Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC about subject’s opening description

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) There is a clear consensus to not call subject a "Celebrity" in opening sentence for WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT issues. There is some agreement that it might fit better in a different part of the article, but most editors agreed it doesn't belong in the opening sentence. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the subject be descripted with the opening description “conservative celebrity”? --Kbabej (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. The subject is described as a celebrity in a number of RS, including nine currently used in the lead (formatted through a cite bundle). I have included the corresponding quote from each of the sources along with the bolded wording calling the subject a celebrity for ease of review. The sources include: The Guardian, NBC News, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Slate, NPR, The National, The Conversation, and NBC News (again). I can add more if needed, but I think that's just overkill. In employing this short description, I used what RS are calling the subject over time, not just at the point of time of the shooting, trial, or acquittal. The AfD (which was closed today) overwhelmingly determined the subject is notable, which throws out BLP1E concerns – the subject is clearly notable for parlaying the shooting, trial, and acquittal into a celebrity status, which has continued since the acquittal. I think this is the most comprehensive description we have, and over the long discussions on the talk page, no reasonable other short description has been suggested that meet the definition of short descriptions. In put appreciated. --Kbabej (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC/Oppose This is a bad RfC because it fails to note this is the opening description of the lead sentence. Second, is a "yes" to mean somewhere in the article or in the opening sentence? Does "yes" mean in Wikivoice or with attribution? So beyond the bad RfC issues, I say not in wiki voice. The sources don't support this claim. While a few do, most sources won't say any thing about Rittenhouse as a "conservative celebrity". Remember, if we are going to apply such a label it needs to be very widely used. A few sources have used this label but even in the sources that say something along those lines more do not. I will do some source analysis below. Springee (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi @Springee. I want the RfC to be formatted correctly, as I am not familiar with opening them. I believe it is accurate, though I'm open to suggestions if needs to be reformatted. You said "it fails to note this is the opening description of the lead sentence". That's where the short description goes. Per WP:RFC, the question should be as concise as possible; I believe the intention is clear. WP would not say "The Guardian, NBC News, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Slate, NPR, The National, The Conversation, and NBC News all describe Rittenhouse as a conservative celebrity". That seems cumbersome at best. --Kbabej (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Kbabej, many editors will think you're referring to the WP:Short description, which displays in a few places (mostly in mobile view). I think what you're really asking is "Should the opening sentence describe Rittenhouse as a 'conservative celebrity'?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Fff, I think you are hitting on part of the issue. I think a second issue is should the lead put this claim/label before the information about his roll in the KUS. Springee (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think placement of the opening description would go beyond the scope of the RfC. That would require double voting. Ie: "Yes to description, no to first mention". --Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @Firefangledfeathers. Should I simply change the wording, or delete and repost? --Kbabej (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Given it's one word, "short" vs "opening", I updated. That way the links on different project's links still work. I do not think the second part of Springee's suggestion, where the description should be placed in the lead, falls within the scope of this RfC. --Kbabej (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. In addition to the cite bundle in the lede, for me what settled the matter is: it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck. When I search his name in conservative media from this year, I find celebrity coverage with no relation to his shootings or trial. For example:

• speculating where he will go to college (many articles, story evolved over time)
• an article titled "MTG and Kyle Rittenhouse attendees at 2000 Mules election documentary premier"
• articles about Rittenhouse releasing video game
• articles noting/discussing that Rittenhouse tweeted an opinion on Hunter Biden's laptop
• an article noting "Rittenhouse made an appearance at Turning Point USA's Young Woman's Leadership Summit"

We have references which say Rittenhouse is a celebrity. And sure enough -- it looks, walks, and quacks like a celebrity. Even though until recently Rittenhouse was known to me only as the right-wing extremist kid who shot a bunch of people in Kenosha, and that is what made him notable, I am persuaded he is a conservative celebrity. -- M.boli (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It is better not in the first sentence Placing Rittenhouse as a celebrity/personality/whatever in a 2nd paragraph, after describing what made him notable (shooting people), seems like an improvement.

As I write this, the lede has been rewritten in that order.

However I think the long paragraph describing his celebrity-hood is not appropriate for the lede. The single sentence is enough: Since the shooting and acquittal Rittenhouse has become a celebrity among American conservatives.[refbundle]" full stop. -- M.boli (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "celebrity among..." is a good summary for Wiki voice. For many Rittenhouse isn't a celebrity but his cause, ie what some see was a political driven over reach by a prosecutor (or similar), made his a cause celebre. We also need to be very careful about suggesting that "conservatives" in general think he is some sort of hero etc. When looking at the sources used to support the celebrity claim most do not support "celebrity among American conservatives". Just changing the order of the lead doesn't address that issue. Springee (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• No, and I removed this silliness. This is still a BLP and we should be adults about this. He may have celebrity status for some outlets or whatever, but "celebrity" is too vague and should certainly NOT be right there in the opening sentence. He's a teen known for traveling to some town where he killed two people, and that is what should take precedence here. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies, that's what this RfC is sorting out. It's the descriptor the community came to a weak consensus on before. Before unilaterally removing the point of the RfC, how about giving editors the chance to actually see what we're discussing? --Kbabej (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm also surprised you're considering The Guardian, NBC News, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Slate, NPR, The National, and The Conversation as "some outlets", given most all are green-level sources at RSP. Your "silliness" is used extensively across sources, including the highest-level sources we've got. --Kbabej (talk) Kbabej (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Kbabej, given your contribution to this RfC, I am not surprised to find more silliness here, and from M.boli as well. Where to start? "Giving editors the chance to see" is ridiculous: it's still in the history. In the meantime you are trivializing the very idea of the BLP, as well as what this man is known for. You could have chosen to say something like "he has become a celebrity", or a cause celebre, or whatever, but no, you and M.Boli had to boil down his essence to "celebrity". Second, yes, "some outlets", since there are hundreds if not thousands of publications about him, and most of those do not pin him down as a celebrity. Finally, M.Boli, your edit summary had a few nice big words, but it completely missed the point: it's not the references that are silly, it's the "conservative celebrity" and its placement in the opening sentence. I actually find it hard to believe we are having this utterly trivial discussion here. Who put that in there to begin with? Update: I have gone through a dozen journal articles, the best type of secondary source we can use, all of which discuss Rittenhouse and none of which describe him as a "celebrity". I did, however, find him being called "vigilante", for which there is plenty of support among opinion pieces--which is why we shouldn't call him that either. The problem of course is finding a noun to identify him as, when really nouns don't always do the job well. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC - this issue is a lot more complicated than the question this RfC poses. I think we need further discussion about what the sentence should say. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 01:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would prefer conservative personality or conservative media personality. A lot of the sources don't exactly call him a celebrity per se or matter-of-factly, they talk about things like his "celebrity status" or his "celebrity treatment" or his "fame" and similar. "X is a conservative celebrity" is additionally a bit of a strange thing to read on any article. Someone already suggested this elsewhere, I can't remember who, but credit to them I guess. I too would've preferred there was some additional discussion beforehand, as what the lead sentence should be is not just a binary question of "should he be called a 'conservative celebrity'?", so I agree this is a bit of a bad rfc. Endwise (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  We’ve had that discussion. Extensively, if you review the discussion above. I originally created the article describing the subject as a “media personality”, but it was rejected via consensus. —Kbabej (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I dislike both "celebrity" and "personality" as they are too fan-ish. His notability primarily derives from being an acquitted shooter. If we must have a media term, I suggest "figure". WWGB (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems like it may be a reasonable compromise. I also lean towards the perspective that any mention of his media cause celebre is ancillary to the chief notability attested to in the sources. But as middleground solutions go, "figure" at least has the benefit of being generalized enough to be supported by any source that discusses his post-acquital media role. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. As a matter of WP:WEIGHT, when I look at the body of sources in toto, I don't think "celebrity" accurately captures the description of any of the chief roles for which the subject is principally notable. It certainly appears as a descriptor in a non-trivial number of sources, but I still don't perceive that it is the most WP:DUE description for the lead sentence. As proposed by WWGB above, I'd be a little more comfortable with something like "figure", as it is general enough to be supportable by a significantly larger base of sources. So something along those lines could be a reasonably justifiable inclusion, even if I do question whether any mention of this post-trial media role is prominent enough for the lead at this time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose in opening sentence It's just really awkward phrasing for one thing, and not how we write a BLP, I could agree with "media personality" or something like that, but "celebrity" is too meaningless and vague. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: NPOV violation. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: The descriptor "Conservative Celebrity" doesn't improve the article and, I would argue, adds more vagueness and confusion, which is contrary to the intent of WP. Even if writers associated with reliable sources have referred to him this way, does NOT automatically justify the usage of the exact phrase in a WP article, especially a BLP lede. WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLPKerdooskis (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• No, because the next paragraph is all about the issue being a Cause célèbre, so it would be repetitive.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose He's not notable for being a "conservative celebrity". The description could go in the Commercialization and use of his image section (maybe), but definitely not in the lead. Some1 (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "conservative celebrity" is a poor descriptor and is not widely used in RSs.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• No: The following paragraph does well at better describing his status. On a side note, why was this RfC closed for a supposed YES consensus on 2 August? There were far more No/Oppose votes at the time. StalkerFishy (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  @StalkerFishy, where are you seeing it was "closed for a supposed YES consensus"? The August 2 close I initiated was because consensus was clear the subject should not be described as a "conservative celebrity". Although it seemed uncontroversial and consensus was pretty clear, another editor re-opened the discussion. --Kbabej (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  Whoops! My third grade reading comprehension level is showing. My apologies! StalkerFishy (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion - "conservative celebrity"

• Reposting (with edits) what I said before: How many sources don't describe Rittenhosue as any kind of conservative celebrity? If we are going to use that in the opening sentence it needs to be rock solid. I did a web news search for "Kyle Rittenhouse", none of the first 10 hits called him any sort of a celebrity. That a keyword search or selective search can find support doesn't mean this is a widely used LABEL. The WP quotes a conservative who disagrees with the lionization of Rittenhouse [1]. Looking at some of the sources cited for the claim in the article a few do directly support the claim but most do not. As such the claim doesn't have WEIGHT to be used even in Wikivoice much less as the most notable aspect in his BLP. Now look at the list in the lead and what they actually say. The first two sources, The Globe and NBC News appear to say he is a celebrity (thus they actually support the LABEL). Next is the Boston Globe which only makes the claim in the article lead. It's well established that source leads shouldn't be used to support claims. The body of the article doesn't say celebrity thus doesn't support. Next is a WP opinion article (perspective) which says he has been celebrated and treated as a cause celebre. It doesn't say he is a celebrity and as an op-ed article we shouldn't care either way. Next we have Slate offering the perspective of an "expert on the far-right". That expert says, "He’s a celebrity for many of these right-wing militia groups". So that isn't saying he is a celebrity to conservatives (thus doesn't support). NPR says he is part of a celebrity cause for the far right (are we claiming "far right"=conservative?) The Nation quotes Rittenhouse's attorney in context. He certainly isn't claiming he is a celebrity among conservatives. The Conversation says, "Rittenhouse and his celebrity among right-wing extremists". Are we going to claim right wing extremist is "conservatives"? Finally we have NBC News talking about his TPUSA appearance with the comment, "overnight celebrity status". That doesn't say he is a lasting celebrity. The sum of all this is sufficient to claim he has been celebrated or became a cause celebre in some circles but it's nowhere near sufficient to claim, in the opening sentence of a BLP and in wkivoice, that he is a "conservative celebrity". Springee (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• No, NPOV violation. And even if he is a celebrity to some small faction of conservatives, I think it would be extreme hyperbole to specifically call him a conservative celebrity.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Post-closure discussion

Thank you to those who participated! The RfC process stated the editor who opens the discussion can close it if a consensus has been reached quickly (WP:RFCEND). In this case, it definitively has, so I've closed the RfC. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Kbebej, to me this looks like a consensus not only to not have "conservative celebrity"/celebrity among conservatives in the opening sentence but to not call Rittenhouse a conservative celebrity (or similar) in Wiki voice full stop. If you disagree with that I suggest the RfC should be reopened and allow a 3rd party closer to assess consensus. Springee (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted Kbabej's closure and re-opened the RfC. Particularly because there is disagreement about what this RfC actually means, I think it should be closed by a neutral third party. Endwise (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2022 (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.

Closing Note

I see that there were concerns about the RfC format or something earlier on, but it's been 21 days and the RfC is still open with no changes, so taking the RfC at face value and closing with consensus that was generated. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Condemnations by various Liberals ??

Why is there no coverage of the many deeply accusatory personal attacks dumped on Rittenhouse by people on the political left? These attacks were all over the web, and ginned up by some on TV also. The 2nd paragraph talks about only part of the political spectrum's reaction. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any links to sources for anything? Anything added needs to be sourced. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Language Bias

Opening sentence. "[acquitted] after he shot three men, two fatally, in what he testified was self-defense during the civil unrest in Kenosha" Language bias - "what he testified" makes it seem like his sole opinion. Should be to changed to "what was deemed self-defense" as a court of law deemed it so. Alternatively remove the phrase completely: "[acquitted] after he shot three men, two fatally, during the civil unrest in Kenosha" 95.145.254.245 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

As has been explained on this talk page before, a "court of law" did not deem that he acted in self-defense. It found him not guilty. This is not a distinction without a difference, as Rittenhouse never had to prove that he acted in self defense. Once Rittenhouse provides a factual basis to raise self-defense as an issue in the case, the state has to disprove that he could have acted in self-defense, beyond a reasonable doubt. The state has the burden of proof here; Rittenhouse just has what is called the "burden of production", which was met for example by his testimony. So the jury didn't find that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. They found that the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse didn't act in self-defense. Endwise (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

More generally, the jury found that Rittenhouse wasn't guilty. They didn't have to "show their work" on the reasoning, so while we can guess that self defense was a factor we don't know. VQuakr (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, sure, technically, but I don't think it was really in dispute in the trial that he e.g. intentionally shot and killed Anthony Huber; the whole thing was on video. It's pretty clear that the self-defense thing was what the jury was weighing up. I suppose this is not entirely relevant though, as "acquittal... in what he testified was self-defense" is either way the accurate way to write it. Endwise (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

In Wisconsin, A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of first-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that the defendant reasonably believed that the defendant was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with the defendant's person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

So actually, in order to get a not guilty verdict on self-defence, he actually did have to prove self-defence. By default, the court found he acted in self-defence with the not guilty verdict. No other finding could have been made given that the fact he shot and killed two people was never contested.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/49

Interestingly enough, I learned this on the article about the shooting itself right here on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Criticism_of_the_police 2001:44B8:214D:2700:7CD4:3C82:E409:29BC (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Endwise is exactly right. Juries don't determine if someone defended themselves or not, they determine if someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The only way I would support definitively saying he acted in self-defense if there is RS saying so. It would not be based purely on the court verdict. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers all the RS say he didn't do it in self-defence anyway Stephanie921 (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you back that claim? Springee (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Such as...? I don't think that is true. For a random example, here's The Associated Press's article from the day the jury delivered their verdict. They seem to word things the same way we do for the most part. Endwise (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

in self-defense

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.

---

Question: Does the acquittal validate that the shootings were in self-defense? I say yes, it does, given that trials are adversarial and at trial, the defense asserted was "self-defense", and the defense prevailed with an acquittal. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The jury and judge never mentioned self defense in reporting the verdict against Rittenhouse. The above argument is based on WP:SYNTHESIS. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand; I am only explaining my thinking in the above question; I've not yet suggested you agree with me. I would not do that, unless I found a reliable source which says that what I'm thinking is the way it is. But I've found at least one,"Jurors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s polarizing murder trial agreed with the defense that the teenager acted in self-defense when he shot three people during protests in Wisconsin last year..." https://time.com/6120607/kyle-rittenhouse-self-defense/ Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That excerpt is inaccurate, sadly. Once Rittenhouse provides a factual basis to raise self-defence as an issue in the case, the state has to disprove that he could have acted in self-defence, so all the jury would've agreed is that the state didn't prove that he didn't act in self defence. Here are some more in depth discussions of the law at play in better sources: Washington Post, New York Times. Endwise (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you are second guessing a reliable source. Whereas I'm citing to a reliable source and have quoted it verbatim. Here's another one: "It really was self-defense. Rittenhouse wasn’t the aggressor in the chain of events that led to the shootings." https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2021/11/19/22792101/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-self-defense-correct-verdict Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an opinion column. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf, I agree with Endwise, and I urge you to self-revert. If your points convince other editors, we can restore your changes without needing to edit war. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

We can probably find some sources that say Rittenhouse was acting in self defense. For what it's worth (which is 0 with respect to what goes into the article), I think all 3 were self defense as I understand the law so I can understand wanting to state self defense in Wikivoice. However, there are some issues there. Certainly many people felt this wasn't self defense for what ever reason and I suspect some people who worked on this article felt that way. So we can't act like all the sources say "self defense". It also has certainly BLP implications since it suggests that the people who were shot were attacking which again is a disputed claim. Since it implies they were doing something illegal we have to have very strong sourcing to support such a claim (see the wp:BLP rules which largely tell us to err on the side of not doing harm to living or recently deceased people. So for these and other reasons we go with the compromise approach. We state what the legal case concluded, "not found guilty" vs "found innocent" and the defense strategy was that of self defense vs say "it wasn't me." Springee (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No, we state accurate facts as presented by reliable sources. And the person who wrote the 2nd article seems well enough informed, such that given that all post hoc commentary/reports, etc. about the sufficiency of a verdict is by definition "opinion", that 2nd article, combined with the first I posted, make clear what some here refuse to accept: a) The only defense raised was self-defense; b) the jury is the fact finder and their verdict legally establishes which facts are true for the purposes of this case, c) the state did not prevail, d) Rittenhouse's defense of "self-defense" is what prevailed, e) as per the Time article, "the jury agreed with the defense that the teenager acted in self-defense". This is not hard to understand and it's only because so many find the verdict distasteful, that they want to water down the legal significance of the verdict; which is that it surely does ratify the claim of self-defense: The verdict is the Jury's statement that "self-defense" = yes, is more true than "self-defense"=no. Please step back and separate your feelings from the legal effect of the verdict. The verdict legally established the truth of the facts and the truth of the defense. And as the headline of this college newspaper makes clear (https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2021/12/02/53048/), that's indisputable. But don't be like the college kids who published this article, and chafe at the truth as established by the verdict. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There was no judicial finding of self defense. The words "the court finds you acted in self defense" never passed the judge's lips. OK, we have a couple of journalists who reported that it WAS self defense, but WP:NEWSBLOG makes clear that such statements must be attributed to them, and not presented as fact. So, the body of the article might contain something like "Billie Bloggs of The Poobar Post said that jurors agreed with the defense that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense" but that is way too wordy for the first sentence. The lead already makes clear that Rittenhouse claimed self defense and was acquitted. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Your contention that "the was no judicial finding of self defense" completely misframes what an American jury trial actually is and what this trial actually was. When a defendant is charged, the prosecution alleges a grab-bag of contentions which collectively, is "X". For the defendant to be found guilty, the fact finder must agree that the truth of the facts "X" presented by the prosecution is superior in validity to the facts presented by the defense. We'll call the defense's facts, "Y". In a "bench trial" the judge is the fact finder - he alone determines the truth of the facts. In a jury trial, the jury decides. Now, absent a successful defense motion to take the case out of the jury's hands (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-judge-acquit-defendant-jury-trial.html), in a jury trial, the jury decides which side proved its case to be true. In Rittenhouse's case, the affirmative defense of "self-defense" was offered as the defense's case. And by state law controlling this trial, that places a particular burden on the prosecution. Without getting into the weeds as to the threshold requirements of proof for either side, it's accurate enough to say that in a court, when a "fact" is offered, it's information offered in good faith and it's accepted by the court as "true" unless successfully rebutted. Rittenhouse's theory of the case was that his actions were justified by being self-defense. He never denied shooting or killing; rather, it was his contention that he believed, at each point he fired, his life was in danger and because of that, his shooting actions are justified self-defense. Rittenhouse's testimony left no doubt that his defense was asserted to be "self-defense". And with that being so, for this defense to fail, and Rittenhouse be found guilty, the total of the "Y" facts has to be proved by the prosecution to be less true than the "X" which the prosecution offers. But who decides which (X or Y) is more true? And how do they announce that decision? In this case, the jury does that by means of the verdict. The sole issue in front of them was 'did X disprove the presumption of truth inherent in Y?'. Suffice it to say, because of the very nature of the self-defense claim in this case, it's indeed presumed by the court to be true when properly offered. And because of that, unless Y is sufficiently proved to not be true by the prosecution via its presentation of X, then the self-defense position which imbues all of Y, not only starts as true when offered, but it also remains true at the end of the case. The jury, by its verdict of acquittal, ratified the legal presumption of innocence afforded to Rittenhouse. But in this case, Rittenhouse can only be innocent if "self-defense=true". Why? Because he admitted pulling the trigger. Thus, only if he was legally justified in doing so (pulling the trigger), could he be innocent. Now, that means the prosecution had to sufficiently prove that Rittenhouse was not justified. However, the jury's verdict concludes the issue as a matter of law; but contrary to your comment, jury verdicts are not a "judicial finding". Rather, they are verdicts. Read a legal judgment sometime, you'll see that the facts found support the judgment, but they are not the judgment. The verdict in this case is the final word under the law and the verdict preserved the presumption of innocence; it acquitted him of the charges and because he was acquitted, it cannot be said that he is, under the law, anything other than innocent of the charges. But as the facts of the case make clear, his is only innocent because the facts, for which the jury itself was the fact-finder, support the conclusion that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Unless you are suggesting the jury's verdict should be ignored, the verdict ratifies the defense of self-defense in that "self-defense" was not disproved sufficiently to be proven false, and thus it remains true under the law. The self-defense case prevailed, and is therefore as a matter of law, true. Thus, if we base on reasoning on the facts and outcome of the trial, the only true position is to accept, as the above author said "Jurors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s polarizing murder trial agreed with the defense that the teenager acted in self-defense when he shot three people during protests in Wisconsin last year...". The verdict itself is proof positive that the jury agreed. That agreement ratified as true the position favored by Y, which was/is "self-defense". The truth, as ratified by the jury, must control what we say about this case. I've cited reliable sources which demonstrated this to be true. The correct edit is to re-insert "self-defense" from where you removed it when you reverted me. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You cited one reliable source to support your change. It's not enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correctly speaking, as a matter of law, the jury verdict itself is sufficient to make clear that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. But from a collaborative editing standpoint, how many reliable sources do you want before you accept the truth of what I am posting here? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tondelleo Schwarzkopf, I'm not sure where you're getting the subject acting in self defense was determined "as a matter of law". As has been explained above, that viewpoint is SYNTH. The jury - and judge - never even mention self defense in the verdict. The wording in the lead is appropriate as it stands: "a jury found Rittenhouse not guilty of murder and other charges after he testified he acted in self-defense" (emphasis mine). Rittenhouse testified it was self defense, but the jury and judge don't make a determination on that. --Kbabej (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's actually a softening of the wording from what it used to be too. It used to read he shot three men, two fatally, in what he testified was self-defense. The "after he testified" implies a closer link between his testimony and the verdict than previous wording, IMO. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point, @FrederalBacon. I like the previous wording better, but it's not a hill I'm going to die on at the moment. --Kbabej (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Kbabej - you are only saying "SYNTH" because you either refuse to accept or do not understand the legal significance of the presumption of innocence, the defense of self-defense, and legal effect of the verdict. At the start of this case, the starting presumption as a matter of law, is that "self-defense" was legally true. Rittenhouse was acquitted and thus, "self-defense" remains true. This is no different than saying the sun rises in the east. There is no "SYNTH" involved. And you are simply wrong, the jury did make a determination; the verdict of acquittal makes it 100% clear that the jury accepted the defense of self-defense "Y" to be more true than the allegations against it, that being "X". What I am saying is that the number 3 is the 3rd number in the series of 1,2,3; where is you are saying I am doing a "SYNTH" of 1+2 = 3, but I am not. Each of the legal facts I am stating are indeed true legal facts which stand alone and are not dependent on the other ones. But to understand the issue, you need to step back enough to accept that there are several facts of law at issue here: Presumption, overcoming that presumption, and a verdict which makes clear that the presumption was not overcome. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"how many reliable sources". I don't know! Maybe five or so? My response wouldn't be to "accept the truth", but I would feel more compelled to present a list of sources that take a more moderate approach to describing the situation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers - Yes or no, do you accept as true that the burden of proof to disprove self-defense was on the prosecution? And if yes, are you also able to admit as true, that the presumption at the start of this trial was therefore that the defense of self-defense was true? If you can't understand the legal significance of the presumption undergirding the affirmative defense of self-defense, then you will not be able to understand the legal issues here. People are easily confused by this. Read this: https://www.weau.com/2021/11/19/rittenhouse-verdict-draws-national-attention-wi-self-defense-law/ It is criminal law 101 that if you have to give someone the benefit of the doubt, it's because they have a presumption of innocence. And in this situation, the only presumption of innocence was that the shootings were presumed to be justified, because the defense offered was self-defense, and the shootings were admitted to. The only guilt/innocence issue in dispute (about the shootings) during the trial was if the presumption of justification of self-defense was to be sustained as true or overcome as false. The jury acquitted Rittenhouse. That verdict leaves the presumption undisturbed. Thus, the correct true fact is that Rittenhouse, as a matter of truth and conclusion of law, shot those three people in self-defense. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, I plan to engage with arguments that are based in reliable source coverage. Feel free to ping me when such an argument is presented. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

We aren't going to insert this based on your synth, but no your logic is incorrect. The jury could have acquitted for any number of reasons; see for example Judicial activism. We're not going to assume as fact what their reasoning was. You provided a single source that was incorrect; we provided several others that showed more nuance. VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

VQuakr You are confusing the reason for the verdict with the legal effect of the verdict. All acquittals in 100% of all USA criminal trials leave the presumption of innocence undisturbed. But more than that, in this self-defense case, that presumption was conditioned upon self-defense also being presumed to be true. That's why the burden of proof was on the prosecution to disprove self-defense. Are you not able to read the links I posted and understand that they are indeed reliable and do indeed verify what I am saying? Would you like me to cite some basic law texts which explain these truisms? Did you read the WAPO link above? Did you read the WEAU link I just posted in my above comment? Are you saying those are not reliable? Are you saying the TIME link I cited above is not reliable? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That is simply not how most WP:RSes describe it. Even the ones you linked seem WP:SYNTHy - they do not simply state, as fact, that he acted in self-defense. You need non-opinion sources making that statement unambiguously in their article voice, not sources you can use to personally make that argument yourself; and right now I'm not seeing it. To be clear, even "the jurors decided", which I don't think you have enough sources for even there, would be insufficient. If you want to say "he acted in self-defense" as fact in the article voice, unattributed, you would need non-opinion RSes that unambiguously state "he acted in self-defense" without attributing it, themselves. That's simply not what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tondelleo Schwarzkopf: you haven't presented any sources that would support your edit, (which states his actions as self defense in Wiki-voice and in the lead sentence). VQuakr (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there any remaining dispute under law or in the news that it was self-defense?

I propose this change (in bold) be made to the first sentence in the article: "is an American known for shooting three men in self-defense, two fatally..." My contention is that "self-defense" being the legal theory which prevailed at trial, is an established fact. It's equally well established of a fact as the fact that Kyle is an American, which itself is not cited to any reliable source. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this what the above discussion is about? The one you created yesterday? FrederalBacon (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's an established fact that it was self-defense - even the NYT concedes that this is what the jury concluded "After about 26 hours of deliberation, a jury appeared to accept Mr. Rittenhouse’s explanation that he had acted reasonably to defend himself" https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/19/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"appeared to". Your proposed edit launders out qualifiers, while in general we move the opposite direction when summarizing sources in an article. VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue that point with you, I think everyone else here is doing a good job explaining this, I'm just saying that you already had a discussion going regarding this, seemed odd to make a whole new one. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Merged duplicate sections. See WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

CNN "The jury bought the narrative of Kyle Rittenhouse being a victim, they thought that his self-defense claim was a lot stronger than the prosecution's provocation claim"

(civil rights attorney Charles F. Coleman Jr) https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/us/legal-experts-what-helped-rittenhouse-acquittal/index.html Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"They were not deciding here who do they believe more. They were deciding a very specific legal question: Do they think the prosecutors proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense?" ABC chief legal analyst Dan Abrams (which is exactly what I've been saying) https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-explained-believe-214354054.html Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That still doesn't support your proposed edit. We discuss the self-defense argument in the lead and in the body, with proper attribution and nuance. Your proposal to do away with that nuance and inject this POV into the lead sentence is an obvious non-starter. We're approaching WP:STICK territory here. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Time.com citation (https://time.com/6120607/kyle-rittenhouse-self-defense/) is a reliable source which supports the edit. No one here has offered any RS which contradicts the Time.com citation which says "Jurors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s polarizing murder trial agreed with the defense that the teenager acted in self-defense when he shot three people during protests in Wisconsin last year..." Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself. That citation doesn't support the proposed edit. VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's reliable and it states a fact. are you claiming the fact it states is false? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"the jury agreed with the defense" does not support our presenting the defense as unqualified fact in the lead sentence. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"does not support our presenting the defense as unqualified fact " Now we are finally getting somewhere! What supports presenting self-defense as an unqualified fact is that it was only qualified when the facts were in dispute during the trial. After the trial, the facts are no longer legally in dispute and thus, we should no longer qualify them. And since this is an article about Kyle and the opening sentence declares what he's known for, we owe it to him under WP:BLP to be as precise as possible. So once again, let me remind you of the salient points, all of which are substantiated by reliable sources:

The only defense offered against the shooting, was "self-defense"

This was offered as a "justification" (a legal term of art, with specific meaning)

Under the controlling state law, when the Justification of self-defense is properly presented, the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt

The jury's verdict of not guilty vitiates the prosecution's case

The verdict leaves intact the presumption of innocence

The verdict leaves intact the threshold starting point of the self-defense defense; namely that it must be disproved, else it's valid on its face

Self-defense is the unqualified starting point of the legal dispute

The starting point also is the ending point; because the jury did not disturb it

I've cited to a reliable source which states this to be true, the jury agreed with the unqualified starting point of self-defense and left it intact. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And now we're back on WP:SYNTH. You're playing a two-note song but neither tone is convincing anyone. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

VQuakr I am not synthesizing anything. I am listing the irrefutable facts in order, so you can arrive at the correct assessment of the import of the verdict. If you understood the import of the verdict in the same manner I do, we would already be in agreement. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Listing facts to arrive at a conclusion is actually a pretty good definition of WP:SYNTH. If your underlying assumption is that anyone who disagrees with you must not understand the topic, then any further discussion is moot and this thread can be closed as "no consensus to add". VQuakr (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

VQuakr I am not telling you that the facts should make you come to a conclusion. Rather, I am telling you that once you understand those facts, you will understand the legal ramifications of the verdict. In other words, if and only if, you agree those facts are true, can you then ask yourself correctly what I have been saying: Does a jury verdict of not guilty vitiate a defendant's presumption? And of course, the answer to that is no, an acquittal does not vitiate a presumption afforded to the defendant. An analog would be me telling you "look, in that tree, that tall tree, do you see that black bird, what do you think it is?" I am only trying to get you to tell me what you think the bird is, so we can discuss it. But you have to see it first. I'm not trying to tell you it's a crow, or a buzzard or a raven or hawk. I'm just trying to make sure you see it. Do you see that a not guilty jury verdict does not disturb the presumptions which were afforded to the defendant? And if you do agree that's true, what do you think the legal effect of that is? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not ping me again on posts that contain WP:SYNTH issues. Pointing them out to you obviously isn't working. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

VQuakr - You have characterized contributions to this discussion as having WP:SYNTH issues. I disagree and have patiently given you an analog to consider. You have not bothered to reply to my analog, so I conclude you do not want to chat with me further. But I need guidance from you so as to comply with your wishes: Are you saying that you may post in reply to my comments here, but you do not want me to re-reply to you with any reply which contains a live link to you? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

the jury agreed with the unqualified starting point of self-defense and left it intact The unqualified starting point for all criminal trials is the presumption of innocence. The prosecution has to prove the case, not the defendant. And since Kyle, per the links above, did not have to prove self defense, the state had to prove it wasn't self defense, the only thing established by the verdict is that the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. It does not mean it was self defense, it means the prosecutor couldn't prove it wasn't. Those are very different things. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

FrederalBacon Um, not correct. the KR defense team was required to properly offer the defense of self-defense; this is a requirement of that state court's procedures. But once that done, the self-defense claim is afforded the presumption of truth, which is why it then has to them be rebutted. I've explained all of this above.

the self-defense defense, once properly presented is presumed by the court to be true; it's the baseline which must be rebutted

if it's not rebutted, it prevails

the verdict itself leaves this presumption intact

It's a fact that the presumption that this was self-defense still stands, and it's therefore the baseline truth on this issue

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say that in a reliable source? That the "presumption of truth" is intact after the verdict? FrederalBacon (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have to say that because even the WAPO article admits that the self-defense defense had to be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. And if you know court procedure, for the burden to be on one party, the presumption must be in the favor of the other party. That's axiomatic court procedure. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If you don't have a reliable source regarding a "presumption of truth", where is that phrase even coming from? What basis does this argument have? Because there are two articles linked above that directly contradict what you are saying. Relevant quote: Contrary to what many people may have thought, Rittenhouse didn’t have to prove that he was acting in justifiable self-defense. Rather, the state had to disprove at least one legal element of his self-defense claim, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt. As a matter of fact, it specifically mentions the requirements of the Rittenhouse defense were a pretty low bar to reach: The Wisconsin Supreme Court has made clear that the burden of production is a fairly low (if meaningful) bar in a case like Rittenhouse’s.. So I don't get where your argument is coming from that the guilty verdict shows the self defense aspect was proven, it clearly states that he had to prove no such thing to secure a not guilty verdict. If he didn't have to prove it to be found not guilty, we can't say the not guilty verdict proved the self defense. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon: what it boils down to is that he's confusing presumption of innocence under the law with presumption of fact from an encyclopedic perspective. VQuakr (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I also think it's a vast assumption to assume the acquittal was due to the self defense claim. While likely, there are a lot of other reasons the jury could have acquitted. Only 12 people know why exactly. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The baseline of self-defense being true is not established by the verdict; it exists before that, as a presumption in the defense's favor. The verdict ratified it, but did not create it. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing those two things. An unrebutted fact submitted to a court is presumed to be true. This is the very definition of how a "fact" is handled in a courtroom. The verdict shows that the prosecution did not successfully rebut the defense of self-defense. Thus, the facts offered for self-defense are true and are unrebutted. And with the facts in favor of self-defense being true and unrebutted, the only rational way to view the defense is that it's true, it was self-defense. This is why so many pundits are all over the very notion of how self-defense laws are crafted - they do not like the logical or legal outcome of this case. And they do not like the sound reasoning which compels the observation that this was indeed self-defense. PS: Many years ago, I was in court for a speeding ticket. I was on second call, so I had to wait about an hour. Before my case, every single person contesting their ticket went through the same process: The allegations were read and the judge asked the defendant "Do you deny the truth of these facts?" Now why was that the correct form? Because unless the facts are denied and successfully rebutted, the presumption is that they are true. The facts in this case did not yield a conviction. And only a conviction is a repudiation of the presumptions afforded to the defense. And unless the presumptions are vitiated, they stand; that's how legal presumptions work. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

FB - In the KR trial, by rule of state law a court procedure, a proffered defense of "self-defense" puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. In other words, once the minimal standard of a properly submitted proffer of self-defense is met, the defense does not have to do anything else. They could actually stand pat and let the chips fall where they may. But in this case. KR's team offered both direct and rebuttal evidence which supported the defense. But that defense, at it's starting point, has a built-in presumption in KR's favor. That presumption is that it's true. If that were not the presumption, the prosecution would not have to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt; the prosecution would not have to disprove a presumption of falsehood. A presumption of innocence is the first baseline, but the properly submitted proffer of self-defense introduces another presumption, namely that the self-defense is true. Were that not the case, then the admission that he pulled the trigger would yield an automatic conviction. Thus, what I am pointing out is that at the end of the trial, the presumption of innocence does not evaporate - it's always there, we always carry that; it's our right under USA law. Likewise, the presumed truth under-girding the self-defense proffer also continues to stand. It stands because the jury found in KR's favor, which means they did not agree that self-defense was disproved. And if it's not disproved, it continues to stand as true. And honestly, it does not even matter if the jury intended this outcome or not, because this outcome is an inevitable result of an acquittal. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I ask again: Where is this argument coming from? I'm linking mine to reliable sources and quoting those sources, I don't know where any of your interpretation of this is coming from. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are saying that's not how courts work, then it's on you to find a citation which states that a presumption of innocence/truth is mooted by the not guilty verdict. I say it's not mooted, for the simple reason that we always carry such presumption with us; it's our right under the USA rule of law and the adversarial system. Our civil rights are never mooted. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it is you who is saying that is the way the courts work, the onus is not on me, I have linked and quoted two sources directly contradicting your statement. It is now up to you you back up your argument, which you have not done. You also continue to reply long text walls to every single response, and continue to make the same points, but back none of them up with any reliable sources. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You have not posted anything which contradicts that we carry the presumption by right, exactly as I have stated. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, your refusal to hear the point makes this a moot exercise. Multiple editors have explained this to you. I don't think continuing to explain this to you is going to accomplish anything. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, @FrederalBacon. It is just Tondelleo bludgeoning at this point. --Kbabej (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have not refused anything. You claimed that your two citations rebutted what I am saying about presumptions, but they can't because we carry the right of presumptions in our favor for all criminal matters in the USA by civil right. And if you cannot concede this to be true, that by civil right, for all domestic criminal matters, Americans are innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then your answers lack the foundation to discuss this to all its ramifications Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tondelleo Schwarzkopf: ...we carry the right of presumptions in our favor for all criminal matters... no, "we" don't. This is an encyclopedia not a courtroom; presumption of innocence per WP:BLPCRIME doesn't extend to presumption of the rationale for that innocence. VQuakr (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@VQuakr - The wiki link you cited WP:BLPCRIME specifically says "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law". This is exactly what I have been saying, the presumption does not extinguish with a not guilty verdict, only a guilty verdict. Likewise the presumption of truth which attaches in a correctly proffered self-defense defense also does not extinguish unless the person is found guilty. You are agreeing that my contentions are correct. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Likewise the presumption of truth... nope, this is where you go off the rails. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

V - If you only reference a snippet, you will miss the point. The defense of self-defense, when correctly proffered, gets a presumption attached to it by virtue of which party has the burden. In this kind of case, the presumption which attached during the court proceeding is that the self-defense claim is true. That's how an affirmative defense of self-defense works. Read this article: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/u-s-self-defense-law-harsh-by-international-standards which is by legal experts. Once Rittehouse's team put on a case stating his facts for the required elements (read the article), unless the prosecution overcomes those facts beyond reasonable doubt, an acquittal is warranted. In other words, Rittenhouse's team's facts are presumed to be true unless successfully rebutted. And so too, is the defense theory of self-defense based on those facts, unless it's successfully rebutted. It cannot be explained any clearer than I've done. Read this article and understand what I am telling you. The proffered theory and facts by Rittenhouse are established as true when presented; that's a presumption afforded by right. Absent a verdict of guilty, that presumption is never extinguished. There was no guilty verdict; thus the only actual facts and case which continues to be true, are those which the prevailing party presented, that being Rittenhouse Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Snippets are the appropriate response to meandering walls of text. No, you're still applying a standard of Truth applicable to a courtroom not an encyclopedia. Since you choose to continue to patronizingly tell me what I do and don't think and understand, we are done here. I suggest you move on to another topic. VQuakr (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

V - I do not agree with your characterization, but I respect your prerogative to quit the conversation. Best wishes. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tondelleo Schwarzkopf, the onus is on you to propose a change and convince other editors to come to a consensus the change should be implemented. You've posited your change, but the consensus is the change should not be implemented in the lead. That is quite clear. We're starting to veer into you just not getting the point on this topic. --Kbabej (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I second this. I've been watching this thread, and I remain unconvinced to add it in wiki voice as fact from the sources provided. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

FrederalBacon Please dialog with me towards the aim of achieving this "wiki voice as fact" which you refer to. Perhaps a section on this page about that concern, would be helpful? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Kbabej -Please do not make this ad hominem, please stay focused on the contentions being discussed. I am currently seeking in good faith to help some editors here see the mistakes of reasoning which they are making, so we can get past them to reach agreement. And, off the multiple rebuttals posted, all of them have been susceptible to my counter-rebuttals. You do not have to participate, but if you do, please focus on the issue at hand, not your fellow editors. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf, there was no "ad hominem" there. The user suggested you are simply not listening, and I think that's true. You may call that a personal attack, but that's not the same thing, and it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a personal attack. "Please stay focused" is more than a bit patronizing--I think editors here have done a pretty good job staying focused, and I think all editors have explained themselves very well--and Springee's explanation, above, of the intricacies, has merit. And I'm really not invested in the semantics of all this, but I do want to say one thing: earlier you said "the jury verdict itself is sufficient to make clear that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense", but that is a logical non sequitur. The jury can find whatever it wants, but that doesn't determine the reality behind it, since the jury is not some infallible deity. But that's beside the point. If you wish to pursue this line, please do so in a courteous and respectful way, or else I or another admin will be happy to simply close it. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Drmies thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. At the same time, no one here, at least not me, is suggesting that a jury is an infallible deity. And I am not suggesting that they made the correct verdict (or wrong verdict). Rather, what I am stating, very clearly, is that the legal effect of the verdict is different from what some here think it is. The legal effect of the verdict is twofold: It cancels any state law criminal exposure for KR arising from this incident; and it leaves the original presumptions in favor of the defense intact. And if you do not think that's what the jury verdict does, tell me why what I am saying in this reply to you, is wrong. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2022 (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.

Do we really care if he was driving without a license when he was under age?

Kbabej, I think this content is UNDUE [2]. Per ONUS it is up to you to make the case and get consensus for inclusion when it is challenged. Please self revert and make the case for inclusion before restoring the material. Springee (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Legal issues like that are routinely covered for such high profile individuals. You might not care, but RS do and others might. —Kbabej (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Springee. One is before the event he is notable for, and is a simple traffic stop. Doesn't even say if he got a ticket or anything. Second one, he was the passenger where the driver got a ticket. What does that have to do with him? FrederalBacon (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I’ve never heard of a policy of not including info from before someone gained notoriety. Would we not have info on JLo’s early life? That makes no sense in a BLP. —Kbabej (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how him being a passenger in a car that was stopped is relevant to him as a "Driving Issue"? Seems to me being a passenger in a car has absolutely nothing to do with driving said car. As for the first one, no, I wouldn't expect a traffic stop and citation to be cited in JLo's BLP, before or during her career, unless it had some bigger implication in her life. To me, getting a citation during a traffic stop is too routine to warrant inclusion unless there is further to the story. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, unrelated to the shootings. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

That doesn’t matter. This is a BLP, not a rehash of the shootings. That’s why there are so many sections. —Kbabej (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Support inclusion of driving w/o license, as multiple RS covered it. Individual was also aspiring to become a law enforcement provider at the time making it even more relevant. Cedar777 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Passenger in a vehicle doesn't warrant coverage. Neither does a speeding ticket. I'm meh about mentioning driving without a valid license. That's a more unusual. VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Awkward sentence "He is a white American"

In the early life and family section there is a rather abrupt sentence stating, "He is a white American" [3]. Is there a better way to state this or integrate it into the article? His ethnicity, along with the people he shot were topics of discussion in context of the Kenosha shootings. It that context it makes sense to mention ethnicity. However, as part of his background this sentence does stand out like the preverbal sore thumb. It simply looks like an obvious factoid given the picture. It also doesn't appear to serve any purpose in the article absent the context of why his ethnicity was mentioned in news reports. I think the sentence should be removed if the information can't be integrated in context. I would support inclusion if it is part of the context around BML related protests/riots and news media discussing the racial angle etc. Springee (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for integrating it. I do not think it should be removed altogether, as (like you said), it is a topic of discussion for both the subject and the people he shot/killed. I'd support you being bold and integrating, though I think it should stay in the 'Early life' section (where it generally appears for all BLPs on WP). --Kbabej (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Springee, how about something like "Kyle Howard Rittenhouse, a white American, was born on January 3, 2003 in Antioch, Illinois, to Michael and Wendy Rittenhouse."? --Kbabej (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I would rather put ethnicity into the part about the shooting since that is really the only place where it is relevant to the article. His ethnicity doesn't come into play in that section so I'm not sure why it would be mentioned there. Also, while not a stubby, stand alone sentence, it does seem odd to say "a white American" almost anywhere in the article. How many other articles to we identify an individual (vs a demographic group) as "white American"? Springee (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure who added "American" to it. He's already identified as an American, so it seems redundant to me. I initially added the info that he is white (without "American" attached). Ethnicity is most always covered in the 'Early life' sections of BLPs, at least from what I've seen and the GAs on BLPs I've written. I think that's where most all readers would expect the info to appear. --Kbabej (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you know of any other articles that might provide a good example to follow? None are coming to my mind. Springee (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Two of the BLPs I've brought to GA status are Gigi Goode and Hilaria Baldwin, both of which incorporate ancestry into the 'Early life' sections. --Kbabej (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I do have questions whether or not "white American" is the same ethnic background description as "Baldwin is of English, French-Canadian, German, Irish, and Slovak descent." "white American" seems to be deficient in providing an actual ancestry. However, looking through sources, I don't see anything that gives a breakdown of his ancestry as such, and I'm not sure one exists. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon I couldn't find a breakdown anywhere. I think "American" should be dropped, but I don't think removing "white" will improve the article, especially since it's of particular interest in discussions surrounding the shooting/aftermath. --Kbabej (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "man" can be removed from the lead sentence, so he's just referred to as "an American known for...". I think we could use a better source for the later "white" sentence, as much of it comes across as very opinionated by the columnist who wrote it. This one may be better, and it also covers race involvement, if another source is needed for that. If his race can stay in the 'early life' section, I like Kbabej's suggested placement immediately after his name, though am not sure how it would be best included without also having "American" there. —ADavidB 22:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

No offense but you guys gotta be kidding me. Those sources are embarrassing. They are not a look at his ancestry. They’re character assassination pieces that are heavily politically influenced. People don’t need anyone to tell them what “they” think his race is. They have eyes, they can just look at the photo. Like FrederalBacon said, I don’t think a real analysis of his ancestry exists or is public. This sentence should be scrapped and deleted. Sourcing like this shouldn’t be allowed on wikipedia. EudaimoniaPatagonia (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Associated Press is a green-level RS at RSP. In what way is that “embarrassing”? —Kbabej (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Associated Press has been wrong before, while their evaluation for reliability is rated high doesn't mean their word warps reality to bend to their will. That's one thing that irks me about Wikipedia is it's willingness to parrot demonstrably false things if multiple RS report it as such. A prior case involving Rittenhouse had his race/ethnicity marked as Hispanic, which in America is counted as caucasian for the census, but for their legal system is distinct from caucasian, the two cases were a week apart and the only difference were the charges, the one where ethnicity was much more prominent they shed the nuance and simply put "Caucasian."

Based on evidence, one should call him a hispanic American as it's the most accurate and specific descriptor of his ethnicity, however based on wikipedia's RS policy, one has more reason to cite an article that does away with evidence, rather than cite the evidence directly. This really turned more into a rant about the way wikipedia cites sources, and I agree with it in spirit, but many wikipedia articles devolve into "Appeal to authority" above any other nuance or reasoning. I understand the need to base yourself on what ought to be a reliable source, so I can't exactly promote a better system, but, culturally people should be more wary of simply using convenient appeals to authority to put what they find useful, regardless of evidence and integrity. Katacles (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

He is a white American? Really?

Sorry, but isn't that rather obvious? I mean, should Wikipedia write on every person what race and skin color this person is? And what about mixed races? Would someone write he's one third Mexican American? I don't get it. Do we now always include race and nationality if something controvert happens? Elyos92 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Elyos92. Yes, race and nationality are standard for inclusion with BLPs on WP. Please see WP:MOSBIO for that info. --Kbabej (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it is a little bit political motivated, I don't see white mentioned for example in Arnold Schwarzenegger's wiki page.

Might as well write that the people Kyle killed were also all white, since it was discussion in the media and therefore relevant to the article. Elyos92 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That is covered in sentence 3 in Kenosha unrest shooting. -- M.boli (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Name the victims.

The two individuals shot and killed along with the third individual shot and injured must be named. The victims have names. 65.113.156.72 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That info is available at the Kenosha unrest shooting article. This article is a BLP of Rittenhouse, not detailed info about the shooting. —Kbabej (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Not victims

The three individuals killed were killed in self defense as they attacked Kyle. This has been proven in a court of law and the verdict has been upheld. To say otherwise is false. 2601:58B:4100:CF0:ED01:7259:CA24:DDFD (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Bias

Huge pile of bias crap. 2601:58B:4100:CF0:ED01:7259:CA24:DDFD (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

What would you change? ExpertPrime (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s a very fair and neutral article that doesn’t fall into being a biased left wing article, nor a right wing one. Digital Herodotus (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"A white American" should be removed

Wikipedia generally places racial identifiers in categories, not the bulk of the article. 136.34.181.216 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As the Kenosha unrest shooting article says in its lead paragraph, "Race was a major theme in US media commentary, although Rittenhouse and those he shot were white." I've moved "A white American" to this article's Kenosha unrest shooting section, where it has more significant contexual significance. —ADavidB 23:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget that while we can take a look at him, some folks are blind, but would nonetheless want to know his color so they can judge him for themselves according to their own ideas. 121.127.212.32 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Repentence?

WP:FORUM Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 20:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Has the boy ever repented? I think this is an important point, but there is no mention of it in the article? Has he ever admitted that at least the second two were most likely trying to protect the community from a shooter, something (protecting the community) he is hailed for? My two cents is that their lives at least are worth more than him escaping a beating, which is the worse he would have got had he no gun. But has he answered any similar point put to him? Or has he kept quiet on it? Or has he no remorse? 121.127.212.32 (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Your two cents is irrelevant. I recommend you accept Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and not a place to advance your judgments. StalkerFishy (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

gun rights advocate

Multiple sources describe Rittenhouse post-trial as a gun rights advocate, e.g. Probably warrants inclusion somewhere, as might give better context and framing to discussions of his public appearances. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I added a sentence on this advocacy to the related paragraph in the article's "Political internship offers, namesake bills, and politics" section. —ADavidB 07:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Who all was "White"?

Why does the Kenosha unrest description go out of its way to identify Kyle Rittenhouse (whose picture is already right there) as a "White American" while it doesn't mention the race of any of the three men he shot--all white themselves? Isn't that not only relevant, but salient in light of the fact that people keep spreading disinformation on exactly this point? E.g. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/national-geographic-author-falsely-claims-kyle-rittenhouse-killed-two-black-men 2600:1700:67A8:230:5D0A:F897:5ABC:224E (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Rittenhouse primarily, and not the Kenosha unrest shooting (which has its own separate article, clearly identified at the top of the section). I don't think this article goes "out of its way" to say Rittenhouse is white; it simply says he is, and provides a source. The shooting article goes into more detail and identifies "those he shot were white" in its first paragraph. People are going to spread disinformation regardless of what Wikipedia articles include. —ADavidB 04:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the references to "white" are gratuitous and should be stricken from the article Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"Kyle denies being a white supremacist"

This section does not seem to be right

"He denied being a racist, domestic terrorist, or white supremacist, saying he had been attacked by those who described him in these terms."

I recently read the Mandy essay, which basically says "Of course someone who was accused of something would deny doing it. Therefore their own words are not relevant in regards to that"

Like yeah, of course he would deny being a white supremacist or a racist. The only relevant defense in the article would be third parties (Including conservative news sources) that say he isn't. Not his own words. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

His denials have been covered in reliable sources (The Independent is cited). WP:MANDY is an WP:ESSAY: it contains one or more editor's unvetted opinions and great care needs to be used when applying it to a biography of a living person. VQuakr (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPUBLIC: If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. This is a policy of Wikipedia. MANDY is just an essay.This is also relevant because RS is not calling him a white supremacist anyway. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

RS do call him a white supremacist, and make very good cases for it, they are just used in other articles.

I didn't realize there were glarring contridictions in these rules. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:609A:2A4D:FF05:48A6 (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's see the sources, shall we? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a coincidence I have seen you literally everywhere I've been yesterday.

This conversation ended already with a "No", you are behaving like this like it's Reddit or twitter 2603:8080:F600:14E7:50D:6B3B:96FC:A8BA (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There aren't glaring contradictions in those rules, because essays aren't rules. VQuakr (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. But keep an eye on it. 2603:8080:F600:14E7:50D:6B3B:96FC:A8BA (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dead

Once again, a biased speech article. where is the neutral tone, when you need it? a lot of things mentioned here have no value other than being politically. 2003:CC:B700:FB29:3425:B72F:61C:1A5A (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Are there specific passages you think are unnecessary and/or compromise the article's neutral tone? Asthmastronaut (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Look at Baldwin, he killed a person who was not attacking/threatening him but no mention of it in the first sentence. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:D8A3:C34C:7BF5:1A20 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin was well known long before his shooting incident, and the criminal charges against him were dropped in April. —ADavidB 23:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There is simply bias in how articles get written. That's what the original person commented on. If you read article about Baldwin, you have no way of telling if he pointed and pulled the trigger or if the weapon fell out of his hands and discharged. With Kyle, even though he was being attacked and every one he shot was attacking him, hence the not guilty verdict, it reads as if he went on a shooting spree. There is no mention that he was attacked. And yes, charges were dropped, just like Kyle was not convicted. Heck even the fact that "cause célèbre for right-wing organizations and media", left-wing media/organizations were just as interested in the story and smearing the kid. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:D8A3:C34C:7BF5:1A20 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

100%. Leftwing bias is so ingrained through propaganda and resulting brainwashing in the schools and media, that it is not questioned and is accepted as the baseline for "normalcy" in society today. Good job pointing it out. 2603:9001:5A00:5A52:316B:3258:7519:386C (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agree with that. Wikipedia is wholly unrelible for anything other than the sorts of anodyne material that used to be found in sources like The World Almanac and Book of Facts, and World Book Encyclopedia. The minute a subject is controversial, Wikipedia is flatly untrustworthy. Wikipedia was a great idea and in some respects it's still useful, but not for anything controversial. 2605:59C8:4F4:5410:71DC:AD52:A4AB:3469 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Rittenhouse and Strickland report

A Texas Tribune report describes the developing relationship between Rittenhouse and Texas political operative Jonathan Strickland. This information is now in this article, it ties in with the earlier news of Rittenhouse forming a Texas non-profit.

The problem is one editor persistently misuses this report, attempting some transitive synthesis to tar Rittenhouse with white supremacy. The Texas Tribune report says no such thing. It mentions that Rittenhouse and a well-known white supremecist were both apparently among attendees at a confab hosted by Strickland, further down it describes the relationship between Rittenhouse and Srickland. The report makes no accusation that Rittenhouse endorses white supremacy or that he even spoke to the supremacist. There is zero excuse for imputing an association in this article.

Two editors, myself and @Springee, have reverted this stuff a total of 4 times now, with explanations in our edit summaries. We have both also pointed out that the 2nd reference which keeps popping up is useless because it merely describes the first. Yet today the incorrect edits (and useless 2nd ref) were back. So it is time to open a talk page discussion.-- M.boli (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Good revert. As best as I can tell in a search for sources, the appropriate weight for this minor aspect of the subject is about zero. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of the content added the same time is DUE but certainly not the material that has been removed by several editors at this point. Fred Zepelin, you are relatively new so please keep in mind that per ONUS, if the new material you are trying to add is reverted by others the next step is taking the material to the talk page and getting consensus. Sometimes the editors who are removing the content can be persuaded that the material is due or with changes it's good. Anyway, it's always best to use the talk page vs restore the content. If nothing else, if you use the talk page and no one objects there then you basically have a consensus for inclusion by default. Springee (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Rittenhouse moved to Texas and has become involved in Texas politics. I've added his move to the Personal Life section, and updated the political involvements section a little bit. I think this is what makes his alliance with Strickland, a mover-and-shaker in Texas right-wing politics, worthy of inclusion. -- M.boli (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I can see leaving in that he is working with Strickland. I've trimmed the section down a bit, removed the board seat info and removed the second source. I'm somewhat concerned that basically all of that paragraph comes from a single, politically opposed media source. Springee (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Righto! Rittenhouse's move to Texas, and activities in there, have not attracted mainstream news attention. Trimming it down was better. -- M.boli (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

References

No mention of left-wing media coverage

Unless I missed something, it seems that the article only mentions the apearences he made on right-wing media after the trial, but not the entensive, and incorrect coverage he got beforehand from many left-wing media, implying he was a mass shooter targeting black people, among other things

I also have to agree with the previous topic. Infering intent (such as intend to defend oneself) is usualy out of range for wikis, but considering all of the videos show Kyle running away and beeing attacked before firing, it seems reasonable to assume self-defense and to word the article in a way that implies as such Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with your concern but a RS is needed to support that view. You might find useful information in this CJR article but I think it misses that many of the MSM narratives didn't fit the facts upon review [4]. This OpEd is more to the point but as an OpEd it's much harder to use it [5]. Springee (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Biased descriptions

Why is this written like there wasn't video evidence proving Kyle acted in self defense? It says he shot 3 people and then was eventually found not guilty after he testified that he acted in self defense. 174.69.132.118 (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Because that is the legal outcome. WWGB (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

How is that biased at all? It's literally what happened. Schnitzel89 (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

If RSs were universal in saying this was self defense I think we could say as much in the wiki article. In reality many don't agree this was self defense. So we are essentially threading a needle by saying the one legally authoritative source concluded X. Springee (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The facts are: 1) KR shot, 2) KR was charged, 3) KR pleaded not-guilty due to the justification of self-defense, 4) KR's defense prevailed at trial, 5) KR was found not-guilty, 6) KR is not-guilty, 7) KR is not guilty due to self-defense. The simple truth which some have trouble accepting is that an affirmative defense, when offered with a sufficient factual basis to survive a motion to strike it, because a factually true basis which must then be rebutted at trial. Thus, it's not the jury which established that it was self-defense. Rather, it was the very nature of an affirmative defense itself which does. With an affirmative defense, the defendant declares to the court 'I did the act, but am not guilty because of [facts]'; then during the proceedings, the prosecution must disprove the defendant's assertion of self-defense. What the verdict in this case decided was that the defense of self-defense was not disproved and therefore, the premise of non-guilty, which is established as a legally true fact by virtue of being an affirmative defense, survives the case, and remains true. Factually and legally, KR is not guilty, because KR acted in self-defense. https://www.nals.org/blogpost/1359892/279125/Affirmative-Defenses Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no such outcome as "not guilty due to self-defense". WWGB (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This was previously discussed at length at Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse/Archive 2#in self-defense. Unless there are some new sources, we do not need to rehash the discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps @Tondelleo is unaware that discussions are archived? The same editor initiated the and participated in the former dicussion of the same question. -- M.boli (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears Tondelleo Schwarzkopf was involved with the previous discussion. I stand by what I said last time. Springee (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I chatted about this very issue with ChatGPT today, after posting here. That AI engine, which has been proven it can pass the bar exam, agrees with what I am saying. I can post a .pdf or screen capture from that chat. Now that this proves I'm correct on the facts, all that remains is to find a Reliable Source which can be pointed to. Would you like to see the proof? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT once told me Michelle Obama was one of our presidents. 108.196.4.46 (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is he relevant part of that chat, from today https://ibb.co/Kx7WjNB Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I can speak for the group by saying no, no one cares one whit about ChatGPT's opinion on the matter. VQuakr (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you are not interested in correctly understanding true facts of true information when presented to you, then by definition all of your edits are clouded by confirmation bias; i.e. you only post those things which support what you already believe is true. But what I have done is prove that at the outset of a trial with a justification defense, the defense is presumed true. And, as I previously said in the now archived discussion, this means that for an acquitted defendant with an affirmative defense, the presumption of innocence+truth of defense which stayed intact throughout the trial, stays intact at the final conclusion of the issue. And that means, the finding of not guilty for KR does indeed affirm that the self-defense defense was both legally and logically true at the start of the trial, stayed true during the trial and is still true today. So, rather than fight me on this, you should be helping me find a reliable source which substantiates it. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! 98.215.145.150 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the premise that there's an issue with the opening paragraph.

It should be written that he shot people in self defence who died.

As opposed to the left wing bias moderator/editor nonsense Wikipedia is plaguged with. 166.181.86.24 (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as a teacher who has interacted with ChatGPT-generated student essays... hell no. Students confidently mention news events from their essays that were invented by ChatGPT by stringing words together from similar events. ChatGPT made up a disinformation campaign targeted at the government of the Philippines in one essay. Gave it a code name (in all caps, naturally). Never happened. Glib garbage. -- M.boli (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This reliable source (https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/latest-version-of-chatgpt-aces-the-bar-exam-with-score-in-90th-percentile) says that ChatGpt aced the bar exam. And since we must assume good faith with each other, you have to concede that I did not game GPT to get the chat results which I got today. Taken together, these two things establish that the correct course of action at this point is to help me find a reliable source which corroborates the point of law which I have been arguing, that being: In a justification defense case, the defense is presumed true at the outset. Thus, the correct thing to say about this verdict is, as I have been saying, KR was found not guilty on the basis of self-defense. That is what the jury's decision ratified as true. Only by convicting him could the jury have vitiated the presumption of truth. But because defense=true is the starting presumption of a case with a justification defense (which is what self-defense is), it remains true logically and legally today that it was self-defense. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

What nonsense. We wouldn't accept a human lawyer's WP:SYNTH here; what makes you think we're going to care about an AI's? VQuakr (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

From an encyclopedia reportage standpoint verifiable facts are: KR shot people, he was charged, he was found not-guilty. During the trial he pled self-defense, also a verifiable fact. Whether or not KR shot people as an act of self-defense is not a verifiable fact. It is an interpretation that he put on his actions that the jury accepted at some level.

So we are not going to report "KR shot so-and-so in self-defense" as an encylopedia fact. It is an inference you are drawing from how legal processes are supposed to work. Fine! It has a lot of persuasive value, but not a verifiable fact.

Regarding ChatGPT, it is interesting to hear that it aces the bar exam. But you don't have to be acting in bad faith to get ChatGPT to write glib non-factual stuff. My students are trying to straightfowardly get answers to my essay prompts. It is perfectly capable of making stuff up. From a technical point of view, ChatGPT is answering the bar exam questions because correct answers are in its training corpus, multiple times. So strings of words which mean the same as correct answers are highly probable strings of words in the context of those questions. -- M.boli (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the chat? Read it and see that what I am telling you is correct: https://ibb.co/Kx7WjNB Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a definition of Self-Defense: The use of force to protect oneself from an attempted injury by another.

Rittenhouse was being chased by a mob, attacked by a man with a skateboard, and had a firearm pointed at him. Those are all verifiable facts. Being hit with a skateboard could cause injury. Rittenhouse used self-defense. Rittenhouse was then approached by a man him with a firearm, Rittenhouse didn’t fire his weapon at this person until the weapon was pointed at him. Rittenhouse used self-defense.

From an encyclopedia reportage standpoint when an encyclopedia focuses many aspects of one subject they keep describe similar or repeat events the same. Larry Davis, Basil Parasiris, George Zimmerman, Joan Little similarly used the same defense as Kyle, yet not one of their pages is written like this. Chrystul Kizer’s Wikipedia page reads: “Renewed interest in her case followed the Kyle Rittenhouse case (which also took place in Kenosha) where the defense claimed self-defense and the jury delivered a not guilty verdict.” WhowinsIwins (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Another reason people are reluctant to accept an inference from a jury verdict is that the setup is artifically crisp. The jury gets a big pile of testimony and other evidence about a complex situation, much of the evidence isn't crisply 100% believably true or 100% believably false. It was the jury's best-guess crispification of a fuzzy problem. Reasoning backwards from that verdict to crispify the inputs to the fuzzy decision is a logical problem. The jury didn't have to actually believe 100% KR's defense, they just had to believe it enough so that with the totality of fozzy evidence they came to that conclusion. -- M.boli (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not talking about what KR's jury any jury might believe. What I am explaining is the legal effect of the application of the presumption of innocence to a justification defense. that's all. Read the chat: https://ibb.co/Kx7WjNB Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm only showing you the correct way to understand how a presumption of innocence for a justification defense must be looked at, if you choose to look at it honestly. Read the chat yourself, and tell me if you disagree with what GPT is saying. It's plain as the nose on your face, that the explanation is correct: https://ibb.co/Kx7WjNB All that remains is to help me find a Reliable Source which establishes it to your satisfaction. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

So far, I've been able to track down a quotation from a reliable source; it's a widely used criminal law textbook

"The defendant who raises the defense of justification is entitled to a presumption that his or her claim is true. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use of force was not justified. This is consistent with the general presumption of innocence that applies in all criminal cases." Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law (8th ed. 2018) p. 129.

Now I need to grab a hard copy or find a .pdf of this online, to confirm the citation Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't mention the subject; not usable per WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Um, the subject of the quote is "the defense of justification" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justification) which is legal term of art (https://www.justia.com/dictionary/term-of-art/). And if you understood that term of art, you would better understand the issue I am raising. What I am saying is exactly what the noted legal scholar in the above quote says, which is this: When a defendant relies on the legal defense of "justification" in a criminal trial, the correct application of the presumption of innocence requires that the claim of self-defense must be presumed to be true. And with that being the correct standard, as per the reliable source I've quoted, you can then understand the correct way to describe the verdict. KR was found not guilty by way of self-defense. In fact, that was the central question at issue in the entire trial! Was KR "justified" in his actions? Unless the jury says "no" and convicts him, then as a matter of law, the meaning of the verdict is "yes" he was justified. And "justification" is the term of art for what the defense of "self-defense" is. The defense under the law is only aka "self-defense"; the most precise term for a legal defense which claims self-defense is"justification". But being found not guilty under a defense of :justification is what continues the presumptions of truth which attached to the defense at the start, to remain unchanged. The defense of "justification" at the start allows a defendant to say "it's true, it was self-defense" and because of the required presumption of innocence, the law as implemented in the case requires the defense called 'self-defense' to be presumed true at the start. A verdict of "not guilty" has the legal effect of saying "the persecution did not prove that the presumed truth of the defense was not true". The presumed truth of this case is that it was self-defense. This was not disproved at trial; therefore, the verdict does indeed ratify that it was self-defense. This is what you would axiomatically know about how the law actually works, if you actually understood what a 'term of art' is, what 'justification' means and what the noted legal expert I quoted is saying. And for the record, I stayed off this topic for a few months until I could find a way to get a reliable source to verify this key point. On this dialog thread, I thought that the GPT information would be enough to clarify; but since it did not, I then finally did find an exactly on-point citation. These terms may be esoteric to law, but they are not so arcane that reasonable people can't understand them. So rather that continually shout "synth", which this is not, I ask the editors here to please see that this is indeed one single idea; it's an explanation of the term "justification" and how it's properly understood as it relates to the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

And FYI, there are 4 basic types of justification defense, with "Self-Defense" being only one of them:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law

Justifications - these are complete defenses:

Self-Defense: the use of force to protect oneself from an attempted injury by another.

Defense of property: a person may use force to protect their property from a felony occurring within.

Defense of Others: the right of a person to protect a third party with reasonable force against an assailant who seeks to inflict force upon the third party.

Necessity: sometimes referred to as the “choice of evils,” the necessity defense allows an individual to engage in otherwise unlawful conduct if by doing so the individual avoids a greater harm. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The subject of this article is Kyle Rittenhouse. VQuakr (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's true that the article is about KR; but to write the article accurately, a reasonably proficient application of certain elements of the vernacular used in the legal profession is required.

For example, the ending sentence in the lede currently says:

"At his trial in November 2021, a jury found Rittenhouse not guilty of murder and all other charges after he testified that he acted in self-defense."

But it should say:

"At his trial in November 2021, Rittenhouse relied on the justification defense of self-defense. On November 19, 2021 he was found not guilty of all charges.".

The way I am suggesting we write it is far more encyclopedic in tone, and does not insinuate that the defense strategy rested solely on KR's testimony. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What sources do you propose using to support the changed phrasing? I don't see any such insinuation in the existing version. Repetition of "November" and the specific date he was acquitted aren't great things to add to the first sentence. VQuakr (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Then let's tweak the style of my proposed edit; rather than trash it. We cold go with this:

"At his trial, Rittenhouse relied on the justification defense of self-defense. On November 19, 2021 he was found not guilty of all charges.".

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What sources do you propose using to support the changed phrasing? The specific date he was acquitted needn't be added to the first sentence. VQuakr (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What is it about the text which I've proposed that you feel needs to be cited to a source? Have you read the justification article? I think my proposed edit is a model of succinctness, accuracy and clarity. What about it, specifically, other than the full date inclusion, do you object to? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As noted a couple of times already, we don't rely on our own synthesis for article content. A link to another WP article is not a substitute for a reliable source that directly supports the change you are proposing. So, specifically, I object to the proposed change since no reliable sources have been provided that support the content. VQuakr (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

My proposed edit is an accurate summation of what the article itself says, yes? Here it is again:

At his trial, Rittenhouse relied on the justification defense of self-defense. On November 19, 2021 he was found not guilty of all charges.

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for change to sentence in lede

In the lede, change this:

At his trial in November 2021, a jury found Rittenhouse not guilty of murder and all other charges after he testified that he acted in self-defense

To this:

At his trial, Rittenhouse relied on the justification defense of self-defense. On November 19, 2021 he was found not guilty of all charges. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Enough! It is past time to close this discussion.

A trial is like a game. The argument is within game-world, according to game-rules, one can reason backwards from the verdict to an in-game "fact".

This is the second discussion argued by the same editor where many people have explained that this argument does not serve. Close it. -- M.boli (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing served by closing this discussion. People are free to leave the discussion if they so choose. The article is well supported with citations for the verdict being "not guilty". If one or more people are able to find sources that equally or more strongly support the verdict being "not guilty by way of self defense" or other similar language, more power to them. Such citations have yet to be found, so the article as is will not be changed. If people wish to continue discussing the issue, there is no disruption in doing so and no need to close the discussion. All parties are welcome to leave the discussion whenever they so choose. No party can change the article to a different verdict without substantial citations to support the change. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason to close it is the same topic comes up frequently after having been hashed out. Editor @Tondelleo approved of the current wording last August, which updated the page and ended that discussion. Then subsequently raised the issue again on multiple occasions. This is the latest in a string of attempts, many by the same editor, to use Wikipedia voice to say that KR killed people in self-defense. Which is not supported by sources.

Seeing that the page is occasionally vandalized and the topic keeps coming up in talk, I think maybe we could put an FAQ on the topic at the top of the talk page. -- M.boli (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think anyone is being disruptive, and have the diffs to back it up, then bring the subject up to the person on their talk page and explain the situation from your perspective. If they continue their behavior, and you still feel it's disruptive, then report the situation to WP:AN/I with the diffs. Right now, I don't see disruption. I also don't see a reason to shut down a discussion simply because there is disagreement, and one person who is quite certain they are right. That is as common on Wikipedia as water on Earth. As I suggested to everyone, you have the opportunity to WP:DISENGAGE. If the article's prose noting the "not guilty" result is changed without sufficient citations to back it up, it will in due course be reverted. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "user" "Tondelleo Schwartzkopf" has had their account deleted after it was determined that the account was a "sock puppet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:C082:2EA0:D7B:B381:9422:1636 (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2024

None of the men involved in the shooting other than Kyle Rittenhouse are named. This is common knowledge and should be added to the information. Igor2112rush (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2024 (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. Cannolis (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Subject’s book

Under the “Media projects” section, Rittenhouse’s 2023 book Acquitted should be mentioned, along with reviews and sales. It was written along with Mark Richards and Michael Quinn Sullivan and was released on Kindle on November 19, where it reached number 510 on the Kindle Nonfiction book rankings on December 2 (source here). By December 5, it had fallen to a ranking of 557 (source here). Autographed copies sell for $59.99 (source here). General sources covering the book are here, and here, among many others. —2601:8C0:380:35C0:F0A3:D34F:C26E:1CB3 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Update article to mention self-defense.

Hi,

This article needs to be updated noting that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense after being attacked by 3 men who chased him for 800 yards and tried to beat him with a skateboard and other objects, and had an illegal firearm pointed at him.

Update this article for accuracy immediately. 2600:6C5E:14F0:9BC0:B94C:B55A:286:EC7A (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

– Change busineses to businesses

The first sentence says: "In late August 2020, 17-year-old Rittenhouse traveled from Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin to help protect local busineses..."

– Adjust sentence for clarity

Currently reads: After a man chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, the youth fatally shot him. His name was Joseph Rosenbaum.

Suggestion: Shortly before midnight, a man named Joseph Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot. When Rosenbaum reached for his gun, Rittenhouse fatally shot him. Mayifixthatforyou (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Irltoad (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

cause célèbre

I suggest we change "Rittenhouse's prosecution attracted widespread media coverage, and became a cause célèbre for right-wing organizations and media." to "Rittenhouse's prosecution attracted widespread media coverage, and became a cause célèbre for organizations and media on both sides of the political spectrum". Seeing as the case became a politizised cause célèbre for both the left and right, it seems misleading to single out right organizations/media for this in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.220.250.130 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)