to question whether Rittenhouse was actually the one firing the gun that night, he committed homicide. Bravetheif (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bus stop:, I am trying to be as unbiased as possible, so I am open to a better and neutral title of the incidence, such as “XXX Plaintiff v YYY Defendant” etc. I think the point we are trying to make here, is that untitled incidence has gained enough coverage and could warrant its own article. And I am also open to the possibility that any other related incidences getting their own article so long as they pass notability test by this community. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 17:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
State of Wisconsin Plaintiff vs. Kyle H. Rittenhouse Defendant Pkeets (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There is enough content here and it would make it easier for the rest of the article to be about everything other than the shooting. Springee (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This will result in a lot of litigation and media attention. It needs its own article. Comfr (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I opposed, but I am open to splitting if that is the consensus. But if "Kyle Rittenhouse" is in the title of the splitoff article, I will oppose it with every fiber of my being. We absolutely do NOT name an article about a killing or shooting after the name of the shooter (who may be innocent of any crime if the self defense argument holds). Since there is more than one victim, a splitoff article should be titled after the location, Kenosha, in some way. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It's become its own news story/notable incident on its that warrants its own article separate from the protests. Debate should now move to how to properly title the new article. RopeTricks (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support a Kyle Rittenhouse split - he's had so much media coverage that I think he surpasses notability requirements now Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I do not believe there is enough reliable material to split this article. In the future there may be enough information that comes from reliable sources, but I would rather have more time pass and more information come out before splitting the article. I also believe that him being a minor should factor in the decision. Jurisdicta (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: there's already a redirect for him to this article, and that's sufficient, for now anyway soibangla (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the section on this specific incident and Rittenhouse already consumes roughly 45% of this article, and that section is even formatted to look like a mini-article within this article. The overwhelming majority of the sources used in that section are specific to this event and Rittenhouse, which is consistent with establishing the notability of the subject. And we do know that it will receive additional media coverage due to the ongoing legal/court case aspect of this event, which will inevitably end up in this article making that whole section undue content for this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support With how much media attention this has been getting plus the discourse going around with the president's response, I'd argue this is more than notable enough for its own article. Breawycker (talk to me!) 13:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The media coverage solely on the subsequent events of this has only accelerated over the last few days owing to its implications Shiggity (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Media coverage makes the murders notable for their own article. Would also suggest the article be named Kyle Rittenhouse as multiple articles on mass shootings have been named after the killer/shooter. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I am shocked this domestic terrorist doesn't have a page already. It's far too relevant to be a part of this page. He killed two people for goodness sake. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
More than 7 days has past, could somebody help interpret the consensus please? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 03:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey xinbenlv, I counted up the votes and it seems like consensus is SUPPORT for the split into a new article. The votes are 34 Support, 3 Neutral, 18 Oppose. Most people who voice an opinion also seem to agree that Rittenhouse's name should NOT be in the new article title. Most suggestions for a name are some variant of "2020 Kenosha protest shootings", so I think that's a good choice for the new name, and can also be changed if we settle on a better one later. Benplowman (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with this comment all the way until "Most people who voice an opinion also seem to agree that Rittenhouse's name should NOT be in the new article title." Many voters are pointing out that most of the news coverage about the shooting is centered around Kyle, and that his name has became a frequent search term on Google, increasing his own notability for his own article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not competent enough to conduct follow up. Anyone, please help follow up. Thank you! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@Xinbenlv and Benplowman: Currently, according to WP:SPLIT, this is on Step 3 and there is a discussion at WP:ANRFC. You can close it if you are sure of consensus, but note that All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
If resistance is encountered, at this point my recommendation is to wait for January 3rd to make the move. If anyone has a reason and energy to accelerate the split, under Wisconsin's law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult by the criminal justice system.[1] So I'd go with that angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZubiri (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://6abc.com/kyle-rittenhouse-jacob-blake-kenosha-police-shooting-video/6393188/
  • Support, split it out, its a totally separate event, a pending trial, likely acquittal on all charges, and most likely a very high dollar lawsuit where all the dirty dealings of the protestors/rioters is likely to get exposed, split it out. 10stone5 (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. There's probably enough media coverage for a separate article already, though even if that's not true, it's impossible to believe that there won't be enough soon, given the upcoming trial. Worldlywise (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely meets notability criteria as other users have said, considering what other articles have been produced surrounding the protests and riots, this should be produced. Bgrus22 (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility

Please see my suggestion at Talk:George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon#Coverage of fatal shootings. Right now we are trying to cover such deaths within the overall Protests in... article, with the danger of it either overwhelming the article or getting minimal treatment not in line with its importance, or considering a splitoff article for each separate incident (as is being discussed here without an apparent consensus, or see the brand new article Killing of Michael Reinoehl which I totally disagree with). I am proposing that we create an overall article to cover all of these deaths: a federal officer in Oakland, two protesters in Kenosha, a counterprotester and his alleged killer in Portland. It could be called something like George Floyd protest related deaths, with appropriate redirects to guide people to the article. Please comment here or there with your opinion regarding an overall "deaths" article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"a counterprotester and his alleged killer in Portland" The article states that the alleged killer was killed in the vicinity of Lacey, Washington, not Portland, Oregon. I am not certain whether the Kenosha protests are part of the George Floyd protests. Dimadick (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this consensus?

By the numbers we have over 2:1 support for a split. Can we agree there is consensus for a split but we should agree on a title before the split? Springee (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It does indeed seem there is consensus. As for names, brainstorming:
support (COI:norm) xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
? -- Beland (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Even one step back, how about just "Fetal shooting" as opposed to "Fetal shooting of Kenosha protestors". The reason I think this could potentially get more consensus is because the main article original started as "Kenosha riot". To avoid getting into a heated debate of whether the fatally shot persons are protestors or rioters, just omit them in the name?xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • On principle I would oppose any title that includes Rittenhouse's name. Part of that is because most articles about shootings don't use the shooter's name. The other part is because if Rittenhouse is found to have acted in self defense then I don't think an article should feature his name. I think something similar to #3, Kenosha unrest shootings. Kenosha unrests specifically because I see the shootings as a child article of this one hence a strong name tie in. Plural shootings because there were, in effect, 2 shooting events (closely associated) and 3 people were shot. I'm somewhat reluctant to say "protesters" because we simply can't know why they were there. Clearly there had been rioting and there is evidence of riot like behavior the night of the shootings. I think [parent article title] shootings is simply the simplest, most impartial title. Springee (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I feel like 2020 Kenosha shooting is the best and more concise title, per Springee. Love of Corey (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Wait for the trial before splitting. This is likely to be an important Second Amendment case and the title should then be the name of the criminal case. Pkeets (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft Request for Comment

Since no one has closed it yet. Let me try to take a bold move. I started a draft with zero-or-minimized change of the subsection, please see Draft:Fatal_shooting_in_Kenosha_unrest, primarily I understand naming is a controversial topic, so I choose "Fatal_shooting_in_Kenosha_unrest" to reflect bottom of consensus that I interpret. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Fetal"? SCNR. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting my typo, fixed.xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment looks like you put some work into the draft. Unsure if it is a necessary fork ATM, but I guess the subsequent trial of the shooter could necessitate an article. Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Wait for the trial. This is likely to become an important Second Amendment case and it's likely the proceedings will be what necessitates a separate article under the title of the legal case. Same for the St. Louis McCloskey gun controversy in Missouri. Second Amendment. Pkeets (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Status of the protests/unrest

Are the Jacob Blake protests still ongoing? As in, street protests or boycotts specifically about Jacob Blake's shooting still occurring in October 2020? A quick "Kenosha protest October" and "Jacob Blake protest October" Google search revealed no real news articles on any active street protests besides news coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse protest shooting. If there are no significant protests, should the article's status be changed from "Present"?

Or, is "Kenosha unrest" meant to cover ALL the events surrounding the Jacob Blake protests, including court litigation updates from the Rittenhouse shooting? RopeTricks (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: Citation 69 contains extreme editorial slant & factual distortions

About two months ago, I brought up an issue with a source listed on this article, but I forgot about it until long after it was archived. I argue, however, that it is still very much an issue. It read,

Reference 69, an article from The Guardian, appears to contain quite serious instances of (deliberate or neglectful) false details. Here are several examples:

"...at least one agitator opened fire on a group of protesters [...]"

(1) There is no available evidence that suggests Kyle Rittenhouse (presumably the one being referred to here) instigated the conflict. (2) No available evidence suggests any gunman opened fire on a group; Rittenhouse, the only person who fired at more than one person (determined from available evidence), can be seen in released footage only targeting the individuals that were rushing him or attempting to take control of his weapon.

"The victims were Anthony Huber, 26, and Joseph “Jojo” Rosenbaum [...]"

It is impossible, with currently available evidence, to claim, as a fact, that the two killed can be considered 'victims', considering the evidence that suggests that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

"[...] after being shot in the arm, the limb almost severed from the force of the high-powered bullet."

Currently available evidence suggests that the weapon used was chambered in the 5.56x45mm cartridge, a cartridge notably less powerful than general purpose rifle cartridges such as .308.

With such information as evidence, I allege that this article exhibits far too much editorial bias to be cited as a source for facts.

@Chris.sherlock: You responded almost immediately requesting sources for my claims, but for some reason, I missed it. Here are some sources:

First & second claims: https://thespacecoastrocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/EVERY-VIDEO-OF-KYLE-RITTENHOUSE-KENOSHA-SHOOTING.mp4 (beginning @ 2:43) Third claim: http://gundata.org/cartridge/8/.223-remington-(5.56x45mm-nato)/ & http://gundata.org/cartridge/56/.308-winchester-(7.62mm-nato)/ (The 5.56 exerts about 1250 ft lbs at the muzzle, while .308 exerts over double that at about 2600 ft lbs. Oktayey (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source, nor is it acceptable to do your own research on the video to try and discredit the reliable source. Furthermore, gundata.org is not a reliable source imo. You don't get to decide that the article is "editorially biased" on your own - the Guardian is considered reliable per multiple consensuses of editors. You are free to contact the editorial board of the Guardian and report these "errors" to them for correction. Alternatively, if you can find another reliable source that says the Guardian article is just way off base, then it may be considered. I'll note that your claims themselves about the bias are... less than solid. "Agitator" is a perfectly valid term to describe what the person did, people who were killed are victims of a shooting regardless of whether the shooting was justified or not, and a bullet that almost severs an arm is definitely "high powered" - nowhere does it say that it's the "highest powered" or "higher than x other bullet". Put simply, not only are your claims invalid to begin with, but your attempt to "discredit" the article based on your own research is not permitted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
As a general comment, OR only applies to article content. Questions related to the appropriateness etc of any particular source is specifically allowed by WP:OR. No source is ever considered universally reliable. If the NYT comes out with an article that says the moon is made of green cheese editors are certainly welcome/encouraged to do OR to dispute the accuracy of that article and the specific facts/descriptions which it contains. Springee (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The source I linked is a video, and while it may not be usable for evidence by Wikipedia's standards, it is perfectly adequate in bringing into question the factual integrity of the Guardian's article—There is nowhere near enough evidence proving their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and no article that makes such ridiculous claims should be accepted as fact unless they can be backed up, regardless of how credible the source is claimed to be. Here's a source that seems to provide a much more honest description of that night's events: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html
As for the weapon used, "high-powered" very clearly indicates that the cartridge outputs muzzle energy substantially greater than what is typical. For the same reason you wouldn't call a Toyota Camry a "high-torque" vehicle, you would never call an AR-15 a "high-powered" rifle unless you're trying to be deceptive. Oktayey (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Oktayey, keep in mind what the source is supporting in the actual article. All it is supporting is the name and age of the deceased. If the NYT or some other source does the same it shouldn't be an issue to swap one RS for another. With a quick websearch here are three sources that provide the same facts [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. Springee (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Springee: Oh, I didn't consider that. In that case, could I replace the citation with that of more fairly written article from an accepted source as long as it provides the same information? Oktayey (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Oktayey:, there is always the possibility that some editor will object but there is no policy issue with this sort of change. I would argue it's a (small) improvement if you reuse an existing, robust source that is already cited elsewhere in the article. The specific claims being supported are just name, age and residency of the people in question so any number of sources can reliably provide that. Springee (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The concerns about the strong bias of the Guardian article are reasonable but seem to be of no consequence in this case. As a whole I would say the article is more alarmist and contains a lot of biased descriptions. However, it is only being used to support the non-controversial statement: "during two confrontations. Kenosha resident Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Silver Lake resident Anthony Huber, 26, were killed;". I don't think anyone is disputing those basic facts. I don't see any issue with using a different RS to support that statement but I also don't see it as needed. Almost certainly one of the other sources already cited in the article would support the same basic facts. Springee (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral Information Section

I am concerned that structural issues with the information form template prevent a proper neutral point of view from being expressed. For instance, a neutral point of view could be the following: 1. Alleged target: Protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin 2. Alleged Attack Type: Shooting 3. Declared Motive: Self-Defense

However, the form has the following fields 1. target 2. attack type 3. motive

Applying this to the above results in three disputed statements.

Is there any way to relabel the fields?

Should we rely on a different template? Reference321 (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


I noticed issues with this template too, though I do believe for the sake of consistency that it is the right template to use. It is possible to add custom fields.
Suggestions:
1) add "Provocation: Confrontation by protestors" (alternatively "Trigger", "Prompt", "Initiation", "Instigation", ...)
2) "Attack type" to be replaced by "Incident type: Shooting"
Both changes, especially the latter, will be hotly contested though.
FYI, I have made the motive neutral by changing it to "Stated as self defense" so we can use the common template field for consistency.
--218.214.183.100 (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Choose title for the proposed splitted portion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
By section:
  1. The consensus was to use "Kenosha unrest shooting" as opposed to "Kenosha protestor shooting". (Kenosha unrest is the title of the main article).
  2. There was a strong consensus not to name the alleged shooter in the title. (WP:BLP was cited)
  3. There was a strong consensus not to name the victims in the title. (It was suggested that this would violate the conciseness requirement of WP:AT).
  4. There was no consensus whether to include the year 2020 in the title.
  5. There was no consensus whether to include the word "fatal" in the title.
(non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


Hi all, now that we've decided to split the article, may I request you to share thoughts on what title is best fit:

support okmichaelj Talk, Remember to "ping" me 10:09pm, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
support xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
support xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
support xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment on whether and which to use describing the characteristic of the event / victim's participation, e.g. "unrest" vs "protesters"

Comment on whether to use the name of alleged shooter

Comment on whether to use the names of victims

Comment on whether to use year or date in the name such as "2020"

Comment on whether to use "fatal"

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fatal shooting of protestors

This section title is POV. Declaring the deceased to merely be "protestors" skews the narrative in a biased manner. All three of the shooting victims are/were hard core activists, not mere "protestors" 98.118.62.140 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we get a source on this? 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 03:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
This might not be the source you want, but it's a reliable one: https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/analysis-how-many-convicted-felons-were-in-the-crowd-that-chased-kyle-rittenhouse-op-ed/ 98.118.62.140 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Your definition of "reliable" appears to be at odds with the definition used by rational people. FDW777 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it accurate to state that one of the shooting victims "pointed a handgun" at Kyle?

One of the shooting victims was definitely carrying a handgun, but the articles states that the handgun was pointed at Rittenhouse. There is nothing confirming this and video evidence demonstrates otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chameleon47 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the wording in question to match that in the Kenosha unrest shooting article – that he 'had a pistol in hand'. —ADavidB 03:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I tweaked both articles to reflect the criminal complaint which states that Grosskreutz "appeared" to be carrying a handgun. Some of the other details, such as the fact that he turned himself in and the amount raised by the bail fund, also need to cite a specific source. –dlthewave ☎ 04:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I think at this point we can say he was carrying a gun per [[4]] and [[5]]. This does not support saying the gun was or was not pointed at Rittenhouse. Springee (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that per WP:RSP the New York Post shouldn't be relied on. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I do get that NYP is not considered reliable. However, since this is an interview with Grosskreutz I don't think that would be an issue unless the NYP had been accused of fabricating quotes. Still, since we have the CBSlocal saying the same thing I'm not sure it matters. Springee (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The video evidence makes clear that Gaige Grosskreutz was holding a semi-auto handgun when he was shot. It also makes clear that the handgun was pointing closely enough towards Rittenhouse that "pointed a handgun" is not a false characterization. Grosskreutz certainly was pointing at Rittenhouse's position as he was sitting. That handgun was not being held aside; it was in a ready to fire position; it was being pointed. The question is: was it being aimed with finger on trigger, or merely pointed in general, possibly with finger off trigger? 98.118.62.140 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Your interpretation of alleged video evidence is not relevant. FDW777 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Um, reliable sources have stated that the video shows him holding a gun. And thus, you are free to watch the video yourself to see if it speaks for itself. And if you feel it doesn't, there are plenty of reliable sources which state the same facts I posted. So are we discussing article editing suggestions, or not? 98.118.62.140 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, IP, what we see in the video or don't see is not the point. The claim that the gun was pointed at Rittenhouse needs to be verifiable through references from reliable sources. So far, none have been supplied in this discussion. Until that happens, the discussion is inconsequential. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
There's an unrebutted (so far) court filing which alleges Grosskreutz “lowered his handgun in Rittenhouse’s direction". https://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2020/10/teen-accused-in-protest-shootings-will-not-face-gun-charges-in-illinois-prosecutors.html Given that the existence of this court filing, and what it says are both facts which have been reliably reported, we might want to consider informing the readers of the filing and what it alleges. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I see no reason why we should need daily updates of what's been alleged in court. FDW777 (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

CNN mostly peaceful

12mrobrien, the addition of CNN's ironic ticker was previously discussed.[[6]] I agree that it does CNN no credit but ultimately I think it's just not a critical part of this topic. If we have a topic on the media reaction to the 2020 protests it may be DUE there but in this article it would look like trying to disparage CNN rather than provide additional understanding of this event. Springee (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source states that Gaige Grosskreutz was seen brandishing a firearm

See it here, VOA news: https://www.voanews.com/usa/race-america/two-shot-kenosha-unrest-sue-city-county-negligence 98.118.62.140 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Alleged 2021 unrest

On January 4, 2021, people protested in Kenosha over the killing of Jacob Blake is not unrest, no matter how many times people try and add it to the article. FDW777 (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

TBH we might be better off reconsidering the article name, since it has been a long time and WP:SUSTAINED coverage seems to treat this all as a singular topic about Kenosha protests. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Kenosha protests should be the name of the article. That is how relible sources refer to it. Calling it an "unrest" is severe POV pushing. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Prior discussion here [7]. I'm mixed. Unrest alone implies this was just something like a riot. No, there was a lot of peaceful protesting. However, there was also rioting and destruction which shouldn't be glossed over either. Many places had protests in 2020 but not that many resulted in so much damage and loss of life. What about "Kenosha protests and unrest"? Springee (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the old consensus, this would need to go through a requested move. FWIW though, I think "Kenosha protests and unrest" is a bit clunky and awkward, and think "protests" would make the most sense unless there is a WP:COMMONNAME argument in "unrest". I think it's unsurprising these days that protests in the US lead to rioting or property destruction, and primarily the events this article documents are protests in response to the shooting of Jacob Blake. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Protests in the US do not in fact lad to rioting and property destruction, provided we're not pushing a certain POV, which the name "Kenosha unrest" seems to imply. The emphasis on looting, rioting and property destruction and loss of life comes entirely from one side, who themselves are guilty of this stuff. "Kenosha protests" is the name commonly used by reliable sources, and therefore the neutral name. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Here are the number of Google hits I found for each of the three terms (all with quotes for an exact search): Kenosha protests: 29,700; Kenosha protest: 59,500; Kenosha unrest: 25,200; Kenosha riot: 16,800; Kenosha riots: 87,400. None are clear winners/losers here as we aren't talking about an order of magnitude difference. If we assume a continuum with "protest" being the most optimistic and "riot" being the most pessimistic, unrest is the (semi)unpopular middle. I will note that news sources seem to use all three though in most cases it appears they are using them as descriptors rather than as a formal name. Springee (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
It seems sources are mostly split between riot/protest. I guess in some sense "unrest" can encompass both "protests" and "riots", and this article doesn't exclusively deal with protests, so in that sense "unrest" may be the most descriptive. That being said, this is still primarily about protests, and the term "protest" is more preferred in reliable sources than "unrest", so realistically speaking I think both terms are fine. Still don't think it should be moved without broader input from the community however. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Per Talk:Kenosha unrest/Archive 6 it absolutely shouldn't be moved without broader input. FDW777 (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
One of the contributors oin that discussion has drawn attention to possible alt-right brigading going on to have the article be renamed to "riots". The users advocating against "protests" seem to be mostly IP users, single purpose accounts or users that have been inactive for an extended period before commenting on this one issue. It doesn't feel like that consensus was fair. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
This raises a question of what these google hits actually are. Who is using wich term. I suspect a large percentage of those hits for "Kenosha riot(s)" come from reactionary sources. I think if we were to filter those results to remove tweets, youtube videos from non-authoritative sources and outlets with known biases and poor reputation for fact checking, the numbers would be drastically different. The general consensus seems to be that the 2020 protests were overwhelmingly peaceful, with violence usually occurring in response to police violence or being the work of alt right provocateurs and isolated groups of opportunistic criminals who were not among the protesters. The Kenosha protests are no exception. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

Unrest should be updated to reflect the actual event. Riots, not unrest. 172.251.50.86 (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2021

Kenosha "unrest" needs to be changed to Kenosha RIOTS to accurately depict the scenario. 2600:1011:B01E:297A:7D06:27D3:BE53:32E8 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What militia showed up? I'm confused.

What militia showed up in Kenosha? 75.129.111.186 (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Read the whole article. Referred to as the 'Kenosha Guard', they're discussed in the Day 2 and Day 3 subsections under the 'Events in Kenosha / Protests and riots' section. —ADavidB 04:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenosha_unrest/Archive_9&oldid=1061736701"