Jump to content

Talk:Kenosha unrest/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

This manual undo is fundamentally flawed

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenosha_protests&diff=976740908&oldid=976739901

The article is entitled “protests,” not “riots,” so if some want to emphasize the latter rather than the former, the title should be changed.

The source does not refer to “widespread” or related synonyms. That sentence is redundant to the immediately preceding sentence.

There were not “several” days of riots.

We know only the expressed intent of the vigilantes, not necessarily their actual intent.

Ergo Sum’s edit should be reverted.soibangla (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I will go through these one by one.
The article's name (which is up for discussion) is irrelevant. This article covers related events that happened in Kenosha in a specified period of time. Whether we call them protests, riots, unrest, etc. in the title is irrelevant to our accurate accounting of the facts. We don't "emphasize" anything.
Wikipedia is not in the business of lifting language from sources. That's called plagiarism. The fact that a source does not use the word "widespread" but describes widespread protests does not mean we cannot call them widespread. I don't think anyone can accurately dispute that they were widespread. Excising that singular word bears the tinge of WP:POV.
This one really makes no sense. Riots occurred for 2 days, state of emergency was declared, riots continued for a few more days. How is that not "several?"
Expressed is a WP:WEASELWORD. No source has called into question the group's assertion that their intent was to protect the city. "Expressed" adds nothing other than casting doubt in violation of weasel.
Should this argument be unpersuasive to you, I think an RfC would do well to resolve the matter. Ergo Sum 18:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Disagree. Ergo Sum revert of Soibangla's edit is accurate reflection of the evidence. [1], [2]--MONGO (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The article's title was the result of extensive discussions; it certainly does matter, in that it reflects our best assessment of the sources (and, therefore, their framing and focus when it comes to the facts) at the time. We have to cover those facts with the same weight and focus they do, and not by what editors personally feel is the truth. An RFC to establish that is fine, but your changes have to go until it's complete; you can't insert a drastic change to an article's lead, then (when people object) call for an RFC and leave the contested changes in there the entire time. We'd also have to hammer out some possible variations to satisfy WP:RFCBEFORE, I think - there is certainly a middle ground between the version of the lead before you started editing (which I agree is incomplete) and your version (which had severe POV issues and didn't remotely reflect the full weight and focus of the sources.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I mildly lean in favor of "protests and riots" vs "riots and protests". I think that is the intent of the first sentence. "Widespread" is probably a qualitative word that would need some support. I agree there is no reason to mention riots in the second sentence since it was in the opening sentence. Do we have evidence that the rioting was confined to only one day? How do the sources describe the intent of those described as vigilantes. Also, when describing the intent are they speaking of those described as "vigilantes" or something like "outsiders with guns"? My concern is if we have one source saying the people with guns are vigilantes and a separate source saying people with guns say they intend to protect the city we don't conflate those two points, ie "vigilantes intend to protect the city". We should be very careful about describing the armed people as vigilantes in Wikivoice. For example, this sentence in the lead, "In response to several days of riots, groups of armed vigilantes arrived with the intent of protecting the city" cites The Indenpendent [[3]] and the NYT[[4]]. The Independent calls the armed people, "armed people". It quotes the Kenoba sheriff calling them "militia" and "like a vigilante group" (“They’re a militia,” Mr Beth said. “They’re like a vigilante group.”). The NYT only says Rittenhouse was part of a vigilante group, not that all the armed men were vigilantes. From the next sentence the WP uses both "vigilantes" as well as "people who took up arms against protests that have occasionally turned violent". We should use the more neutral "armed people" or similar and save terms like vigilante for attributed statements. While "expressed intent" doesn't appear in any of the sources, it does reasonably summarize the NYT. The NYT attributed the claim of "here to protect". I don't really like the "expressed intent" phrasing but it is accurate in my opinion. BTW, really we shouldn't be dissecting sources from the lead. All of these sources should be in the article body and the lead shouldn't need even a single source as it summarizes the body. Springee (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your distinction between vigilantes and armed groups. It seems the sources are referring to the same people by those two terms, rather than as two different groups of people. Armed groups with the stated intent of protection is a vigilante, no? As for "expressed intent," intent is psychological. Wikipedia routinely describes people's intent in plain terms (assuming it's backed up by sources) without adding dubious qualifiers. Ergo Sum 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The Independent only calls them "armed people". They quote the sheriff calling them vigilantes. The WP uses both terms at different points in their article. My concern is the association with things like vigilante justice. If I'm seeing a distinction that isn't then perhaps this isn't worth worrying about. Springee (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Ergo Sum says: The article's name (which is up for discussion) is irrelevant Well, I just really disagree. And wasn't the rename proposal closed anyway? That's called plagiarism Note that I said neither widespread nor a related synonym is in the source. Is there evidence the "widespread rioting" extended across the entire city, into residential areas, or was it localized in a specific area? "Widespread rioting" suggests the city was being burned down, including homes. We need to be more precise. And here on Talk you call them widespread protests, which is likely more true than widespread riots, because during such episodes there's more people marching and chanting than throwing Molotovs. Let's not fall for "if it bleeds, it leads." I don't see that the article chronology supports riots continued for a few more days. I disagree that Expressed is a WP:WEASELWORD because a full reading of what is going on in this country right now is that there's lots of people who would like to assault/kill people they just don't like, and some are looking for an excuse to do it, and two people were shot dead in Kenosha. As an aside, "my" google news yields 107,000 results for "Kenosha riots" and 322,000 for "Kenosha protests." Finally, I believe the lead as written — placing riots before protests in an article about protests, concluding with "There were also peaceful protests" — bears the tinge of WP:POV soibangla (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In any case, it looks like Ergo Sum has fairly drastically rewritten the lead over the past few days with little discussion, so I've hard-reverted entirely for now to before their edits to it. Let's go a bit more slowly and cautiously. Riots is fairly WP:POV language, which requires strong and fairly unanimous sourcing; the naming discussion already went over the sources and didn't really find much support for it - yes, sources exist that use the term, but it's not the primary description. This also extends to the framing and structure of the lead - I feel the rewrite placed WP:UNDUE emphasis on a few sources and downplayed many others; "there were also peaceful protests" is a bit absurd when so many sources place that aspect front and center. Likewise when it comes to the clashes, we have to be cautious how we term people and attribute descriptors (hence which Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth described as vigilantes.) The purpose of the lead shouldn't be a bloated blow-by-blow of everything that happened; it should cover the most significant and heavily-covered points. Ergo Sum, given how controversial this topic is, maybe seek consensus for specific changes before drastically rewriting the lead? A few small additions or tweaks is one thing, but this was too much, too fast. --Aquillion (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Should the lede section more closely reflect this version or the current version? Ergo Sum 15:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Temp comment: I don't think this is a properly formed RfC so I've commented it out for the moment. A more definitive description and a clear example or question would be very helpful. Asking people to evaluate a diff with no other description isn't really useful. This comment can/should be removed once resolved. Springee (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Summarizing the diff: 1) having a sentence describing the significant property destruction (USD $50m and 100 buildings) and 2) that the destruction was the result of riots (supported by sources).
Summarizing the current: omitting reference to riots and property destruction.
Taking off my neutral RfC proposer-hat, it seems in my humble opinion manifestly clear that option 1 is the correct one. Wiki is not about censoring uncomfortable facts. Ergo Sum 23:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • [summoned by bot] - I started to respond to this, but the RfC is just too poorly framed. The subsequent summary doesn't help much, either, since it highlights particular elements rather than particular versions. If you want an RfC on those elements, present it that way. It also refers to "the current version," but requires us to check the timestamp of the RfC and cross-reference that with the version of the article at that time. Assuming I got the versions right, neither is ideal. Ergo Sum, your non-neutral summary seems to be arguing to summarize an article that mentions rioting exactly twice (in the heading "protests and riots" and in "events elsewhere") with a lead that refers to riots/rioting/rioters four times. That ... doesn't scream NPOV. The "current" version removed all mention of "riot" which doesn't seem in line with the sourcing/article either. Given these shortcoming (and others, like saying in Wikipedia's voice that the vigilantes were there "with the intent of protecting the city" while quoting them directly and/or sources that say "protecting businesses"), in lieu of !voting one way or the other I've just gone ahead and made a bold edit to what seems reasonable to me. IMO it's still not ideal, because it's a very long article that should have a more thorough lead (especially with regard to the not-yet-spun-out rittenhouse shooting still here). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Prefer Rhododendrites' version shown here. This version, current at the start of the RfC, frankly is a POV whitewash for failing to mention rioting at all. There is no valid justification for that when sources consistently talk about riots, violence, and/or looting. Crossroads -talk- 02:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Prefer Rhododendrites' version. As I said above, I recognized the older version did need some improvement and was hoping we could find a middle ground before starting an RFC, but this version is fine and was thankfully proposed shortly after the RFC started; this version mentions the aspects Ergo Sum wanted included without placing undue emphasis on them. --Aquillion (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Prefer Rhododendrites' version: I think it’s the most accurate representation of events of any version thus far. soibangla (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Prefer Rhododendrites' version here as a good neutral summary that touches on the various events that took place without overemphasizing any one part. –dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Question: What exactly is this RfC going to decide at this point? I lead seems to have evolved at least a bit pasted the version suggested by Rhododendrites edit. Is this RfC suggesting that the lead is set in stone after this RfC? Is it saying it's not OK to put estimates of the property damage somewhere in the lead and/or in the info box? Currently I think this is just a poorly formed RfC and should be closed as such. After that we can discuss lead changes on this page that way we will have a better idea what information is in/out because that content shouldn't be included vs what's in/out because the particular way it was included was not acceptable. Springee (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
On the question of covering property damage, independent of this RfC, I note that MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). That is, don't just stick new content in the infobox: put it in the article first. The same applies to the lead section. Bondegezou (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
You are correct. I fixed it. If there is further discussion, it probably needs its own section as it is not related to the RfC. Trying to reconnect (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Representative photo of the protests?

Can I ask for a more 'fair' photo of the protests as opposed to the current photo which depicts the morning after of a burned down car dealership? I realize its difficult to source photos in the public domain, however the current photo seems unrepresentative. If a representative photo can not be sourced, then we should remove the photo from the top altogether. Ledootdoot (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? Anon0098 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the photo is as representative as a single photo can be. The photo of the burned car dealership was used by all sorts of major news networks to represent the days of riots, which were themselves the primary focus of the media. It's always hard to pick infobox photos to represent events, but because this photo has been circulated so much more than any other, I can't think of a more representative photo. Ergo Sum 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that's fair, especially if it's a pretty used photo Anon0098 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: Are you positive that you have seen this photo 'used by all sorts of major news networks' as that should be impossible. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I've seen this photo (or similar ones of this burnt car dealership) on Fox News and CNN. Ergo Sum 02:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the current image appropriately represents the riots that are the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The burned dealership photo is fine and very representative of what has occurred during the early days of the protests (millions of dollars in property damage to local businesses–riots, a word some editors are reluctant to use). RopeTricks (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the current photo does not match the tone and content of the majority of the photos under the search term 'Kenosha Protests' on Google Images. With regards to other commenters, I would point out the name of the article is Kenosha Protests, not Kenosha Riots. This article encompasses significantly more beyond what happened in the first few days. Ledootdoot (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Ledootdoot—why are you "point[ing] out [that] the name of the article is Kenosha Protests, not Kenosha Riots"? Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bus stop: presumably they were pointing out the fact that you were mistaken when you said, "the riots that are the subject of the article". VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
VQuakr—so the article is about what the title says it's about? I would have thought the article was about the incident. In my opinion, sources tell us what the article is about. For instance "Man in his 70s attacked while trying to protect burning Kenosha mattress store...They broke his jaw...Lacerations to his head." That, in my opinion, would be an example of what the article is about. We are editor-generated content. Editors decided that the title should be "protest". But the content of the article need not follow a title that was chosen by a handful of editors. Similar considerations would apply to imagery that might find its way into this article. I would compare the current image of burned out cars to the uppermost image at Kent State shootings. I'd be interested in hearing a cogent argument for this not being the uppermost image in this article. I think that is what is thus far missing from this discussion—why should this image be removed? Bus stop (talk)
The current image isn't used in any reliable sources outside of Wikipedia or its mirrors that I can find - it appears to originate on blogs and similar unreliable sources, so we can't really use it. Since we need an alternative, I would suggest this image, which has extensive usage among a wide range of high-quality reliable sources. Comparing how widely those images are used is like night and day. Also, you are incorrect in stating that the title was chosen by a handful of editors - we had a fairly massive WP:RFC. The current unrepresentative image was chosen by one editor (the one who uploaded it). Given how it doesn't appear in WP:RSes we can't actually be sure it is even of something related to the protests, but even if it is, it is clearly WP:UNDUE given how many other images have far more heavy usage in higher-quality sources; the few places it is used would raise WP:CITOGENESIS concerns, since they seem to have appeared after it appeared here. --Aquillion (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bus stop: confirmed, the scope of the article is the protests, not solely cherry-picked incidents of violence that occurred during the protests. Obviously. A burned car lot is not a natural and appropriate representation of the topic as described as MOS:LEADIMAGE. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@Aquillion: I think you can go ahead and replace the image. The evidence you presented is clear. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pinging me, VQuakr. The topic of the article is the incident—not the "riot", not the "protests", not the "unrest". I think I would be opposed to the replacing of a reality-oriented picture with a milquetoast picture. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Aquillion—we merely decided on a title for an article. In my understanding a title only provides a general indication of a topic to be addressed in an article. Content of an article is decided by reliable sources and iconic images are favored even when they are disagreeable. We see that for instance with Kent State shootings and Killing of George Floyd. I think I would probably oppose the whitewashing of this incident by means of replacing vivid imagery with milquetoast imagery. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
An article's topic is naturally decided by its title. And I'm alarmed that you say that your reason for preferring that image is its vivid imagery, which strongly implies that you want it there to send a particular message. Per MOS:SHOCK, "vividness" is actually an argument against using your preferred image, at least unless you can demonstrate that it is so commonly-used as to be expected - Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. Therefore your dismissal of the other (non-shocking, unexceptional) image as "milquetoast" is an endorsement of it. Furthermore, the most important factor in determining the lead image is that it should be Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. The one I proposed is commonly used on high-quality news sites, and therefore fits that criteria. The one you prefer, outside of Wikipedia, only seems to have significant presence on axe-grindy culture-war blogs, which implies that it is both non-neutral and fails the "natural and appropriate representation" description. Even if you think that most sources are covering the topic in a "milquetoast" manner, we are still required to go with that, especially for the lead. I am particularly baffled that you would point to the Kent State shootings (which has one of the most iconic newspaper images of all time) as an argument that we should disregard the sorts of images used in most coverage and instead retain a random image of dubious pedigree that reflects nothing but the point of view of the random editor who took it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In any case, it's clear from this discussion that the current image does not enjoy consensus; since the article is new (and therefore it doesn't enjoy any sort of consensus from being longstanding) I've removed it for now per WP:ONUS. Hopefully we can reach a consensus on a replacement soon, but don't restore that one unless you can convincingly argue that there's a consensus supporting it. Especially for an article about breaking news, we have to be cautious about things like this. --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I would suggest a "photo montage" that shows marchers carrying signs, an example of property destruction and possibly the police/National Guard response. This topic covers a series of events that includes both protesting and rioting, and we can't really illustrate all of that with a single image. –dlthewave ☎ 03:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support montage as at other articles. Only a single picture lends itself to POV accusations, one way or the other. Crossroads -talk- 03:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Aquillion—you write "An article's topic is naturally decided by its title." No it is not. Changing the name of the article doesn't affect the content of the article at all. This is the identical article whether its title is "Kenosha riots" (as it was a week ago), "Kenosha protests", "Kenosha unrest", or any other name. The whole name thing at every one of these articles is nonsensical for the simple reason that WP:REDIRECTS work fine. It doesn't take "axe-grindy culture-war blogs", Aquillion, to illustrate, arson, looting, and violence against people trying (and failing) to prevent their hard-earned businesses from burning to the ground. That would remain an intrinsic part of this article even if it were decided to change the title to "Kenosha lovefest". Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I can whip up a montage myself if you guys can provide a commons link to a properly licensed, ready-to use image of a peaceful protest/march to counterbalance the imagery representing the riots. RopeTricks (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
There isn't really anything like that on Commons that I've been able to find. Would it be appropriate to use a non-free image under fair use? –dlthewave ☎ 12:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification tag

@Aquillion and Lightburst: Currently, the article has the Template:Failed verification tag in the infobox under the image caption. It was added to the article by Aquillion in this edit. The image was taken directly by Lightburst according to the file description, which is why they are pinged here so that this can be dealt with quicker and easier. For Aquillion, what specifically is wrong that caused the image or caption to fail verification? The KSDK (NBC 5) source used here has a video embedded in the article from WITI (Fox 6) which shows the burned 'Car Source' logo on the building at 17 seconds into the video. The Fox 6 article is linked in the NBC 5 article and has an interview with the owner of the 'Car Source' business. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect tag Aquillion has made a mistake. I will remove it. I took that photo myself! Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
FYI the reference is simply about the burned car lot. The photo is my own. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I might not have been clear in my wording, but thank you for removing it. The part that confused me and why I didn't modify or remove the tag was Aquillion writing Image isn't used in the source..., which is true, but baffling as to why it was added. As far as I know, Wikipedia has encouraged users taking their own photos, so it would make more sense that the image wasn't a direct match. To me, it isn't clear if they have an issue with just the image or with both used together. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the image entirely for now per the plain lack of consensus to include it in the discussion above, coupled with my underlying concerns that there's no particular reason to think it is a representative image of the topic given its near-absence in any other sources. While people can upload their own images, I don't think it's a good idea to use such images for the lead of a controversial, heavily-covered breaking-news topic like this one, for a variety of reasons - for one thing, being reduced to WP:OR to argue that the image accurately reflects the subject is hardly ideal; for another, it makes it extremely difficult to demonstrate that the image satisfies the requirement to be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. A Wikipedian taking an image of an apple to illustrate Apple is one thing (when the fact that it is an apple falls under WP:BLUE); a Wikipedian taking on the role of reporter by taking a photograph they allege is of a breaking event, then arguing that their personal image is the most representative image of that event and therefore suitable to reflect it in the lead, is quite another. --Aquillion (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Aquillion: I am not sure that you should be acting on your own to remove that image. Your first tag of (failed verification) was rather misleading. It is clear that you do not want the photo in the article, however I do not think your opinion has consensus. Lightburst (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The image isn't longstanding, so per WP:ONUS you must demonstrate consensus to put it there now that multiple people have raised objections. You plainly want to include the photo you took in the article; but now that objections have been raised, you need to address them and demonstrate a consensus for it before restoring it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Aquillion—no image "accurately reflects [a] subject". A still image derives from an event. Even a moving image would not accurately reflect a subject. Images can be emblematic of certain events for a variety of reasons. This is a prized image, for instance, in part because of the human contact made with the viewer by means of body language and facial expression seen on the kneeling female figure (Mary Ann Vecchio). That is just my own interpretation of the reason for the success of that image. I think the factors can be numerous and certainly can vary by the situation. The point I'm making is that the Kent State shooting photograph doesn't accurately reflect that incident. It is just one still image, but a successful one, that was found to be valuable by a consensus of opinions in the pre-Wikipedia days. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@Aquillion: Can you clarify what you mean by "lack of consensus" when we have not even discussed it. You can have complaints that the image does not accurately fit the subject, but claiming that it is WP:OR when the policy WP:OI exists within WP:OR is a poor argument. The full text of WP:OR is the following: Because of copyright laws in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. (Separate paragraph) It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light. I really do not see the image as illustrating an unpublished argument as the section Day 2: August 24 touches upon it. If you feel we need better sourcing for that content or that we need to write more about the car dealership, then that would fine and I can do my best to expand upon it. If the issue is with the caption underneath, then we could remove the caption if that is somehow the proble,. As for the remainder, if you believe the image is manipulated in any form, feel free to post it at WP:FFD or if you insist that the image is a violation of WP:OR then at WP:NOR/N. To me, it just seems that the primary issue is that it is the infobox image, which can be discussed. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a discussion active here (started prior to this one) which clearly isn't showing a consensus for the old image. I've removed it again per WP:ONUS, since you were clearly mistaken when you thought it hadn't been discussed. Do not reinstate it. Adding a lead image with no discussion was bold per WP:BRD; now that many people have objected and an extensive discussion failed to reach consensus, we need to slow down and talk over Lightburst's proposed addition before re-adding it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments stricken: I misunderstood the order of events and I believe I now understand how things played out. There might be some stuff to resolve, but I believe this discussion is no longer relevant since the tag no longer appears on the article anyways. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Word riot.

I understand removing riots from the title, but why remove the word from the article completely? Tens of millions of dollars worth of damage is not just a protest, the word riot should be mentioned in the lead. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 10:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, editors continue to be skiddish on using the word "riot" in modern protest articles, even when literal, actual rioting occurs. RopeTricks (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: The word "riot" appears at least seven times in the article at the moment. RopeTricks (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. It looks like a case of violating NPOV. There has been a trend of whitewashing when it comes to the term in recent Wikipedia articles. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone has been compared to a "street festival". Maybe we can change the title of this article to "Kenosha festival". Also, Pearl Harbor was a "mostly peaceful" flyover. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, if some of these guys were living in the 1940s. Mostly peaceful execution of Jews by SS Officers, main problem is racist American troops. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 13:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Large number of RfClosures

I wanted to give the editors here a heads up. Jax 0677 has initiated 15 requests for closures related to topics on this talk page. Here is a link to one of them (the rest are above/below) [[5]]. Springee (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Jax 0677 are all those necessary? AN/RFC constantly has backlogs in general. I think this talk can work out many of those issues without formal close, through the regular editing process. Indeed, pretty sure we are/have in some cases. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality question

Is On August 25, 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse, who was armed with an AR-15 style rifle, was attacked by a group of protesters, and in response fired several shots, which struck three attackers. Two were killed and one wounded. Video footage later revealed that one of the protesters had been armed with a handgun at 2020 United States racial unrest a neutral summary of the events? FDW777 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It is what actually happened, there video footage to prove it, and news sources are commenting on that. Should probably mention also he was there to help protect an area from looters and vandals, and it was legal in that state, as the news article referenced clearly mentions. Dream Focus 22:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Neither of your assertions are true. Volunteer Marek 22:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
You can read it saying that in this article. Search for the guy's name. It says he was helping a car dealership owner who wanted someone to protect his property. Dream Focus 22:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
That's not at all what this article says, but even if it did, we can't use Wikipedia articles themselves as sources. The sources we do use are much more cautiously-worded. --Aquillion (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Its obviously referenced in this article, that the sources. Dream Focus 23:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Where? Quote the bits from the sources that you feel that that text summarizes.
  • Literally the only mention of it in the cited source was As Kyle Rittenhouse secured a legal team Friday after being charged in the fatal shooting of two men at a protest against police brutality.
  • wkow says Attorneys for Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old charged with killing two people and wounding another during the protests of the police shooting of Jacob Blake, say their client was acting in self-defense, but does not report the self-defense claim as fact; it is a good source to state that he has made that claim, but cannot be used to state that he acted in self-defense in the article voice.
  • ABC says On Tuesday, the third night of those protests, Rittenhouse, a white teen who was armed with a semi-automatic rifle, was caught on cellphone video as he walked Kenosha's streets with other armed civilians, saying he was protecting businesses from vandalism. Prosecutors have accused him of killing two men who tried to disarm him and wounding a third. His lawyers have argued he was acting in self-defense.
None of those say he was "attacked" or acted in response, and all of them are very careful to attribute the claims of self-defense rather than stating them as fact. This article says, in the lead, On August 25, two protesters were fatally shot and a third was injured by Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois. Rittenhouse was charged with first-degree intentional homicide and other charges; his attorneys have said his actions were self-defense. That seems like a good, neutral summary for a secondary article that only mentions it in passing. Keep in mind that WP:BDP does apply to his victims, so if you want to insinuate that they attacked him (ie. that they were the ones who started the fight, which all the sources above carefully avoid saying and which the videos don't cover) you need very strong sourcing from high-quality mainstream sources backing it up. Where is it? --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I did so. The results of my investigation are above and do not support your preferred wording - they say that his attorneys argue that he acted in self-defense; they don't state that he did so as fact. We must reflect that cautious wording. If you disagree, show me some actual quotes that back up your preferred version, especially reliable, high-quality neutral sources specifically saying that Rittenhouse was attacked, or any specifically stating as fact that he acted in self-defense. None of the sources that I investigated supported this; and, again, since his victims fall under WP:BDP (and some survived, so they fall under WP:BLP), stating that they were the attackers or aggressors will require high-quality sources saying so unambiguously. The sources don't state that. Our article does not state that (it, like the sources, is specifically worded in a way that makes clear that only the latter part of the confrontation was caught on video, leaving the aggressor ambiguous.) If you have sources stating otherwise, present them specifically - links and quotes. Tell me the specific source you want to use for the statement you want to make, and the specific verbiage from it that supports it, as I did above to illustrate the opposite. I can tell that you believe the sources exist to support your preferred version, but you have to actually produce them specifically, rather than vaguely indicate you think they exist; if your argument is that the wording here of On August 25, two protesters were fatally shot and a third was injured by Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois. Rittenhouse was charged with first-degree intentional homicide and other charges; his attorneys have said his actions were self-defense. is equivalent to your preferred text, then you should be fine with using that wording instead. --Aquillion (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The summary is factually correct (ie each thing did happen) but is not a neutral summary of the content from this wiki article. As an example, yes, Rittenhouse was "attacked" but we can't in Wiki voice say he was "attacked" for being a good Samaritan just trying to stop crime or as someone who went looking for a fight and found one. Additionally, as posted it could reasonably be read as "Rittenhouse was attacked by Mr A, B and C. Rittenhouse fired blindly into the crowd, killing Mr D and E and injuring Mr F. Sadly, this isn't an event that can be reasonably summarized in so few sentences but I think the version quoted by Aquillion above is far more neutral given the RS'ed information available at this time. Springee (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to mention the details of the shootings

"Rosebaum" in Shooting section should read "Rosenbaum."

Just mention how the first shooting happened (from the parking lot), and then detail the 2nd (that he was on his back, and shot two of the four people who were running towards him, and that the guy who had his arm shot drew a gun on Rittenhouse before he was shot). Very important context. If you read most news articles, it makes it seem like he shot them for no reason, but the videos show it was self defense. Nate Hooper (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Self defense has a specific legal meaning, and there's currently dispute over whether what happened would qualify as self defense under Wisconsin law. At this time it's most relevant to include information about what Rittenhouse has been charged with and statements the Kenosha PD has officially said. Honkinonbobo (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The article currently says "[Rittenhouse] is then seen opening fire on those pursuing him." In fact, Huber ran up to the fallen Rittenhouse, whacked him on the head with his skateboard, and then tried to grab the rifle when he was shot. That is a bit more than "pursuing him", more like assaulting him. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
He was being pursued and assaulted... he didn't just get hit by a skateboard, but was also kicked while on the ground: Kyle Rittenhouse being kicked. Whether or not this was self defence depends from a legal standpoint on whether he provoked the attack on himself, in other words, whether he was being pursued due to him have acted criminally. The video of the first shooting shows that someone was pursuing him and tried to disarm him, so Kyle's response could be determined to be self defence if he can show it was reasonable to fear that he would suffer serious bodily harm or be killed if the attacker succeeded in disarming him. If he can show that, then subsequent attacks on him would allow him to invoke self defence as well (even if those attacking him thought they were acting in the public interest) --218.214.183.100 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC) (Edited: 7 September 2020 after watching the video of the first encounter --218.214.183.100 (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

K.e.coffman, your reversion won't stand. I'll let someone else work on it, but these paragraphs are poorly written and have problems with POV both, suggesting that Rittenhouse shot the protesters without provocation and that he was in possession of an illegal gun, among other issues. These things have yet to be established by evidence in court, and even interpreting the videos for purposes of this article is questionable. I see similar comments above, so if you can't achieve more acceptable wording, maybe an administrator should look at the problem. Pkeets (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits guys, I see that many details have been added since I first posted the request. It now mentions the fact that Kyle was chased and that the 3rd guy was holding a gun. I think there is still work to be done, but it's good that some of the details were added. Appreciate it. Nate Hooper (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

One section reads "Rittenhouse then pointed his gun at another person, Gaige Grosskreutz, who ducked and took a step back with his hands in the air. Grosskreutz, allegedly carrying a gun in his hand,[71] then moved toward Rittenhouse who fired at him". This entry reads with confusing wording that makes it difficult to distinguish the sequence of events. 1. It fails to properly depict the relevant fact that Grosskreutz was moving towards Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse pointed the gun at Grosskreutz, and 2. Fails to properly depict the actions of Grosskreutz immediately before he was shot. I'd like to propose correcting it to: "Gaige Grosskreutz, allegedly carrying a gun in his hand,[71] began to move towards Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Grosskreutz, who then halted and took a step back with his hands in the air. Grosskreutz then began moving towards Rittenhouse again, at which point Rittenhouse fired a single shot at Grozzkreutz." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.204.185 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yours is certainly better than the top quote. It's currently a mixture of the two. I'll change the sequence of events to better reflect that fact that Gaige was moving towards Kyle before he raised the gun to him. Nate Hooper (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The video has been posted at various news sites. It looks like Grosskreutz was closing as Huber moved away, and Rittenhouse jerks the gun around to point at him. He raises his hands and backs up, and at that point you can see there's no gun in his hands. Then Rittenhouse fires and we can see the gun in the stills afterward. The video goes so fast and is so dark that it's hard to see exactly what happens, but what we can see strongly suggests Grosskreutz made a move to pull the gun out and Rittenhouse saw what he was doing and shot him. Pkeets (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I should have checked the Talk, and I didn't realize you guys had already suggested better versions than the current one, so I made one myself that was reverted within an hour with the comment, "We go by sources". The DA's Criminal Complaint (https://www.mystateline.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2020/08/Rittenhouse.pdf) cites the video, and my description is consistent with both the video and the complaint. The passage reverted to clearly is not. (Also the reverted version isn't grammatical.)
It's clearly not true that "After Rittenhouse shot Huber, Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his hands in the air". On the contrary, he stepped back with his hands up, and then lowered them when he continued forward. Saying that he "approached Rittenhouse with his hands in the air" makes it sound as if Rittenhouse shot him when he posed no threat.
The video shows what I wrote -- "As Huber was shot, Gaige Grosskreutz stopped charging toward Rittenhouse, and raised his hands. When Rittenhouse lowered his rifle, Grosskreutz continued toward him and lowered his hands. [Then I merged my sentence with what was already there about the gun.]"
What I said is consistent with what's in the DA's Criminal Complaint: "When the defendant shot Huber, Grosskreutz freezes and ducks and takes a step back. Grosskreutz puts his hands in the air. Grosskreutz then moves towards the defendant who aims his gun at Grosskreutz and shoots him, firing 1 shot." I suggest using my revision, or one of the others that are consistent with the video and with the Criminal Complaint. What's there now is misleading, and simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:20E0:E1B0:F959:2DCF:E8E7:9AF5 (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
To the person above me, perhaps it would help your case if you use an account, that way people can check your history. That, notwithstanding, what you say here is true. I think it would be fair for you to edit it back the way you had it, then if anyone reverts it, tell them to use the talk page. The video AND many reliable sources indicate that Grosskreutz initiated things by running towards Kyle and pulling out his own gun. EDIT: I know you posted a few days ago so things may have changed since then - just read the article in its current form and it seems pretty good overall. It does mention the fact that Grosskreutz was moving towards Kyle before he was shot. Nate Hooper (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Nate Hooper, I've made a few substantial contributions under my account about non-political topics. For politically controversial articles -- which I've ventured to edit just a couple of times -- I'd prefer just to rely on the truth of what I'm saying. That way political prejudice won't affect the acceptance of my non-political edits.
As you say, someone improved the passage for a while, but now it's back to saying "After Rittenhouse shot Huber, Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his hands in the air, initially, then backed away." Wrong! At no time, intially or later, did Grosskreutz approach Rittenhouse with his hands in the air. Initially Grosskreutz charges him with his hands down -- stated mildly as "approached" -- but when Huber is shot, he steps back with his hands in the air. Then when Rittenhouse lowers his rifle, Grosskreutz lowers his hands and charges again. That's when Rittenhouse shoots him. After seeing more accurate versions replaced twice by obviously false ones, I'm going to leave it to others to decide how long they want Wikipedia to state something as true that can easily be confirmed as false.
Here's an article from The Sun that shows an image of Grosskreutz as he's shot. His hands are lowered, not in the air. He's holding a pistol and pointing it toward Rittenhouse -- The Sun article with image of shooting. Seems to me that's rather important information. 2600:1702:20E0:E1B0:3502:CF1B:9D6C:24C7 (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The Sun is a WP:deprecated source and cannot be used. Please log in and discuss this in the more recent Grosskreutz , hands in the air below. –dlthewave ☎ 14:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This is an example of why we shouldn't deprecate left right and center. The picture is clear (and probably in other sources). The photo is credited to Reuters so presumably it would be in one of their articles. Springee (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
We aren't deprecating "left right and center". We have a few carefully considered deprecations which were the result of extensive discussions about the reliability of the sources in question.
And if the photo is in fact in articles from reliable sources, we aren't even missing out on relevant information. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
How far we are talking deprecation is probably a debate best left for another talk page (says the person who raised the topic). Anyway, The Sun credits the photo to Reuters. Springee (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This is all beside the point because regardless of where the photo came from, we shouldn't be doing our own analysis to second-guess what reliable sources say. If there are further concerns about how we describe this, please join the current discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that is half true. We can't use our own analysis of the photo in the article nor can we just put the photo (presumably that's a copyright issue). We can use our own eyes to reject content/descriptions that doesn't support the obvious. For example, if a RS says a 1986 Ford Mustang came standard with five lug wheels, we are certainly allowed to reject that content based on looking at period photos etc. That is allowed per OR when trying to assess the accuracy of a specific claim made by a source. In this case I think one of the difficulties is most sources try to offer a summary vs play by play of what the videos show. We then try to summarize the summaries. Again, reviewing photos or the video can be helpful in crafting a summary that is both true to the cited sources and true to what we are seeing. In this case it really is difficult because we are trying to describe in just a few words a sequence of actions/events where details will likely matter. Springee (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenosha_unrest/Archive_5&oldid=979868433"