Talk:Kenosha unrest/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Request to leave the title as "Riots". That is exactly what these are. 8.25.232.162 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This will be determined by the move request above on this talk page. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

Please add template (Use American English) in order to avoid what vandals change spelling for this article from American to British spelling, which seems incorrect for US article. For example is:

• (Use American English) date=August 2020) 180.245.102.250 (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Revert edit

edit made by 18:22, 25 August 2020‎ 47.198.76.125 which just added a link to autism— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.30.128 (talk • contribs)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Would a link to gaslighting be okay?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2f07:b310:5100:5107:d41d:8642:b145 (talk • contribs)

Kenosha Protests should be rename to Kenosha Riots

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.

---

I seen the videos, and they are not protests at all. If they burned down a car dealership, going around attacking people, clubbing a 77 old man on the back of the head with a club, burning down business, attacking people, and more. It should not be considered as a protest, instead it should be called a riot. Just look at at he videos and photos and try to tell me its not riots. Look at Andy Ngo. That is a good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.56.108 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose riot is not NPOV. 36.77.93.87 (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. See Requested move 25 August 2020 at top of this page. It's been resolved. WWGB (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree. Riots do not exist. Everything is a protest.

86.93.208.34 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Who ever renamed the kenosha riots into the Kenosha Riots is clearly trying to control the narrative. People are going around destroying stuff, setting stuff on fire, attacking people, shooting at people, looting and stealing, and doing over Jacob Blake who is a registered sexual assault who is confirmed of reaching a knife from his car to potentially use against the cops is ridiculous. We need to change the title back to Kenosha Riots because that is what it is. Look at Tim Cast, Andy Ngo, and see the videos themselves. Who ever says its a protest while their is a building burning in the background to the ground is clearly trying to manipulate the narrative. Please change the title back to the Kenosha Riots.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake Break (talk • contribs)

The article title is resolved after a lengthy discussion. WWGB (talk) 12:55, 28 August 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.

Needs updating

The shooter was charged. The article still says “will be charged”. Volunteer Marek 08:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation for Jacob Blake being paralyzed.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/08/25/report-jacob-blake-paralyzed-waste-down/5631308002/

This is a citation I found that I wanted to use I'm the article to replace the citation needed tag in #Background, but I'm about to go to bed and I forgot how to use the ref template without using the desktop browser version. Can someone else do it, please? RobotGoggles (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move August 28, 2020

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.

---

Unlike the George Floyd Protests article, since this article's title specifically mentions the city of Kenosha, I propose it be titled "2020 Kenosha Protests" for specificity and to fit the established Wikipedia standard, which is usually <date> <city> <event>. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

RobotGoggles, there is an existing move discussion above. You may propose this as an alternative as part of that discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 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.

Riots (plural)

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.

---

The rioting has lasted several days. Article should be changed to Kenosha riots. See similar articles e.g. Watts riots, 1992 Los Angeles riots, etc. Yodabyte (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I unreservedly agree. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If the article is to remain titled with the word "riot" instead of "protest", which I personally disagree with but it seems the consensus is against me, it does make sense for the title to be plural, not singular. If it had used "protest", the plural, protests, would also be more appropriate. I agree with this notion, specifically. RobotGoggles (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Wsw248 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 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.

This article has serious issues with bias

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.

---

Look at this section: Rittenhouse is separately filmed as he continues to be pursued down the street by several men before tripping. He then sits up and opens fire on those pursuing him.[5][6] One person was hit in the chest and another person who was holding a handgun, but had his hands in the air as he approached Rittenhouse,[7] was hit in his arm.[4] Gunshots from other sources can be heard at the same time.[4]

This is what actually happened: Rittenhouse is separately filmed as he continues to be pursued down the street assaulted by several masked men before tripping. While on the ground a man tries to attack him but is dettered from it, after Rittenhouse raises his rifle towards him and then allows the assailant to retreat unharmed. Moments later Rittenhouse is attacked by two men, the first one lunged on top of him and Rittenhause discharged his weapon but missed, with assailant limping away. The second man with a skateboard immediately assaulted him and went after Rittenhouse's rifle and was shot, stumbling to the ground after couple of feet. Rittenhouse then took aim at another assailant armed with a handgun, who paused for a moment and raised his hand. However, the man then suddenly changed his mind, attacked Rittenhouse, and was shot in the arm. A fourth man in the vicinity then raised his hands and was allowed to retreat at gunpoint. Gunshots from other sources can be heard at the same time.

Now look at this video showing the event and convince me I am wrong [1]. Do some users really have no shame? Ratipok (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ratipok, we use reliable secondary sources, not our own interpretations of primary sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the current description s biased in an anti-Rittnehouse manner. Trying to reconnect (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We are happy to include information from reliable secondary sources. If you could help provide these we would be glad to incorporate them into the article in an appropriate manner. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Sources are all that matter. Editor interpretation of a video is not allowed. - MrX 🖋 01:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think additional sources are needed, just a less biased and selective quoting of the existing ones. Trying to reconnect (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Trying to reconnect, what about the write up is biased? What "selective quoting"? I don't see any quoting there. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As one example, the 2nd shooting (of HUber) is described in the article thusly "He then sits up and opens fire on those pursuing him" - no mention of the fact that Huber was attacking him, striking him with a skateboard. The article makes it seem as this was some unprovoked, random shooting, when the source is actually much more balanced. There are several more such examples. Trying to reconnect (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If secondary sources are unreliable they should not be used in the first place. The primary source here [2] clearly shows that they are. There is no need on making excuses. Did events occured as currently described in the article? They did not. That is all that matters. The current describtion is clearly false news. It is a shame some users are actually trying to support it, hidden behind rules they have written.Ratipok (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ratipok, again, what reliable sources do you have to suggest that there are inaccuracies in the article? Your interpretations of a video are not that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu#top, the primary source [3]. You can refute, but that would only show you have some agenda in all of this. What kind, I do no know and do not really care. Bottom line is, current description is false and clearly biased and no one can reasonably claim or even prove otherwise. Ratipok (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's clear that you're the one with the agenda, while I'm striving for neutrality. I and other editors will happily look at secondary sources to ensure we present the information neutrally. At this time, that section uses many of them, including Fox News. Your interpretations of a video are not reliable, and we will not be engaging with you or anyone else on that level. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Reality denial isn't "neutrality." The deliberate spread of misinformation and structuring of this article is nothing less than pure propaganda. Established users here want to twist the narrative to their own idea, that being some peaceful protesters were murdered by a White supremacist. This is, quite frankly, shameful and disgusting. Your own users admit this in two quotes I found on the discussion page "I agree. Riots do not exist. Everything is a protest." and "Sources are all that matter." The fact that you all are willing to throw video evidence out of the window for clearly biased news reports on the events instead, and an inclination towards secondary rather than primary sources showcases that you all have some agenda with this.ExplosiveResults (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

These drive-by comments, which are not grounded in Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline, are a problem. There are policies and guidelines that govern contributions here, and those do not get to be written or re-written on-the-fly, most especially by users with otherwise no contributions whatsoever. El_C 02:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ratipok, agree. Nothing in WP:RELIABLE stipulates that obviously incorrect or counterfactual information in a source that is otherwise considered as reliable qualifies for inclusion. The entire premise of WP:RELIABLE is that not only the general source but the concrete info that is cited must be reliable - which isn't the case here. And if a particular piece of information isn't correct, it must be removed irrespectively of whether a better one is immediately available. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:13, 29 August 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.

Citation 42 contains extreme editorial slant & factual distortions

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.

---

Reference 42, 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.

Oktayey (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Please state the source of your claims. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:33, 29 August 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.

Unbalanced tag

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.

---

 Administrator note: it is inappropriate to add or re-add that tag without a substantive discussion for its basis. Thank you. El_C 04:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to label something as a "Drive by tag", and falsely claim no explanation on the talk page , when one has been given and not addressed. Trying to reconnect (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Another admin has closed the thread in question as unsubstantive — as an uninvolved admin, I concur with their decision. El_C 04:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That closure was inappropriate as well, as the issue I raised was not addressed. Trying to reconnect (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can launch a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but you cannot operate as if that matter had already been decided in your favour. El_C 04:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not such thing, I just noted that I think the article is unbalanced, explained why, and no on addressed my issue. Trying to reconnect (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you effectively did. The basis for your objection was deemed to not have met the threshold. Whether you consider that appropriate or not, you adding the tag constitutes WP:DRIVEBY at this time. El_C 04:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Trying to reconnect, I don't think that is appropriate. You have so far failed to give us reliable secondary sources for a number of assertions you have made on talk. In discussions above, you were asked what specifically was slanted, and for reliable sources that we have not included or discussed. You have not provided us with this. You will need to provide a good deal with evidence, with more persuasive arguments, than those you have already made. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Neither yu nor EL_C appear to have read what I wrote above. I am describing the incident as it s described in the secondary source used in the article, and saying our current phrasing in the article does not accurately reflect the secondary source. Trying to reconnect (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You're going to need to do a better job of making that case then because what you said in the previous discussion is "Now look at this video". Show us the text in the cited source and the text in the article side by side so we know what you're referring to. - MrX 🖋 14:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's actually you who needs to do a better job of reading what people write. I said nothing about a video. Trying to reconnect (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Trying to reconnect, I'm finding the discussion of the past discussion confusing. Perhaps you could state here why you feel a tag is appropriate, based on policy. If there is some support for your position, then the tag can be re-added, or indeed text changed to resolve your concerns. Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think recent editing (by Pkeets) has addressed the specific issue I was referring to. This could have been done much sooner in a collaborative fashion, were it not for the ham-handed approach of certain people who did not even bother to read the arguments presented. Trying to reconnect (talk) 15:53, 29 August 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.

Possession of a long gun

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.

---

In the article, it says "A person must be 18 to possess a long gun in Wisconsin (with certain limited exceptions)." A review of WS 948.60 [4] shows that the Wisconsin law in question doesn't apply to Kyle Rittenhouse, as implied by the inclusion of that information in the article. WS 948.60 only makes it illegal for someone under 18 and above 16 to possess a "short-barreled rifle," a rifle with a barrel length of under 16 inches, or a "short-barreled shotgun," a shotgun with a barrel length under 18 inches.

WS 948.60 implicitly does not apply to rifles with a barrel length of 16 inches or more, nor shotguns with a barrel length of 18 inches or more, when said rifle or shotgun is possessed by someone who is under 18 but 16 or older. Kyle Rittenhouse is 17. Kyle Rittenhouse's rifle doesn't mean the standard for "short-barreled rifle."

Section (3), subsection (c) of WS 948.60 says, "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28." Section (3), subsection (b) of WS 29.304 says, "Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm…"

Therefore, that line should be removed entirely. It has absolutely no relevance to the article. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We're strict on analysis of primary sources (and for very good reason), so your legal analysis is unlikely to be accepted. I'd note FullFact disagrees with you in the abstract, but makes no comment on the position of this subject's infringement (or not) of the law. Most RS also remain unclear on the question, for good reason. He's charged for it, but he's not yet convicted of it. The statement in this article currently reads like WP:OR, it's undue with emphasis in the first paragraph (should be in the legal aftermath section at best), and regardless of both of these it has WP:BLPCRIME implications. For these reasons, I've removed it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't locate this text so I guess it's already been removed. However, your interpretation of the law cannot be used as determinant of how this article is written per WP:NOR. Rittenhouse was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18.[5][6] - MrX 🖋 11:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There's currently a brief mention in the list of charges, which seems adequate. We don't need to get into the specifics of the law. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The original text was problematic, but it seems fine now. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:54, 29 August 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

Casualties should be edited after both non-fatal and fatal shootings on August 26th, 2020. Pictures should be added, many are available. More details of August 25th and of early morning Aug. 26th should be added. Mention of the "Kenosha Guard", a local possibly right-wing militia group, should be added. I am from and live in Kenosha myself and have been following this very closely for obvious reasons. 174.102.253.246 (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment He is referring to the infobox. He is requesting the Militia, whatever name it goes by, added in the side3 parameter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B0CB:BCD:CE2:ED64:E94C:461B (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Militia in the infobox

The Militia should be included in the infobox, specifically the side3 parameter. Deaths and injuries should accurately reflect which side received them in accordance with these changes. Merely stating the only two sides to this riot were the protesters and Police does not accurately reflect the situation. Sources and videos of the Militia in conflict with demonstrators can be found all over the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B0CB:BCD:CE2:ED64:E94C:461B (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This looks like part of the riots to me and its being reported by sources as being part of it, so I believe that it merits inclusion. Juno (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Journalist footage and on the scene reporting of the 8/25 shootings

A journalist on the scene interviewed the shooter shortly before the shooting (interview here [7]). (Incidentally, this journalist was the first person to render aid to the first victim).

Another journalist reports [8] an eyewitness statement that the first victim was trying to wrest the gun from the shooter before he got shot.

Journalists on the scene captured footage (here [9] and here [10]) of the second (shot in the chest and killed) and third (shot in the arm and injured) people shot by the 17 year old. It shows a crowd of people chasing the shooter, and then assaulting him both before and after he tripped. While the shooter was on the ground, one person executed a jump kick to the shooter (seemingly in the shooter's head, but not entirely clear). And then a second person approaches and seemingly tries to smash the shooter with his skateboard, whereupon the shooter shot this individual in the chest (also mentioned here [11]).

How should this coverage factor in to the article? Wsw248 (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't. AFAICT all those are either primary sources or unreliable ones. We need reliable secodary sources not editor interpretation on videos and tweets. Nil Einne (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Those are twitter posts, not news reports. They carry no weight and are not reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As Nil mentions these are just primary sources, wait until secondary sources analyze them as evidence, the most notable of which will be the results from the trial. An exception among the sources is the interview, which has properties of both primary and secondary sources, and in addition covers non controversial material. If no secondary source covers it, the interview may be used once there's enough reliable material (probably in its own article I'm guessing).--TZubiri (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting

Hatting per WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gofundme has shut down the page (WP does not allow a link) for donations to the shooter. It read in part: Please, help me save our son Kyle! He did nothing wrong, he is being railroaded by the state and we desperately need money for legal fees. Any contribution Apparently another site for donations was also taken down. There seems to be no presumption of innocence, or of the self defense that will likely be asserted by the shooter. Lightburst (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC) How is this relevant to the information on this article?RobotGoggles (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC) More information for editors on a talk page. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate infobox

The article currently has a civil conflict infobox. It portrays two sides to the conflict: protesters and Black Lives Matter on one side; and Kenosha Police Department, Kenosha County Sheriff's Department, 450 Wisconsin National Guardsmen and various militias on the other. This is not true, inflammatory and editorialising. The police are not allied with militias and have criticised their presence. Protestors are not necessarily opposed to all police or the National Guard. Wikipedia should not be turning a complex and volatile situation into a polarised war. Bondegezou (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with this. We should follow the example at Ferguson unrest and forgo any A vs. B classification. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The Ferguson unrest infobox, agreed, looks like a better design to be used here. Even then, I find the terminology of the "Methods" field odd! MOS:INFOBOX is clear that there is no requirement to use an infobox: they are optional and we could just omit entirely. Whatever we do, we should stop trying to squeeze complex social phenomena into simplistic boxes. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's a civil disorder situation, not a well-ordered, easy to discern conflict. Fa suisse (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed. The infobox is unduly inflammatory regardless of how we word it. --Aquillion (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Y Removed. Per this discussion. I have no specific opinion on the matter myself. GMG^talk 13:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. this should have been debated longer prior to move, also we are not here to downplay the seriousness of the situation. In multiple other protests i.e. HK, George Floyd, Bulgaria, Belarus, Thailand, they all have info boxes. It also shows a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the sides and fatalities, which now are only mentioned in the body.Albertaont (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't accuse other editors of a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the sides and fatalities. We're all working here to improve the article. The body of the article is where content is meant to be mentioned! The infobox, as per MOS:INFOBOX, is a supplement. Bondegezou (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Albertaont has added an alternate infobox as per the Ferguson unrest article. I think that's an improvement, but I still think it has problems. I would rather have no infobox, which is entirely acceptable on Wikipedia and done on many articles. My concern with the new infobox is that it gives the impressions that the deaths were caused by protestors when the opposite is true: the deaths are of protestors shot by a counter-protestor. Can we make clear what fatalities have occurred, but also how they occurred? Bondegezou (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Bondegezou per request, done.Albertaont (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That helps. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Kyle shooting

Shouldn't the infobox mention three different combatants (protesters/rioters, law enforcement and vigilantes) as they did in the article about the 1992 Los Angeles Riots? Here it shows two participants in the riot were killed, but they were not killed by Police so it seems misleading. Azaan Habib 10:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, we need to wait until this event isn't so fresh and has more settled details before we start adding that kind of infobox, in my opinion. This could easily start an editing war, and we've had enough of those recently.RobotGoggles (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Well it seems now the whole infobox has been changed, so that settles it. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 21:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

New reporting on criminal complaint

Local CBS affiliate in Chicago is reporting on the criminal complaint against the 17 year old shooter, and the article also contains more details pertinent to the first shooting, cause of death of the victims, and eyewitness testimony. [12] Ought this to be worked into the article? Wsw248 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added some details from it to the article, although more could be done. Bondegezou (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate info?

I’m confused how the information removed in this edit could be considered “duplicate information”. Can someone clarify how this could be the case? I see it has since been readded, but it would be good to understand the reasoning behind this change. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's start from here. The first edit alters a paragraph of the text and condensed it, but there is a problem with it that doesn't get resolved until later. The second edit restores the content that was removed, but leaves the modified paragraph from the first edit. The third edit restores the modified paragraph from the first edit to the article. Except, it was never removed by the second edit. If you scroll down to the Homicide investigation section, you will see that the second and fifth paragraphs are identical besides the fifth having an extra sentence at the end and that the third paragraph is similar to the second and third paragraph. Skipping the fourth edit for editing in another section. The sixth edit is the one that removes duplicate information, in effect restoring the first edit's changes. The seventh and eighth edits are to the lede and the categories. The ninth edit is mine, where I remove the first edit's paragraph and restore it back to how it was from where we started in this talk section. The tenth edit is also mine where I removed a duplicate merge request (one was for the article and one was for the section), the eleventh was regarding a poor citation, and the twelve was a lede edit. The thirteenth edit was an reversion of the sixth edit. Going back down to the Homicide investigation section shows the second, third, and fifth paragraphs are in a similar situation to before. The fourteenth edit realizes part of the issue and removes the third paragraph, leaving the second and now fourth paragraphs alone. Skipping ahead to the eighteenth edit and nineteenth edit, the whole section is restructured and improved, but it retains the paragraph from the first edit. The twentieth edit is my second revert and explains why it is a revert this time, once again taking us back to the start, though I end up making a mistake in the next edit where I failed to realize that the section name had only been added just a few hours prior... (Which I just realized editing in editing this, so if anyone feels that it should be changed is welcome to.) --Super Goku V (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

In short, a few errors were made (including myself for not explaining in my first edit why I was reverting back) and there ended up being significant confusion between editors over what was going on over the slightly over two hours. I hope that helps clear up what happened. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

That does, thank you Super Goku V. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I looked at that edit multiple times to figure out how the removal of duplicate information could cause less space to be taken up and ended up finding a concern about an edit because of it. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What was in the plastic bag thrown by Jojo Rosenbaum?

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.

---

To be throwable it almost certainly wasn't empty, but it's not been disclosed. What I've heard of antifa/black bloc tactics offers the speculative possibility that it contained infectious bodily waste(s) or harmful chemicals, but again, mainstream reportage isn't saying. - knoodelhed (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

If mainstream RS aren't saying, then neither are we Anon0098 (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTSPECULATION. If you didn't read it in a reliable source, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 15:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully it was collected and tagged as evidence and we'll hear about it in the court case. Maybe not, though, considering the general chaos.Pkeets (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, this is really close to yet another WP:BLP violation. @Scott Sanchez: what is the point to this? If there are not reliable sources, then how is it going to be beneficial to the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no agenda to push. If it was an attack modality employing a harmful substance, could go to provocation. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't know what happened. 🎤 knoodelhed (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion at this point. We can't add anything to the article because (we all agree) we just don't know anything. And I haven't seen any Reliable Sources even speculating about it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 30 August 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2020

Please change

"According to Kenosha County prosecutors, Rosebaum, the first victim, tried to take Rittenhouse's gun from him and Rittenhouse shot him."

to

"According to Kenosha County prosecutors, Rosenbaum, the first victim, tried to take Rittenhouse's gun from him and Rittenhouse shot him." 

2003:F6:2705:3C00:2D63:A9DA:810F:F768 (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge to Shooting of Jacob Blake

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.

---

This is a fairly blatant WP:POVFORK of Shooting of Jacob Blake and the two articles should be merged. Volunteer Marek 05:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this article now is widely expanded. As current event is proggressed, it is no unnecessary to merge into Shooting of Jacob Blake as it tells the aftermath of the shooting of the black people which much costly damage. Are you want expand much chronological event to that article? i believe it is not. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Leaving aside the issue of what precisely to call this article, we have enough disparate content for something separate from Shooting of Jacob Blake. Bondegezou (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There's enough content in both to keep separate articles. Fa suisse (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The protests article is a legitimate elaboration on a topic briefly discussed in the shooting article. There is enough content for both. Snowball also seems to apply. gidonb (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I see no compelling reason to maintain two articles as of yet. If the main article grows in size to the point where we need to WP:SPLIT it, then sure. We're not at that point at the moment. GMG^talk 13:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a separate indicent. Pkeets (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose; as stated, the response to and aftermath of the shooting is notable in its own right, and a separate article is sensible. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Both articles are notable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The days-long riots are a separate event on the shooting, and involve a wider number of people. No need to cover them in an article about the initial incident. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose; the shooting of Jacob Blake and the unrest that followed are obviously linked, however, they are separate subjects and deserve their own articles. RobotGoggles (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose these two related incidents still need to be covered separately. And the assertion this article is a POV fork is incorrect. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose FWIW Lightburst (talk) 00:30, 30 August 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.

"The shootings by Kyle Rittenhouse" listed at Redirects for discussion

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.

---

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The shootings by Kyle Rittenhouse. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#The shootings by Kyle Rittenhouse until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I followed your link, but couldn't find the discussion. This is okay for a redirect, but should NOT be the title of a new article. Instead, it should be titled after the upcoming legal case, currently: State of Wisconsin Plaintiff vs. Kyle H. Rittenhouse Defendant. That's where further developments will happen. Pkeets (talk) 01:16, 30 August 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.

More Background info

WP:BLP applies to the recently dead as well. Digging up the legal pasts of these victims is an egregious violation of BLP. Go argue about sources at RSN. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If the Background section can include information on the shooter Rittenhouse, can we include some information on those shot as well? (Redacted) --Steverci (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Background on the shooter is important as it pertains to his mindset, motives, etc. What does the background of the victims have to do with the incident? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Including that Rittenhouse is a Blue Lives Matter supporter is hardly different from mentioning Grosskreutz is a social justice organization member, in terms of mindset and motivation. Rosenbaum's "shoot me" isn't really background, it's part of the protests, but the Background section includes information about Rittenhouse from earlier that day as well. The criminal history backgrounds are quite important, because Rittenhouse's attorney is arguing self-defense. --Steverci (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Explain in detail how the 'criminal history backgrounds' are important to mentioning self-defense. My viewpoint is that it wouldn't be knowledge know to the suspect, thus it could be tying together pieces of information that are unrelated to each other as a conclusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC) If someone has a history or battery or illegal firearm possession, that would heavily favor someone claiming self-defense against them. It's highly doubtful any of the three were aware of Rittenhouse's TikTok videos, but that's in the article nonetheless. --Steverci (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC) There's a considerable difference in the importance of the motives or mindset of the perpetrator versus the victim, who didn't shoot anybody (I presume). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC) The "victim" was holding a gun (which is cited in the article). --Steverci (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC) References The New York Post is not a reliable source, and the New York Daily News is somewhat questionable. Court records are not a suitable source for a BLP/BDP claim. I would be opposed to including criminal records of any of the victims, unless they were covered in several high quality sources. - MrX 🖋 18:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC) I had checked both before posting, there's no consensus for either source being unreliable (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) --Steverci (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC) NY Post is trending heavily toward not generally reliable. I can't think of a single good reason to use low quality sources for this article when so many good quality sources are covering this. Frankly, I'm not sure what importance the background of the victims is to this article. - MrX 🖋 19:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Agree that we need reliable secondary sources. We shouldn't be using primary sources and we should avoid the New York Post if possible (but I accept that WP:RSP says the jury's out, so we can use it if there's a good reason). Material about the victims' backgrounds would seem more useful when it's relevant to their actions on the night. If Rittenhouse's defence team make a big play that someone's background means they probably behaved a certain way that meant Rittenhouse genuinely feared for his life, something like that, would be relevant. Obviously, the case hasn't started and we don't have anything like that yet. Simply going "X has some dirty secret" seems much less relevant. This is not an article about Grosskreutz or Rosenbaum: it's an article about the events that occurred that night. Bondegezou (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Well there's clearly video evidence that Rosenbaum saying "shoot me" occurred that night. Unless NY Post gets Option 4 (fully depreciated), I'd argue for it being a reliable perennial source at least until a better source reports this. --Steverci (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC) More about this may come out in the trial. Rosenbaum's girlfriend is quoted on Twitter as saying he was under the influence of drugs and so out-of-control, and that she tried to get him settled down but couldn't. We can't add something like this now, of course, as it's hearsay, but it may eventually become part of court documents. If Grosskreutz is arrested for carrying an illegal weapon, that might have bearing, too. I'd advise a new article, if that's decided, be titled as the Wisconsin vs. Rittenhouse court case. There are some Constitutional issues involved and it may eventually be considered a landmark case. Pkeets (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC) IMO in an example like this where the case has received a lot of attention, anything yellow, especially where "most editors prefer more reliable sources when available." should be treated as unsuitable as a sole source. Note I specifically avoided saying unreliable since I don't want to get into that mess. It it really matters, why is it the best source you can find? New York Daily News is also yellow albeit doesn't have such a warning, but I still think if we are digging into the yellow barrel we have to ask, why? I think this is the third time I'm saying this but there's a good chance this is another case of what's the rush? It's likely better sources will become available in a few days at most. If they really don't, I think we have to ask ourselves why an important detail on such a significant case with a lot of ongoing attention is only in those 2 sources. Nil Einne (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested redirect from Kenosha riots -> Kenosha protests

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.

---

With regards to the name change, we should add this redirect to be consistent with for example "George floyd riots" -> "George floyd protests." There is certainly sufficient evidence of Kenosha riots being used in the media to refer to this event, see previous discussion on name change. Ledootdoot (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The singular "Kenosha riot" currently redirects to this article. —ADavidB 20:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah thanks! Ledootdoot (talk) 20:58, 29 August 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.

Headlocking police officers

Not a forum. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Considering how curated of wrongthink this article is, it is amazing to see no mention of Blake resisting arrest and putting an officer in a headlock. I guess nothing more than a fiery mostly peaceful protests indeed. Keep fighting for "the right side of history" instead of for the truth. 2601:602:9200:1310:6D8E:3BE4:1AEA:7F15 (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Have you read Shooting of Jacob Blake? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC) You mean the article describing fiery, mostly peaceful protests that were definitely not riots and didn't lead to the killing of more than two people, is not the place to mention that this started with resisting arrest and headlocking authority figures? Keep cleansing these articles of wrongthink. I agree with you that war is peace, and ignorance is strength. 2601:602:9200:1310:6D8E:3BE4:1AEA:7F15 (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Issue with shooting section

Is it really relevant that the shooter had an AR-15 (as opposed to any other kind of firearm?) Reeks of POV to me. It should be changed to "rifle" instead, if it is retained at all. It reeks to me of undue emphasis. This just fits the idea that so many people seem to have that "people kill people because of AR-15s". No, Rittenhouse killed people because he's wrapped up in the whole blue lives thing.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Why so? Knowing what he used to kill a number of people seems pretty relevant to me. What is your issue with noting the type of weapon he used? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not in the given source, apparently. But assuming we can find an RS that discusses it, I don't personally see the POV issue here. To quote our article on AR-15, it's "one of the most beloved and most vilified rifles in the United States". Seems relevant. What inferences our reader does or doesn't want to draw is up to them, but it's not written in a POV fashion, and it's not inherently UNDUE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, none of the sources mention AR-15-like, although I have seen some that do. Of the four cited sources, only two mention the weapon, one referring to it as a "long-barreled gun" and the other referring to it as a "semi-automatic rifle". - MrX 🖋 12:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I see RS describing his gun as AR-15-like, so I suggest we do the same. See [13], [14], [15] Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That's fine with me. - MrX 🖋 15:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

To include or not to include the shooting from the 2nd night

On the second night of rioting, around 3:00 am an unknown suspect in a grey sedan shot a local 30-year-old man and a local 26-year-old woman before speeding off.

I saw that this was removed and wanted to discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno (talk • contribs) 14:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources please? I don't know of a shooting from a car. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can provide a source, that would very likely fall under this article's scope. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's the source for August 24. However, there are no details, so no indication this has to do with the protests. [16] Opinions, anyone? Pkeets (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I would leave it out. There is no indication this was related to the protests - nothing to indicate who the victims were or why they were there, or who the shooter was. If a connection is later developed we could add it, but for now it may just be the kind of street crime that happens in every city. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: who owns the rifle Rittenhouse used. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source, and can you demonstrate why this is important to add to the article? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It's unclear at this time who owns the gun or whether their name will ever be released. The lawyer's statement said Rittenhouse had been working in Kenosha that day (so didn't go there specifically for the protests) and he and a friend armed themselves to answer a call to defend a local business (so he didn't carry it across state lines). Presumably the friend owned the gun, but that't only an assumption.Pkeets (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to change citation style

Hey all, as there are so many references, can I propose a change to the ref style? I find it easier to use a {{reflist}}, this makes it easier to chase down barelinks and convert them to proper citation format. Would anyone object if I did this? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: The article is already using the reflist template. Do you mean List-defined references? If so, you should be aware that it tends to require a lot of maintenance. - MrX 🖋 12:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve been using it extensively, I’ve found it is easier to use. I do understand if list defined references aren’t wanted though. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm neutral. I've used them myself (and advocated changing to them) in the past, but I found it impossible to get other editors to follow the convention, which tended to create a lot of duplicate work. Also, when references were removed from the body of the article, they would still remain in the list, creating a bit of unnecessary bloat. - MrX 🖋 13:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Please no. I hate the "list-defined references" system; it makes it awkward/damn near impossible to add any referenced information to the article. I realize that others may legitimately feel differently, so I will just point out that our style guidelines say we should stick with whatever system the original author(s) have established for the article, and not change styles unless there is a reason or a strong consensus to do so. In any case, even if you change to list-defined, as MrX pointed out, most people will continue posting the references inline as they are accustomed to, so we will either have a hybrid system or somebody will have to be constantly maintaining the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No probs, I’ll leave it be, I just wanted to ask on talk first. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)