Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:06, 10 July 2022

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wisconsin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why redirect?

Why is this a redirect? See Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting#Kyle_Rittenhouse_needs_separate_article. —В²C ☎ 20:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no way this should be just a redirect instead of an article. He actually had an article for a couple months which received hundreds of daily views, but it was relegated to draft status:

This type of thing always happens anytime a new topic appears which is unfavorable to the leftist cause, agenda or narrative. It immediately gets nominated for deletion, and failing that, salient portions are removed, watered down, or ripped to shreds on the Talk page. The obstructionism by the thought police is galling and appalling. - JGabbard (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

source quality

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

The Wrap does not appear to be listed alphabetically at WP:RSP. Is it known by another name, i.e., is it listed elsewhere on the chart? Many sources are not listed at all at WP:RSP and this does not make them reliable. Generally, multiple editorial staff indicate that a publisher has substantial oversight and fact checking of anything they publish. Sources with only one, more generic, leader/founder are less likely to have adequate standards for publication. WP:RSP only lists some of the most commonly discussed sources, many must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Cedar777 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Cedar777. TheWrap is actually one word on the WP:RSP list (TheWrap). It's confusing, because initially I wanted to look it up under "The Wrap". It is listed as a green-level high quality source. --Kbabej (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Kbabej, the issue with FwrdAxis (which does appear to have multiple editorial staff) is that they cite Business Insider as their source within the text of their article. Business Insider/Insider is only green for culture and its a matter of debate as to whether a given topic qualifies. It's best to avoid having this debate and to simply find a better quality source w/o these issues, such as the Guardian which you recently provided. Cedar777 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cedar777. That's why I added The Guardian. You can remove FwrdAxis if you'd like. Please review WP:RSP before adding/removing sources. Business Insider, which you added, is not a RS (WP:BI). TheWrap, which you removed, is a green-level RS. --Kbabej (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I now see TheWrap listed at WP:RSP which states "As an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics."

This indicates that a consensus of Misplaced Pages editors found TheWrap reliable within it's topic area . . . but there was "no consensus" as to its reliability for broader topics. Compared with the Associated Press and Reuters, neither of which have a disclaimer regarding topic areas, TheWrap is less reliable. Perhaps other editors will care to weigh in here.

Similarly, MIC seems ill-suited to provide content for a politically contentious BLP. The probability is high that like the Kenosha Unrest Shooting page, this page, a BLP, will also suffer from significant disagreements and politicization. One way to keep things encyclopedic, and as factual and neutral as possible, is to limit article content to statements supported by only the very best sources and multiple articles, e.g. content supported by 3 blue-chip publishers like AP, BBC, Reuters. Cedar777 (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cedar777: TheWrap source is used for reporting the stats of people watching the Tucker Carlson interview, which is absolutely within their main topic area: television/media analysis. It's literally listed in the description you got from WP:RSP, which is "media analysis". So yes, that is within its topic area. It couldn't be closer to the topic area if it tried. It's not used for making claims about Rittenhouse's character, or impact on activism, or anything else.

As for Mic, the piece is written by AJ Dillenger, who focuses on politics for the publication. It also doesn't sound like you've reviewed their editorial policy (available here), which seems in-depth compared to some other common sources.

I'm not sure you have the experience with WP:RSP to be making those calls, if I'm being honest. You removed a green-level source in its topic area (TheWrap) and replaced it with a low-quality source not suited for BLPs (BI), for example. Then claimed TheWrap shouldn't be used for analysis on television stats, its area of focus. Have you even searched the RSP archives before making these assumptions (including about Mic)? --Kbabej (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Issues with TheWrap have been resolved. Please take a moment to review my bold edit as you are mistaken that TheWrap was removed, it was only tagged. I removed the Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, and FwrdAxis.

Business Insider was referenced in the article by FwdAxis which states "Rittenhouse’s asinine initiative is called The Media Accountability Project, which he classifies as a “tool to hold the media accountable for the lies they said,” according to Business Insider." Referring to something as "asinine" is generally done in opinion articles rather than by blue-chip news agencies. It's non-encyclopedic loaded language.

Policy suggests going to the root source, which in this case was Business Insider. We agree that BI is not ideal. However, BI does not present the information as an opinion column or use loaded language like FwdAxis. It is a marginal source that is marginally better.

MIC lists only one editor and no staff. Many small publishers have several. They might be fine . . . they might not. Either way it was not tagged as problematic.

The article is still tagged for content sourced to Vice ("There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications.") and Rolling Stone ("According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 . . ."). There are many, many green sources that have reported on Rittenhouse. Does every mention of his activity warrant inclusion in a Misplaced Pages biography? I am of the opinion that it does not as editors must discriminate and select the most commonly reported facts from the most solid sources. There are no clearcut answers as to exactly what needs inclusion. BRD is in effect and works well. For what its worth, I'm not planning to nominate this for AfD and the edits I have made are in an effort to improve the article and the encyclopedia. Some of the sources used to initially build this article were high quality . . . some of them were not. Vice and post-2011 Rolling Stone have issues but I have used them on occasion in other articles - it's really case by case. It seems the trajectory of edits to this page is moving it towards resolution of the sources and content multiple editors agree on, a positive development ultimately. I try to assume good faith knowing that all of us, myself included, can improve our understanding of various national and international sources and how the Misplaced Pages community assesses their quality, as source status at RSP changes and evolves per consensus. Cedar777 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Does he need his own article?

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

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

I've removed the overly detailed personal information about the family. —ADavidB 06:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Adavidb, I've reverted that. The New Yorker is a green-level source at WP:RSP where editors "note the publication's robust fact-checking process." It gives pertinent info about the family's background and the subject's background. --Kbabej (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Kbabej, please review ONUS and BLP. The New Yorker may be a green source and in general we wouldn't doubt the general reliability of statements from them. However, verifiability doesn't ensure inclusion. A lot of that content is about his family and they are generally not NOTABLE and certainly not public figures. Such negative information, regardless of the source, is a BLP concern and should stay out. Springee (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed again, serious BLP invasion. Per WP:ONUS, please seek consensus for inclusion. WWGB (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant information about his past and family shouldn't be included per WP:NPF and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Honestly I think this entire article fails WP:BLP1E and should just merge and redirect to Kenosha unrest shooting. Blocod (talk)

Blocod perhaps AfD is the way to go? I believe the subject easily passes GNG, so I do not agree with a redirect. --Kbabej (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Does he need his own article? Probaby not, but now that it has been created, there will likely be no going back, unless Rittenhouse decides to resume a quiet life and stay out of the public eye. Cedar777 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Media personality?

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

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

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

—ADavidB 07:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that the broader term conservative is preferable. I didn’t dig too deeply into the terminology most commonly associated with RH but the preliminary finding was that he was frequently described as an individual who shot 3 people in Kenosha with the more polarizing terms “vigilante” and “hero” appearing at regular intervals. The two articles above were supplied at talk mainly to illustrate that the terms “conservative” “celebrity” were being employed as descriptors by both publishers associated w/ the left (WaPo) and the right (City Journal). The WaPo article is written from a long range view by an historian/academic (the better quality of the two). City Journal has extensive editorial staff but is supported by the Manhattan Institute, a free market think tank. It would be better to have AP News, Reuters, and/or actual academic publications supporting a given term. Might be too soon for the dust to have settled. Cedar777 (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Simply put: media personality who was involved is a crackpot lede sentence. It may have evolved from a sequence of well-intentioned edits, but the result is nuts. -- M.boli (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you suggest then, @M.boli and @WWGB? There are many options. I've listed just a few below as an example. Note: These are not all green-level RS; I'm simply listing them to show the large variety of short descriptions being used in the media. List below:

• "cause célèbre" (used in Politico, CBC, NYT, The Wallstreet Journal, among others)
• "celebrity" (used in The Boston Globe, The Guardian, Complex, Vice, Mic, among others)
• "gun-rights activist" (used in the Fort Worth Star Telegram)
• "media star" (used by Salon)

--Kbabej (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Rittenhouse become famous for shooting and killing people. Period. Everything else happened as a result. You have twice reverted out of the lede the one thing that made Rittenhouse famous. Over and out. -- M.boli (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@M.boli, short descriptions are not used for "the one thing that famous." Short descriptions are used for a "concise explanation of the scope of the page", per WP:SHORTDES. This BLP does not focus on the shootings Rittenhouse did; it encompasses his entire life and career, which includes a high-profile media tour, a video game, The Media Accountability Project, the commercialization of his image, laws being named after him, etc. In fact, the shooting/trial is the smallest part of this page. --Kbabej (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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

@M.boli. The short description appears in the lead sentence, and you're editing both with a POV agenda. The fact of the matter is he is known for way more than the shooting, which is why this BLP exists. Otherwise, it would simply be listed at the Kenosha unrest shooting. Time didn't stop at the end of the trial; he's received intense media attention and has gone on to do a number of things. The original lead sentence incorporated the shooting ("...who became known for his involvement in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin"), but you removed that to basically call him a killer/shooter and leave everything else out. That's not what the lead sentence is for. --Kbabej (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

RH shot 3 men in Kenosha. A fact not disputed by RH or his legal team. He is known for shooting 3 men and sources great and small routinely make this point. It is nearly universal. This basic fact is at the root of why he is both lauded and despised. It is a mistake to neglect to mention it in the first sentence of the lede. One might more aptly say Dominick Black was involved in the KUS but RH was more than involved as he "fired an AR-15-style weapon eight times" - he was the primary shooter by all accounts that night. Cedar777 (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It already mentions that in the lead. To remove everything else, however, is an issue. The "everything else" is why this BLP exists. I still haven't gotten an answer when I asked both you and @M.boli what other description you would like to use. Only mentioning the shooting/killing isn't appropriate or accurate, as then this article would simply be info included at KUS. So what would you like? Cause célèbre? Conservative celebrity? Gun rights activist? --Kbabej (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears that you only addressed M.boli and WWGB by name directly above, rather than myself. The terminology research listed above is helpful. Although the strongest sourcing above is for Cause célèbre, I personally find the term a bit esoteric and still support "conservative celebrity" for the lede as it strikes the best balance between combined RS coverage. It's interesting that there is a Misplaced Pages page for Cause célèbre and it certainly should be discussed, sourced w/ the 3 strongest sources, and wiki linked in the body, possibly the lede if others also support mentioning it there. A conservative celebrity is readily understood, much less so with cause célèbre. Cedar777 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Using "his involvement" in the opening sentence is far too weak, and I don't think that wording will stand over time. I believe "being a focal point" would much more clearly summarize the initial attention he received without getting into the details of the linked case. The Atlantic used this language as the trial came to a close. —ADavidB 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair. An editor’s change to “…is known for shooting three people, killing two, during civil unrest on August 26, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin” is too extreme. Perhaps picking a short description from above (or one I hadn’t found) and combining it with your suggestion for the following sentence:

“…is a conservative media celebrity who initially became known for being a focal point in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin”.

Thoughts? —Kbabej (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The Atlantic provides a solitary instance of framing the subject as a "focal point" in the article The Rittenhouse Trial Could Never Have Been What Americans Wanted. Used in context, here is what the Atlantic says in full: “The most striking element of Rittenhouse’s experience, and one of the reasons it became such a focal point for national attention, was the way he was treated by police.” As several editors have already stated above, Rittenhouse is known for shooting three men during the Kenosha unrest and indeed, the very first sentence of the same Atlantic article states this up front by defining him as "the teenager who shot three men during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in the summer of 2020".

I don't agree that the terminology of "focal point" stands out above countless other RS. It is an insufficient basis for the lede. Cedar777 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have specific alternate wording that would summarize this article's short shooting/trial section (covered fully in its own article) while not attracting continual addition of details that are beyond the scope here? —ADavidB 02:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The body of the article needs work. It is premature to be formatting an RfC-like process. A quality article should contain "essential information and terminology", and be "comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles." This applies to both the lede and a given section. A 1-2 paragraph summary of the KUS article is appropriate to include, particularly as it pertains to Rittenhouse. What is there in the article for Rittenhouse now is too minimalist. It is not "comprehensible by itself" for readers.

It is untenable to reduce the shooting and trial section and the lede to euphemisms or to gloss over the basic facts. RS overwhelmingly define the subject as the man (or rather teenager) who shot three people in Kenosha in 2020. A lede that more accurately reflects what RS say is here even if the body section on the shooting is currently half-hearted and anemic. The lede doesn't need to get into various perspectives on why he shot them, it just needs to clarify the basic facts that are not denied by anyone. Cedar777 (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

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

The persistent denial that shooting and killing people is what made Rittenhouse notable is incomprehensible. Even simple Google searches show 2 million results for "Kyle Rittenhouse" and 760k hits for the same name excluding a few common words related to shoot, kill, and murder. -- M.boli (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There's far more to his part in the shooting than can be properly summarized in an opening sentence here. Adding a few shooting details would keep encouraging many more. The shooting and its aftermath are not the subject of this article. Details of the shooting and trial and associated focus on Rittenhouse are in the first linked article. —ADavidB 00:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I am happy with "conservative media personality". We must include the shooting as that is the only reason Rittenhouse is notable. WWGB (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Who says we must? He’s known just as much for the trial as he is the actual shooting, and then for the subsequent activities. I think the compromise suggested by ADavidB is the best option “…. who initially became known for being a focal point in the Kenosha unrest shooting on…” That covers the shooting and the other activities. The number of deaths, etc, do not belong in this BLP lead. —Kbabej (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't include "media personality" as a description in the lead. This is honestly part of why this article should be AfD'ed back into the parent article. Rittenhouse is known for his involvement in the shooting. It is reasonable for the lead to say that in the aftermath of the shooting he has been treated as a conservative celebrity or described as a cc. We should not say he is one in Wiki voice since such a claim would needs some strong support. Honestly, I'm not sure many sources find Rittenhouse himself to be that interesting. Most seem to be interested in him due to what happened to him and the associations with firearms/self defense/frustration with the unrest in 2020 etc. Springee (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Two of the three people shot by Rittenhouse died. He was acquitted of all the charges against him. Your wanting to start this article with "killed a bunch of people" does not show an interest in verifiable info or neutrality. The shooting article is linked in the first sentence. Changing "involvement" has already been proposed above. —ADavidB 11:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you haven't been following the discussion. My proposed language is above. It isn't too different from the language that @Kbabe reverted twice:

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

Suggesting that shooting and killing people in the Kenosha unrest is not verifiable is beyond odd. Denying that this is what Rittenhouse is primarily known for seems almost willfully blind. To repeat again from above: the large list of references proffered as contrary evidence all mention this fact, most of them lead with this fact as a way of identifying him. Simple Google searching his full name "Kyle Rittenhouse" produces far fewer hits if you exclude common forms of "kill", "murder", "shot", etc. -- M.boli (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

My most recent response was to the bold-text claim that he "killed a bunch of people". I already responded to the proposed language for inclusion. The shooting and aftermath are covered in their own article. Saying how many were shot and died (or 'killed') is not a proper summary of Rittenhouse's part in the shooting, and it's not what this article is about. He was a focal point and was acquitted of all charges. Those who want to know more have the link to follow, and there is a small section about it within this article as well. —ADavidB 20:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@M.boli, I reverted this edit that changed the lead without consensus. There's an active discussion happening right now and with such a contentious subject its best to have consensus. I'm also confused when you stated "Adpot lede description from The Atlantic as suggested by @Adavidb in the talk discussion." If memory serves, ADavidB actually stated "Your wanting to start this article with "killed a bunch of people" does not show an interest in verifiable info or neutrality. The shooting article is linked in the first sentence." That's the opposite of what you've invoked their name for. Am I missing something? --Kbabej (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Lead proposals: There is a lengthy discussion above and multiple suggestions. Below I am trying to gain consensus for what (I think?) seem to be the most palatable options:

• Option A: ...is an American media personality who became known for his involvement in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. (Leave as is)
• Option B: ...is an American conservative media personality who became known for being a focal point in the Kenosha unrest shooting on August 26, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. (Update on current language incorporating @Adavidb's suggestion; does not get into the details of the shooting)
• Option C: ...is an American conservative media personality who became famous for shooting three people, killing two, during civil unrest on August 26, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. (@M.boli's suggestion; includes details of shooting and number of people killed)

I believe those are the options as I've seen them above. --Kbabej (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• I find Option B the most palatable. I think it incorporates the fact the subject was more than "involved" in the shooting/unrest, but does not get into the details of the shooting (which could be endlessly updated with facts). --Kbabej (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

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

• None of the above: It's not at all clear Rittenhouse is known as a media personality. He is know as a teen who shot three people. Was he justified in doing so? Was he doing something "good" prior to the shooting? Were those who were shot "bad" people? Those are all points that can be debated and which the media has debated. However to call Rittenhouse any type of "media personality" is one hell of a stretch. If this is the sort of thing that needs to be debated I really think an AfD/Merger is the correct direction for this article. Springee (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, those points have been debated, but that article isn’t about that. This is a BLP of his overall life. His media tour, educational aspirations, laws named after him, merchandise with his likeness, his video game, etc. You’re focused on one point in time. The coverage of his life has extended beyond the trial. —Kbabej (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Kbabej, speaking of "merchandise with his likeness", the Kyle Rittenhouse t-shirts frequently depict him w/ an AR-15 and both games associated with his name are about shooting something (zombies and turkeys). Please perform a Google image search for "rittenhouse t shirts" and see what comes up on the first three pages. Gun imagery is routine as are references to shooting. There is a lack of separation between guns/the shooting and anything else he has received recognition and/or attention for at this time. Cedar777 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Fine, when he achieves those future aspirations and when RSs talk about those things and not his part in the 2020 shootings then perhaps we should consider these proposed leads (or this being a stand alone BLP). We aren't there yet and CHRYSTAL and similar suggest we should wait until these things have come to past before acting as if they have. Basically everything that makes Rittenhouse notable as a BLP can be included in the shooting article and it's aftermath section. Springee (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  WP:CRYSTAL certainly does come to mind, especially for the book. Speculation about a book hardly qualifies as a career. Too flakey - it may well never come to pass. Cedar777 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  Luckily this article isn’t built solely around the book speculation and has a wide variety of coverage elsewhere. —Kbabej (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• C is the only option that isn't malpractice. Rittenhouse is notable exactly for shooting and killing people during the Kenosha unrest. I can see that he is a conservative media personality, so including that in some form is defensible. The exact number of people shot and number of people killed could be needless detail. So option C could be abbreviated to ... is an American conservative media personality who became famous for shooting and killing people during civil unrest in Kenosha ....

No responsible editor would write Neil Armstrong was a focus of the Apollo space program as the lede sentence. The ever-growing pile of rationalizations, evasions, and deflections to avoid describing his notability is incomprehensible to me. It isn't a violation of BLP, the reliable sources proffered as counterexamples do describe Rittenhouse's notability, a link and a generic euphemism is not a substitute. -- M.boli (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

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

@Springee, I am confused what you’re talking about? The Daily Dot is a green-level RS per RSP. Where do you get that it’s a “low level source”? Also, you removed the “celebrity” short description saying no sources stated it, when five RS did. Finally, you removed mention of the video game citing UNDUE. As a subsection, it can belong in the lead. I feel like your update was purely “I don’t like it” without doing one ounce of actual policy reading. Please review RSP, and LEAD, the latter of which describes what a short description is. —Kbabej (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You have 5 sources that say he it's a celebrity. How many hundreds of sources don't say that? Sorry, 5 is not enough to put that in not only wiki voice but as the first descriptor. The DD is only qualified green for internet trends. Using it for BLP claims is something that should be done with great caution. Finally, three game is a minor thing with very limited coverage. The onus is on you to show it's due for the lead, not others to say out isn't. Anyway, I think it's time to take this to AfD. Springee (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I've added two more RS identifying Rittenhouse as a celebrity. If we had hundreds of RS that explicitly included "not a celebrity" in reference to Rittenhouse, this might be a valid point. Despite what brought it about, he has become famous. He was acquitted of all criminal charges, and there's no legal reason for him to be treated as one. —ADavidB 15:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Legally he is still a named defendant in a civil suit by the Huber family. Let’s not gloss over that fact please. RS have stated that many, many people were profoundly disappointed by the outcome of this trial, the judge’s conduct, the justice system, etc. Cedar777 (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, @Springee, I don’t think you’ve read the RSP page. The Daily Dot is a green-level source for internet trends. The source is used on this page to discuss the memes created about the subject, not contentious facts about his personal life. I’m not sure you’re looking at the sources and your points of contention objectively. —Kbabej (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with RSP. It's not a policy page and our has DD green for a narrow window. Additionally, DUE applies here. We'll figure out out after AFD. Springee (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a window for Internet culture. If you don’t think memes fall under internet culture you really need to take a look at if you have the competency to be deciding between what “low level sources” vs. green-level RS are. —Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You missed the part where editors are concerned about POV. Additionally, if you look at the supporting discussions vs the summary you will see editors have concerns about using that source to establish WEIGHT vs just some facts. If we are going to put the meme stuff in the lead it needs to be very solid, especially since there is nothing that suggests Rittenhouse is creating these memes. At best only that he seems to be rolling with it. Anyway, when I get a bit of time I'm going to start an AfD with the suggestion that this be merged back into the KUS article. We have serious POV issues here given this article claims, in wiki voice, that he is a conservative celebrity when most of the sources used to "support" that statement don't. Springee (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No one is mentioning the memes in the lead. Maybe step back, reread the article, review RSP, and come up with a coherent argument if you are taking this to AfD. As it stands, you’ve called a green-level source on internet culture talking about memes a “low level source” and have erroneously stated the memes are in the lead. I think you may be confusing you not liking it for a lack of notability, but I’m worried about the competence in reviewing BLP notability if you don’t check sources against RSP and don’t know what the lead contains. Just my two cents. —Kbabej (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead refers to use of his likeness. I would suggest you drop the "I don't like it" claims. Yes, DD is a poor source for establishing weight. Per RSP, "Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. ". This article has a lot of issues starting with the opening sentence. Springee (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, I don’t think you’re actually reading what you think you’re talking about. The lead says “His likeness has been used to sell varied products, especially T-shirts.” Is that’s what you’re conflating to talking about memes? Politicians sharing memes and selling varied products with his likeness are not the same thing, and the former is not mentioned in the lead. And you can suggest I drop the “I don’t like it” claims, but I’ll be bringing those up at AfD given you really haven’t made a coherent argument yet. First the ref dismissal of green-level sources, then twice stating memes are mentioned in the lead when they are not. It doesn’t appear to me you’ve actually even read the article - much less the sources. If you have, your interpretation of what’s actually written isn’t factual, so I have doubts this goes beyond “I don’t like it.” —Kbabej (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee, I just went back and reviewed the “undue weight” claims from DD. The only thing sourced to DD is this sentence: “Besides Biden's video, memes using Rittenhouse's image have spread on social media.” You’re worried a RS is used for 12 words (!!!) stating the undisputed fact the subject’s image has been used for memes? I’m actually flabbergasted you think 12 words from a RS stating a basic fact is undue. I cannot take your arguments seriously if you think that is in any way a realistic claim of undue. —Kbabej (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Kbebej, I'm also worried that this article makes a claim about celebrety status despite the fact that most source, even the ones cited to support it, don't actually support that he is personally a celebrety (there is a difference between an individual who is a celebrety and a cause celelbre). You also missed that most of the video game section is sourced to DD. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Except you were solely talking about the memes “in the lead”. Stop moving the goalposts and changing your arguments. As for the video game being sourced to DD, that’s completely appropriate given it’s a RS. And it doesn’t even have a subsection or a mention in the lead. —Kbabej (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Flew an airplane in the Kitty Hawk incident

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

"Shot three men who pursued him"

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

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

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

One provided source uses "celebrity cause"; the others don't. Sources that say conservatives don't see Rittenhouse as a celebrity might support that suggestion; otherwise it's original research. I previously suggested 'focal point' (perhaps similar to 'pivotal moment'), but that was not supported by editors here. As a summary of this article (not the KUS article), the lead does cover Rittenhouse's life beyond the trial. Regarding the video game subsection, the lead includes only that he "announced a video game to raise funds for legal defense". —ADavidB 18:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

How many sources don't describe Rittenhosue as any kind of conservative celebrity? If we are going to use that in the opening sentence it needs to be rock solid. Even the WP quotes a conservative who disagrees with the lionization of Rittenhouse . Now look at the list in the lead and what they actually say. The first two sources, The Globe and NBC News appear to say he is a celebrity. Next is the Boston Globe which only makes the claim in the article lead. It's well established that source leads shouldn't be used to support claims. The body of the article doesn't say celebrity. Next is a WP opinion article (perspective) which says he has been celebrated and treated as a cause celebre. It doesn't say he is a celebrity and as an op-ed article we shouldn't care either way. Next we have Slate offering the perspective of an "expert on the far-right". That expert says, "He’s a celebrity for many of these right-wing militia groups". So that isn't saying he is a celebrity to conservatives. NPR says he is part of a celebrity cause for the far right (are we claiming "far right"=conservative? The Nation quotes Rittenhouse's attorney in context. He certainly isn't claiming he is a celebrity among conservatives. The Conversation says, "Rittenhouse and his celebrity among right-wing extremists". Are we going to claim right wing extremist is "conservatives"? Finally we have NBC News talking about his TPUSA appearance with the comment, "overnight celebrity status". That doesn't say he is a lasting celebrity. The sum of all this is sufficient to claim he has been celebrated or became a cause celebre in some circles but it's nowhere near sufficient to claim, in the opening sentence of a BLP and in wkivoice, that he is a "conservative celebrity". Springee (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Links are given for a reason. We don't have to get into everything here. Including some detail does beg for more, though, which I had resisted with former wording. —ADavidB 19:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen, I’ve removed that wording from the section. Not only is it unsourced (the AP source for that sentence doesn’t mention that), it’s likely undue. —Kbabej (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• C-Class Wisconsin articles
• Low-importance Wisconsin articles