Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:58, 29 August 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kenosha unrest article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora 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. Black Lives Matter High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter 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.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related 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. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management 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. Firefighting Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Misplaced Pages! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wisconsin Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kenosha unrest article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Request to mention the details of the shootings from Kyle Rittenhouse

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

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

The article currently says " is then seen opening fire on those pursuing him." In fact, Huber ran up to the fallen Rittenhouse, whacked him on the head with his skateboard, and then tried to grab the rifle when he was shot. That is a bit more than "pursuing him", more like assaulting him. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Requested move 25 August 2020

It has been proposed in this section that Kenosha unrest be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log

Kenosha protests → ? – this is an adjustment to this partially closed request necessary because of the page move. The ongoing survey and discussion can be found below in the #Break after partial closure subsection. This can technically be considered a relisting. P.I. Ellsworth  ed.  02:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous move request:
Kenosha riot → Kenosha protests – Per WP:COMMONNAME. To limit my analysis to news sources I used news.google.com In order not to retrieve older protests/riots, I restricted the searches to last week only. "protests in Kenosha"=20. "Kenosha protests"=28. Total PROTESTS=48. "riots in Kenosha"=8. "Kenosha riots"=12. Total RIOTS=20. Conclusion: protests is *more than twice as common* in news sources! "Jacob Blake protests" would also make sense but only 8 occurrences at present. gidonb (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The partial result of the move request was: Consensus against riot. I am going to partially close this discussion. I find, based on our policy that there is consensus that this should not be named Kenosha riot(s) and I further find that it is eligible for early closure (that is the elements of WP:SNOW are satisfied) despite the presence of established editors in favor of Kenosha riot(s). As such I am closing that element of the discussion and moving the page for the remainder of the discussion to Kenosha protests, as the original proposal. I am not closing the discussion overall, however, as there is substantial support for Kenosha unrest. Given this divide further discussion is still necessary to determine if the article should be at Kenosha protests, Kenosha unrest, or a new suggestion which might emerge through the RM process. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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.

• Strong Support The news outlets called the riots that are taking place riots. But the majority of demonstrators are in daytime and largely peaceful. Albertaont (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest Jacob Blake protests as the article title. The events are a reaction to the shooting of Jacob Blake. This approach is similar to the George Floyd protests article (which morphed into a global protest movement article with the Minneapolis riots spun off into George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul). Using "Kenosha protests" or "Kenosha riots" as the main article title is far too limiting, especially as other parts of Wisconsin have already had notable events, and it is a way of diminishing the person who was shot. Also, it's not a Kenosha thing anymore.VikingB (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Support VikingB's proposal for consistency, as well as to reflect the accuracy of protests tied to the shooting of Jacob Blake that are not limited to Kenosha. While I also support ShadZ01's proposal, that is a discussion to take place elsewhere, as repeatedly mentioned. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As events continue to unfold, unrest more accurately captures the essence of what is occurring while maintaining WP:NPOV. Many domestic and international outlets are largely referring to events in Kenosha as either "protests" or "unrests." I now weak support a move to "Jacob Blake protests" or "2020 Jacob Blake protests," and strong support a move to "2020 Kenosha unrest."

I say George Floyd protests and this article should be merged into one. Call it United States anti-police brutality protests or 2020 United States unrest like that since these similar events aren't just about George Floyd anymore. ShadZ01 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A merger and rename discussion would need to happen on the talk page for George Floyd protests.VikingB (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Majority of the protests are peaceful. So it should be renamed. ShadZ01 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What makes you say that a majority of what is happening in Kenosha was peaceful? Juno (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The news outlets call this riots. Protests take place in daylight - these are not protests at night. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Same reasons as stated by Lightburst user above, also this article is specifically about the riots and the damage caused by them, which massively overshadow the otherwise hardly notable daytime "protests". I also somewhat support ShadZ01's point about the George Floyd protests namechange, but that's for another talk page. Temeku (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Juno (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I would hope editors would consider themselves to have a duty to a correct record, and not a duty to media outlets, which are a tool to arrive at the record but are not the record themselves. Distinguishing between protests of no particular note and riots of considerable significance is a pertinent consideration as well. We do not speak of the Greenwood protests; we speak of the Tulsa Race Massacre.Torriende (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  This comment should not be considered too strongly, as the editor is saying reliable sources aren't reliable. And the comp between this event and the Tulsa massacre is odd and out of place. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  This comment should be taken into serious consideration, as the editor is claiming media outlets report on different aspects of a social phenomenon, whether out of a bias or for purposes of simplification. Some outlets slant to investigate the political (aka the protest) demonstrations, while others slant to investigate the property damage, physical violence and sense of breakdown in law and order. Reasonable persons may consider these to be two overlapping events, linked by a common trigger, and thus reporting on either may be justified if the phenomenon was the result of various factions with different objectives and methods. The mention of the events of late May 1921 in Tulsa ( historically referred to as the Tulsa Race Riots) further underscores this point. Sean729 (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose content of the entry focuses on the violence occurring as a result of the Blake shooting, as evidenced by the Events entries. By focusing on the violence the name and content reflect the riots occurring and not the protests. A change in the title will necessitate new content specific to the protests and engender a need for a new entry to cover the Kenosha Riots leveraging the current content of this entry.BrianCLT (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — BrianCLT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose A separate article is more appropriate, as riots and protests are distinctly different things. This article handles the riots, an additional one might handle protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.161.152 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — 173.206.161.152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose The article title should at the very least reflect the definitions of the words riot/protest as defined on Wiki itself. "Where protests are part of a systematic and peaceful nonviolent campaign to achieve a particular objective, and involve the use of pressure as well as persuasion, they go beyond mere protest". "A riot is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people." Iceness (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Protest
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Riot

• Oppose You can't call all the damage that has occurred and what the media and police are calling Rioting and protest. The article already sites damage and victims of the riots. Also anyone can listen and watch the people on the ground and police audio and see this is more than a protest. From Merriam-Webster Definition of riot (Entry 1 of 2)

1a: a violent public disorder

specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent

b: public violence, tumult, or disorderBurrkilla2 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Burrkilla2 — Burrkilla2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose The majority of the content clearly spells out the damage to property caused on the evenings/nights in question. Thus it focuses on the riot that was the cause. The flaw (and likely cause of confusion) is the opening summary that suggests the rioters were largely motivated by ideas espoused by BLM movement. That link is tenuous at best, and could be discarded without affecting the accuracy of the article and its description of the damage, which insofar as can be corroborated by media outlets could provide a more comprehensive record as to the scale of property damage and the intensity of violence. Sean729 (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I would not use news sources words frequency to determine a title. News sources are 90% politics based and try imposing a narrative. Writing "peaceful protest" for the 1000th is not going to change the impressive circle of violence we are looking at. The George Floyd Protest was exactly that: a peaceful protest. It changed over time, but it started as a peaceful protest. On the other side, Kenosha riots cannot be labelled as protests (much less, peaceful protests), because on the same day they degenerated into violence. We didn't see moms and dads peacefully marching with symbols. It directly went to fire and destruction. dfumagalli —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — Dfumagalli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose Mainstream media outlets and Google search are brainwashing americans into thinking that mayhem is protest. No! It's rioting when there is looting and destruction of private property! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premedios (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — Premedios (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose What happened in Kenosha was violence and destruction of property. That's the definition of a riot. Protests are peaceful. LegionaryIX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Violence is the definition of what's happening. Businesses destroyed and people have been assaulted. These are riots - period. 2605:A000:1005:3A0:58AF:A892:1568:DD05 (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Destruction of property, assault and arson imply a degree of lawlessness. A protest usually takes place in a designated area with co-ordination between protesters, law enforcement and local authorities. I fail to see the validity of an argument consisting of 'it's largely peaceful, so it's a protest'. Let's review this article against the light of Misplaced Pages's greatest strength, i.e. factual accuracy. Harachte (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Black rioters are running through town, destroying property, lighting buildings on fire, attacking White people and Police officers, and robbing stores. This is not a protest. It is a violent racially motivated riot. Special:Contributions/2600:1000:B104:7F41:25BB:659:E12D:9233 (talk) 19:25 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support We have a lot of IPs and WP:SPAs posting opinions without citing policy. I would not be surprised if there was some off-wiki canvassing going on. Article titles are based on the preponderance of reliable sourcing and per WP:NPOVTITLE, should be neutral. "Riots" is not. "Protests" or "unrest" would be NPOV. Here's a sampling of sourcing (with added emphasis):
  • Kenosha becomes center of nationwide protests after police shoot Black man in front of his children, CNN
  • Jacob Blake Shooting Prompts Tense Protests and Fires in Several Cities, NYT
  • IN PHOTOS: Large protest in downtown Kenosha Monday evening, Kenosha News
  • Protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin over police shooting of Jacob Blake turn violent for second night in row, CBS News
  • Another Night Of Clashes And Unrest In Kenosha, Wis., Following Jacob Blake Shooting, NPR

Naturally, Fox News calls it "rioting". But Fox News is an outlier here; they are a biased source in U.S. politics, as discussed at WP:RSP. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Riots The local Kenosha, WI newspaper calls them riots. Look at the photos in the link from 8/24/20 and tell me if that is from protests or riots. The largest wisconsin newspaper Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calls them riots, Newsweek calls them rioters. Lightburst (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, Look at the photos in the link from 8/24/20 and tell me if that is from protests or riots. That's not what we do. We don't judge things for ourselves, we say what reliable sources say. And that title says "rioters", as opposed to the Kenosha News link I shared that says "protests", which makes it clear that this is predominantly protests, with some rioting interspersed. Much like the George Floyd protests. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice catch. instead read the title of that article IN PHOTOS: Rioters set fires in Kenosha, Lightburst (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I did read that title. The other Kenosha News article I shared mentions protests, while that article mentions rioters. Like I said, it's protests that contain some rioting. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu The title should indeed be neutral. The logic you've applied towards FOX applies likewise towards almost every source that you've linked (namely CNN, NYT and CBSN). Blindly copying MSM rhetoric doesn't ensure Wiki's neutrality, it exacerbates its political bias. Here's an alternative sampling:

• Uptown Kenosha after the riots , Kenosha News
• Locals in Kenosha Attempt to Clean Wreckage after Night of Riots , National Review
• Man Pulls Gun On Reporter During Kenosha Riots , DailyCaller
• As Rioting Lights Up Wisconsin, Democrat Governor Blames Police, TheFederalist Iceness (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Non-neutral but common names are allowed, specifically "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." BrianCLT (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: The Journal Sentinel article you linked to may have used "riots" when you linked to it, but it says "protests" now. Similarly the Kenosha News is calling them protests in several articles on today's front page. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guettarda: I say let it go. Here is a photo from 8/24/2020 Credit: (Yayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images) for your edification. This is not a protest IMO. Some news outlets misuse the term "protest" but the majority consider property destruction and violence a riot. Lightburst (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Sorry, I don't follow what you mean by "let it go". I clicked through the JS link and saw that they're using "protests", not "riots", and wanted to let you know that the article had either been changed, or you had made a mistake. I was operating from a position of AGF, but your response here makes it seem like you're operating from a position of WP:OR and cherry-picking examples to support your position while disregarding WP:COMMONNAME. I'm disappointed that an established editor like you would choose to disregard policy in this fashion, but that's your choice. Have a nice day. Guettarda (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Changing the narrative and calling this a "protest" after all the destruction caused is simply revisionist history. I worry that the neutrality of Misplaced Pages is being threatened by outside sources in the name of social justice. --2607:FEA8:2C5F:F909:F873:9288:A3F9:B21A (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• per discussion Randy Kryn (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Title should be Kenosha riot or Kenosha rioting. Destruction of property would seem to distinguish rioting from protesting. "Video Shows Armed Residents Protecting Local Businesses From Rioters in Kenosha, WI". Bus stop (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and moved to Kenosha riots per reason and argument above. Plus the correct title for this article should be Kenosha riots (plural name) not Kenosha riot (singular name) as per all riots articles or can be Jacob Blake protests if protest spread beyond the city. 180.245.102.250 (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Comment: The same IP is part of obvious sockpuppetry or canvassing at Talk:Four_color_theorem#Requested_move_22_August_2020. --mfb (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  I encourage people to look at the alleged SPA. It's far from 'obvious' with no real evidence put forward, just an angry accusation on that page. LegendLength (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  @LegendLength: It's completely natural that 5 users from Sumatra show up in a random move discussion with identical opinions and the same uncommon spelling error ("hypernated")? --mfb (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rioting is simply the OBJECTIVE REALITY of what's been happening in Kenosha over the past few days. There haven't been a bunch of parents with their kids marching peacefully, holding signs, and listening to speeches. There's been looting, arson attacks, assaults, including a business owner nearly beaten to death, guns drawn on reporters, etc. Of course me commenting here probably won't matter, as editors will just point to a handful of partisan neolib outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Vox, NYT, and WaPo, who push a misleading narrative for political reasons, and be like "tHeY sAy 'ProTeSTs,' sO We sHoUld cAlL iT ThAt ToO!!!" But hopefully, at least just this once, objective reality and truth will actually prevail! -2003:CA:871F:47AB:8CCD:DAC:59BE:B0DE (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE: Protests are different than riots. Assaulting and intimidating people & burning down and looting businesses is not a protest that's a riot. We need to stop normalizing these riots. Words have meanings, we need to stop perverted those definitions. These are riots, do not change the name from Kenosha Riots to Kenosha Protests, that would be a lie! If Misplaced Pages wants to continue being the place people turn to for information, that information needs to be factual and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoGirlInASoCalWorld (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC) — ChicagoGirlInASoCalWorld (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• COMMENT It appears that this discussion has been listed on some alt-right page. As a result, we get tons of new editors and editors returning after a long time of absence who put their opinions here. Their general argument is that these are riots because they "feel" that this is the appropriate word. They sidestep the fact that the press overwhelming calls these protests and protesters (or, in other cases, promote conspiracy theories about the press and Google brainwashing Americans). Saying that we need to call these riots because this feels about right, while the press calls these protests, is of course promoting WP:original research, hence clearly conflicting with WP policy. But even if we sidestep the data as well for a moment (we shouldn't but for the sake of the argument), then, still, protests is the only proper word to describe the events. The reason is simple: while protests can be violent, riots cannot be peaceful. Hence protests with elements of violence are per definition protests, NOT riots. It is as simple as that! gidonb (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The prevalence of personal opinion in the majority of comments is apparent and should absolutely be ignored. With that said, a public expression that results in the destruction of public and private property, otherwise the elements of violence, is what Wiki itself defines as a riot. Elements of violence don't spur out of existence because the press overwhelmingly refers to the events as a peaceful protest. Unless there is evidence that the act of public expression is exclusively, not largely, peaceful, the existence of violence makes the entire act a riot, not a protest. So far, there is a staggering amount of evidence listing multiple acts of violence by the very same press. This article's name should reflect the reality of the situation, not mirror the press headlines to the T. Under your logic that protests can be violent and remain protests, 1992 Lost Angeles Riots article would also need to be renamed. Iceness (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—you say "Their general argument is that these are riots because they 'feel' that this is the appropriate word." Merriam-Webster defines "riot" as "a violent public disorder". Wouldn't the burning of cars be "a violent public disorder"? I believe that's what transpired. Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

As I explained, between what an individual believes and carefully picks out of a book and the events in Kenosha and between what authoritative sources say, the sources take strong preference. Otherwise, we promote WP:Original research. I understand that some have this tendency to portray protests by initially mostly African Americans as riots but whenever there are protests of which some forms are nonviolent and others are violent the common denominator is "protests". This part of my text explains why: "The reason is simple: while protests can be violent, riots cannot be peaceful. Hence protests with elements of violence are per definition protests, NOT riots. It is as simple as that!" Again, my policy argument is that contradicting the large bulk of the authoritative sources is promoting WP:OR and Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research as it is not neutral and cannot be carried in consensus but this can help you organize it in your mind. gidonb (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—I oppose misnaming the article based on factors such as whether or not some of the participants may be "African American". That may be your concern but it has no counterpart in objective reality. Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, if you had read my text more carefully you would have seen that I oppose misnaming the article because many protestors are African American. The press doesn't do this and neither should we. We should follow the WP:RS and not engage in WP:OR. It is very simple: the press calls this for the most part protests and protesters. The entire idea that there is violence or there are minority populations so this must be riots is based on a misunderstanding of what riots and protests are as well as on prejudice. WP should not engage in racism or other types of misinformation and prejudice but summarize WP:RS. gidonb (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—there are no racial factors in whether this is a "riot" or not. Yet you are saying "some have this tendency to portray protests by initially mostly African Americans as riots". You are stating your concern. But what does your concern have to do with objective reality? It bears no relationship to objective reality. It doesn't matter if one racial identity or another racial identity ignites new automobiles, fresh off the assembly line, into flaming infernos. It is still rioting. It is still waste of human resources. It is still air pollution. I'm not looking at the color of the skin of the person who destroys some of humanity's finest creations. There is a reason new automobiles cost tens of thousands of dollars. These are fine creations. Who has the right to riot and smash the windows of brand new, high quality driving machines, and then set them ablaze? That is not rioting? How much air pollution derives from a burning automobile? How many wasted hours of fire departments have to be devoted to this nonsense that you are pretending is merely "protesting"? If sources call it "rioting" we can call it "rioting". And the dictionary definition concurs. Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, my opinion is crystal clear: we should follow the Reliable Sources, otherwise we'd be engaging in Original Research and deviate from the Neutral Point Of View. The racist prejudice and the misunderstanding of what protests are -"There is violence so these are not protests" is a false statement- is how I explain that a lot of people here hold different opinions. These opinions clearly conflict with our policies and should not receive the same weight as those rooted in WP policy and guidelines. Otherwise canvassing -like the outcome we see here- will again become all the rage. All this is my analysis. My opinion on the name, clearly stated in the nomination, is based solely on what the Reliable Sources say. It is a WP:COMMONNAME argument! gidonb (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—you are referring to "racist prejudice", and in an earlier post you say "WP should not engage in racism or other types of misinformation and prejudice". What is this a reference to? I haven't seen "racist prejudice", at least not in this thread. You can cut-and-paste a quoted excerpt of something you think someone said that you feel displays "racist prejudice". And I suppose we can discuss that. Maybe I will agree with you. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb-but whenever there are protests of which some forms are nonviolent and others are violent the common denominator is "protests" . According to which source do you believe this to be true? This is the core divergence between our points of view - from my understanding your claim is false. I am open to being challenged though. In the meantime, consider this - there are five people that are being mugged on a train with the capacity of one hundred people; as some people are not being mugged, the common denominator for the incident on the train is that no mugging occurred. The point is, this article doesn't exclude the existence of peaceful protests in Kenosha - it describes the riots that have and are occurring. If peaceful protests do occur within the same time frame, they need to be covered separately, within this article or in a dedicated one. Iceness (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Iceness False. The common denominator would be that all these people (crime victims, criminals, and bystanders or sitters) are traveling by train. Also, we have been through this discussion many times before. For example at the George Floyd protests. The consensus was that "protests" is the correct name as this is what the WP:RS use. Here too. I'll quote my own statement in one of the discussions: Peaceful protests and violent protests -- what do they have in common? Yep! The one word that we need and have in our title! Violent protests are a real thing. It is discussed at length in the literature and is also reflected in our protests article. What isn't a thing is peaceful riots. Riots are contained in protests. Using riots, instead of protests by the RS, we would be implying that for WP only violent actions count and that the rest should be discounted. I couldn't disagree more! Bundling peaceful and violent protests as "riots" is a strong departure from WP:NPOV. gidonb (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb And what would the Wiki article look like regarding the incident, 'People are traveling by train' or 'Mugging occurs on the train'? I think you have an inherited bias in this, with your reference to the George Floyd article. While I personally believe (and I stress the word personally) that the George Floyd page title should also be renamed into 'movement' akin to the Yellow Vest movement, but lets sidetrack that and get to the bottom of this - are there riots occurring in Kenosha, yes or no? Breathing is contained during the act of murder, that doesn't mean that each time each a person breathes they commit a crime. Wiki is a non-profit foundation, and as a psychology major I absolutely resent the tendency in this thread of narrowing down the argument to aligning with the phrasing from a cherry-picked list of commercial media outlets. Iceness (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Iceness NP. My opinions are clear and directly rooted in WP policy and guidelines, in social science and in logic. I do not recognize myself in a narrowing down of any sort. On the contrary, I addressed the big picture. All the protests. Peaceful or not. All news sources. I wish you good luck with the riddles. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—looting and arson are not protected by the US Constitution. Only peaceful protest is protected by the Constitution. You are arguing to downplay looting and arson to peaceful protest. And you still have not told me what "racist prejudice" has been expressed in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop - This is getting more ridiculous each time. I'm not downplaying anything. Protests cover violence and peaceful demonstrations. With "riots" you are downplaying that there are peaceful demonstrations and do not want this acknowledged in the title. You're totally projecting on me what you are doing in this discussion. Second. I have explained many times in this threat that racial prejudice and other factors can cause people to prefer a different terminology than the one adequately describing what happened or is used in the press. This analysis is rooted in a large body of social science research and proven to be correct when it became apparent that an alternative reality website had placed a call to come and influence the discussion here. We at Misplaced Pages do not engage in politics just describe reality based on WP:Reliable Sources. Your suggestions totally conflict with reality, and your points do not hold water. Have you even read our policies and guidelines? And if you did and disagreed with these, maybe their talk pages are where you should be arguing? gidonb (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb—I feel it is improper for you to invoke racial prejudice unless it exists in this thread. You are saying "This analysis is rooted in a large body of social science research". But you are going far afield from the topic of this discussion when you say "some have this tendency to portray protests by initially mostly African Americans as riots...The racist prejudice and the misunderstanding of what protests are...WP should not engage in racism or other types of misinformation and prejudice". I am unwilling to engage you in a discussion about the alleged "large body of social science research". Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about feelings, I feel that it is improper for you to engage in tendentious anti-anti-racist soapboxing at great length and at every available opportunity. --JBL (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Gidonb Your logic removes the existence of the word 'riot' from the language by replacing it with 'violent protest' (and incidentally dropping the 'violent' part from the title). I have spent years recognizing ethical, confirmation and sampling bias in scientific publication and I have myself written papers on social science - to me, the mere concept of CNN (or any media, left- of right-leaning) being treated as a reputable source is ludicrous; I understand that live social events can only be reported by the media - this makes it further imperative for the admin board to maintain impartiality when reviewing this request. Notwithstanding my point, these are today's hard numbers from Google News - "Kenosha protests" (as spelled) from Aug 23 to Aug 27 returned 100 articles; "Kenosha riots" (with the same parameters) returned 90. If both events don't exclude each other, they should be treated as two separate events - but removing the word 'riot/(s)' from this current article's title is an act of censorship against the reports by the very same media that have identified the events as such. Iceness (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support We should use high quality media such as BBC, CNN, MSNBC source as to writing this article when they definite it as protests, not FOX when i considered more unreliable than BBC which use definition riot for that event. IMO, BBC is a high quality reliable source when writing to evwnt in Kenosha than any other media in the world, even Fox News. 182.1.23.97 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  Comment: Again, what the media reports does not change the fact that these are violent race riots. Buildings are being burned and looted, Police and Whites attacked and shot at, and other forms of general destruction. To gain an actual image one must see the full story from all perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B0CB:BCD:740A:41C7:7D5F:9445 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  Comment: The BBC ones are funny. They avoid the use of 'riot' at all costs but then say stuff like "In the surrounding streets we saw vehicles set on fire, buildings vandalised and whole rows of streetlights pulled down." LegendLength (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• STRONGLY OPPOSED: There is a very clear difference between a protest that's peaceful with some sort of civil disobedience, but this is not anything resembling a peaceful protest. The fact that the media lies to everyone and gaslights by utilizing the word "protest" rather than "riot" should be a separate part of the article where we talk about the one sided media coverage. Tim Pool rightly calls this and the riots surrounding George Floyd as they are. They are riots and they should have titles that tell the truth about the situations on the ground. Onstrike (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)— Onstrike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose: Reliable sources are referring to violent destruction as being caused by rioters.(CBS 58) Rioters setting fire to homes and apartments, places where people live, and jeopardizing the lives of the residents, does not fall under the umbrella of protesting.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Refer to modern American history and how it references the violence Pictorals from each of the events as described by the History channel refer to them as Riots. Los Angeles Riots, Watts Riots, 1967 Detroit Riots, Zoot Suit Riots, Attica Riots... The Los Angeles Riots were subsequent to the beating of Rodney King. That event mirrors these riots as do the others listed by the History channel. Protests are non-violent. Recent riots have all resulted in murders, attempted murders, serious bodily injury, arson, rapes, etc. These are not the hallmarks of peaceful protests and do not deserve that moniker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.241.95 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: Peaceful people do not attack people or light buildings on fire and protesters have nothing to gain by threatening people in the middle of the night. These are tactics of rioters, oppressors, thugs, and criminals. 657viper (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — 657viper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support per Muboshgu. Most RS are calling this a protest. Moreover, "riot" is not a neutral title, especially since (as stated in the article) a local sheriff said that most of the damage was caused by people from outside the county who had no intent to protest. Davey2116 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd rather change to something like Kenosha unrest or 2020 Kenosha unrest. See Ferguson unrest. Kingofthedead (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the fact you are trying to find a compromise. The reliable sources, however, are clear: these are protests and protesters. "Unrest", too, would be WP:OR. As I see it, given the huge quality edge over a massive amount of largely canvassed opinions, this discussion is going into the correct, WP:RS direction. A compromise solution would be worse than calling the protests by what they are: protests. In my comment above I explain why. gidonb (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

While I oppose any page move from its current title, using "unrest" as a title would not be WP:OR. There are plenty of reliable sources that use the term "unrest". "Department of Corrections building burned to the ground in Kenosha unrest" (CBS 58), "Kenosha unrest tests political potency of Trump's 'law and order' convention message" (CNN), "Jacob Blake shooting: gun battle in Kenosha on third night of unrest" (The Guardian), "Gov. Tony Evers declares state of emergency in wake of unrest after Kenosha police shooting" (The Cap Times). There are many reliable sources that refer to the situation as unrest, the actions as rioting, and participants as rioters.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Killings occurring, mass property destruction. Riots perfectly describes the event. JoshuaAMarsh 18:09, 26 of August 2020 (AEST) Joshua A Marsh (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Joshua A Marsh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose insofar as there are protests going on, they are not the notable event. The notable event which is attracting wide coverage in various sources is the ongoing riot. 182.2.136.223 (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• strong support I agree that this should be merged with the floyd protest article, as in this strikes me as a sub event of like the 2020 usa blm protests. If not that, then either protest or unrest. Guardian headlines; "Jacob Blake shooting: gun battle in Kenosha on third night of unrest ", "Shots fired on third night of Wisconsin unrest over police shooting of Black man ", "Clashes at US protest over police shooting of black man" --Hiveir (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Easy to oppose this because there are videos all over youtube showing the riots. LegendLength (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)— LegendLength (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose: Sources focus on the civil disturbance and violent aspect of the events. A curfew was called on the first day and the National Guard in the first 24 hours. Fa suisse (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment There are reports of armed vigilantes, and according to the Washington Post, 2 protesters have already been killed. I think it best to avoid language which might encourage more violence against protesters. I think some of the language above violates WP Civility, amounts to taunting, and creates a hostile environment for minority Wikipedians. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: There seems to be a discussion now about what "protest" and "riot" mean. According to multiple dictionary definitions for protest and riot a protest is neither referring to a peaceful or violent protest. To denote it as either would require qualifying it as "peaceful" or "violent". A protest is just a public demonstration in opposition to something. A riot is a violent public disturbance created by three or more people or, legally, it is an unlawful assembly (assembled for a common purpose) that terrorizes the public or has become violent. A riot isn't required to be chaotic, confusing, or disorderly to be a riot. There can be organized riots. The common purpose of the people assembled could be to protest or it could be to simply loot stores. If we start with a group of people assembled for a common purpose. The only addition necessary for a riot is either violence or terrorizing the public. A violent protest (of 3 or more people), then, would be, by definition, a riot. Hence, once a large peaceful protest becomes violent it becomes a riot so long as there are 3 or more people involved. 657viper (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — 657viper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. If both violent and non-violent protests occur, then protests would be the more inclusive label. 2. In many cases, including this discussion, violence against protesters gets confused with violence by protesters. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

riot — noun ✔️1. a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets. ✔️2. Law .a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes. ✔️3. violent or wild disorder or confusion. ✖️4. a brilliant display: a riot of color. ✖️5. something or someone hilariously funny: You were a riot at the party. ✖️6. unrestrained revelry. ✔️7. an unbridled outbreak, as of emotions, passions, etc. ✖️8. Archaic .loose, wanton living; profligacy.

— verb (used without object) ✔️9. to take part in a riot or disorderly public outbreak. ✖️10. to live in a loose or wanton manner; indulge in unrestrained revelry: Many of the Roman emperors rioted notoriously. ✖️11. Hunting .(of a hound or pack) to pursue an animal other than the intended quarry. ✔️12. to indulge unrestrainedly; run riot.

Burning Buildings, Torching Vehicles, Assulting People non ADW, ADWs, Robberies, Lootings, MURDERS... NONE of this is "Peaceful Protesting"... Do not change the title!!! Mk2jahouser (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC) — Mk2jahouser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong support Changing the name helps keep Misplaced Pages's status as a joke consistent 4.59.70.125 (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support protests more common name and far more neutral term. I know we generally don't lock talk pages, but I feel that it might be necessary to lock this one due to clear bridging that is going on here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lightburst. Vaselineeeeeeee 13:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Onstrike. Finnegas (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. As of today's reporting, NPR is calling them protests, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is calling them protests, as is WaPo, CBS, ABC, NYTimes, Chicago Tribune, Politico, The Guardian, even the Wall Street Journal. We're a clear outlier here. Guettarda (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the Kenosha News refers to "night three of protests", "Kenosha's Tuesday protest" and the "Third night of protests" in the headlines of stories currently on their front page. Guettarda (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that there are two viable options here, and neither of them involve simply re-naming this page "Kenosha protests". The first option is to create another article Jacob Blake protests to contain information about actual protests occurring as a result of Jacob Blake's shooting. Such protests have occurred and were not limited to Kenosha. This article can then remain to contain information specifically pertaining to the riots and destruction in the city of Kenosha. The other option is to re-name the article Kenosha unrest, which completely avoids the issue of weighing whether protests or rioting were more characteristic of the events thus far. However, this second option has the disadvantage of excluding both the protests and destruction which have occurred in, e.g. Madison. BirdValiant (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support – unrest or protests, doesn't matter to me. Both have a much stronger case for COMMONNAME than the current title. We can decide between them later. PLEASE, IAR and close this discussion. Canvassing has caused a disruption to this page and this nomination would have SNOWed otherwise. We should not have to live with this title for 7 days just because some people are gaming the system. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Looking through the sources, there are many instances where we use "riot/rioters" while the cited source we uses "protest/protesters", "people", "crowd" or "vandal". Although "riot" is used by some sources, "protest" is more prominent. –dlthewave ☎ 15:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - People have been murdered during this unrest and there is significant destruction of property. Not sure I understand why this is even debatable. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: "People have been murdered" obscures who is responsible for the violence. I don't want to get too deep into the weeds on assigning responsibility, because that runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Still, titling the page as "Kenosha riot" and making vague references to people being killed implies that those responsible for the deaths are the demonstrators themselves. "Kenosha unrest" describes both what is taking place and where, without asserting responsibility on any person or party for the violence. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Was the shooter not a demonstrator? He wasn't a cop. Juno (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the reports I've seen, the shooter was a pro-police vigilante, and the victims were protesters. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that it is obscure as to who is responsible for the violence. It seems to me that the notability of the article isn't whether or not there are protests taking place, but that there are riots taking place. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This thread has been brigaded by an alt-right guild part of the social media website called Ruqqus. While I know this is not a vote, I want editors to be aware of the fact: https://ruqqus.com/post/2nq5/psa-the-retards-who-manipulate-wikipedia Dr-Bracket (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Dr-Bracket, thank you!!!!! I knew that there was off-site canvassing going on, I just didn't know where it was happening. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Seconded, Muboshgu. Good find on your part, Dr-Bracket. This definitely explains the influx of minimally-sourced, appeal-to-emotion opposition to a change to the name of the page, particularly from IP-only accounts. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for finding this. How do you search for these things? Juno (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: In a WSJ Journal article, It mentions, "The city has experienced violent clashes, fires and looting since Jacob Blake, a 29-year old Black man, was shot in the back by police on Sunday.". It does not deny the fact that there were protests but it does not deny the fact that there weren't any riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightvour (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/kenosha-wis-sees-second-night-of-violence-as-unrest-spreads-11598362900

• • Changed to Support After a bit of searching through comments, @Muboshgu: explains his argument quite well and by that I do support his argument. So I will change my status to support. Nightvour (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support this really is a discussion about the scope of the article. At this point it makes sense to have a single article about both the protests and the riots. VQuakr (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @VQuakr: If both the protests and the riots are to be lumped together, isn't "unrest" better? BirdValiant (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: sure, my !vote can be counted as a "support" for either. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• oppose: They are riots, plain and simple. 73.89.157.3 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• don't care: But if you keep trying to change others' perception of reality with words, after a while the words start to more closely represent the phenomena people observe in connection with those words. You see it all the time in euphemisms: "retarded" used to be a more polite, enlightened version of "moron", "idiot" etc. Yet now it's just as much of an insult if not more so. Do you want the very idea of protesting against the existing order to be irreparably associated with spiteful nihilistic violence? Because that's what you're doing. Slowly but surely. 204.93.126.18 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose If almost everyone in Misplaced Pages could leave his Liberal bias for a few minutes and be objective and apolitical you'd realize this is in fact a riot, just like in Portland or Minneapolis, I don't care how much you support Black Lives Matter or oppose racism or how wrong you think the shooting of that criminal Blake was, it IS a riot. --177.230.47.65 (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not the arbiters of truth. As a policy, we follow the example of reliable sources. If they call it "unrest" or "protests", we call it the same. If they call "riots", we call that. The vast majority of sources do not use riot to describe these set of events. In a page showing the first 100 results of for "Kenosha", the word riot appears 1 time. While protests appear 24 times and unrest appears 10 times. That is clear evidence besides the many points made above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right. Most peoples' objections in this talk page would be better taken up with the news outlets rather than Misplaced Pages, but the fact remains that you still have a great deal of lattitude in how you treat these subjects. Strict, consistent policies are great, and in light of that, if I wanted to vote, I'd vote in favor of the move. You guys set yourself apart as collators of information, not originators.

The problem comes in when I see editors listing off news outlets that they should listen to more than others, how they're more "biased" than others. I thought you guys weren't arbiters of truth?

This is an extremely difficult situation you're in. Truly responsible people, the kind who get remembered for generations, would be VERY CAREFUL that they weren't letting their own biases creep in. That they had the humility to accept that they could be wrong, even about things they're absolutely sure of. 204.93.126.18 (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Google News results top-100 for "Kenosha", protest appears 50 times, unrest appears 25 times, and riot appears 21 times. Clear evidence that riot is NOT the COMMONNAME. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support A search for "kenosha protest" OR "kenosha protests" in Google News currently shows 120,000 mentions of those terms, while "kenosha riot" OR "kenosha riots" only finds 14,000. And that's before excluding stories from the latter where the term is only included in a link to this very page.

Ontologically, all riots are also protests, while not all protests are riots. Using protest would therefore be the sensible & safe choice where there doubt. Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's equivalent to saying "all fist fights are interpersonal conflicts, ontologically." Well, OK. You could say that about 99% of fights in the real world, but that's still not enough to say the concepts are "ontologically" encompassing. Some people fight in sparring sessions with the friends to learn to defend themselves. Some people fight for fun. Some people, money. Likewise, not all riots are protests. What if people just burn shit and lynch people because they felt like it? What if there's no discernible meaning at all? There's no element of *protest* there unless you REALLY stretch.

One word doesn't encompass the other, rather, they overlap. It's important, I think, not to confuse this relationship because it makes certain phenomena, (which in this case happen to reflect a fundamental aspect of human nature), impossible to describe because you've already ruled them out syntactically/definitionally. If you're like most of us, and think in words, it makes these possibilities harder to even consider. What it boils down to is an implicit, unspoken, probably even *unconscious* assumption that, "if people are rioting, they must have a reason one can sympathize with."

Words and meanings are intricate, dangerous things. Be careful with them. 204.93.126.18 (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Very weak support. On the one hand, that the media is making an effort to portray these as protests, and as such that is what many of the sources (especially ones that we deem reliable) say. On the other hand, every bit of coverage I've seen, video on twitter, and reports from the area sure looks and sounds like rioting to me. Policy would say to go with the sources, and that we aren't the arbiters of what is the truth. SQL 19:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • SQL, there is a suggestion to use the term unrest which, according to my searches, is the second most common name but more precisely describes the events. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Coffeeandcrumbs, That's not a bad idea as a compromise. If sources start to describe as riots more than unrest or protests in the future, it can always be moved in any case. SQL 19:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the preponderance of RS. And while I expect nonsense from canvassed SPAs that show up to fight 'liberal bias', veteran editors who are basing their oppose arguments on homegrown definitions of the difference between "riot" and "protest" should know better. Grandpallama (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support This article covers various events, some of which are perhaps better described as rioting, others which are clearly not, including the fatal shootings on 25 August. If the article covers all this, then it should be a more neutral term, like "protests". If you want an article just on the rioting, then a bunch of material needs moving to another article. Bondegezou (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support i agree with Bondegezou argument that protests is more neutral term, at least word "unrest" per Ferguson unrest, but in BBC, they call it "Jacob Blake protests", not Kenosha riot as far-right media mentioned as BBC not necessary naming the city whose rioting. Misplaced Pages should using high quality reliable source to explain this like BBC, AP, Reuters, etc. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: can you clarify how any of the options are more recognizable than the others? We don't have a separate article at this time about the unrest in general (and creating one would be an unnecessary split), so I am unclear on how WP:PRECISE would apply either. VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Guettarda and the overwhelming use of "protests" by RS. --JBL (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest moving all votes from ip editors/new accounts that have no other edits outside of this area to a hatted subsection, this one included. There is a lot of brigading going on and I do not envy whoever has to look this over to close it. Please make their lives easier. 2001:4898:80E8:3:FEB4:F184:A5D0:AFD0 (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Also please remove some of the more racist comments such as Special:Contributions/2600:1000:B104:7F41:25BB:659:E12D:9233's and 204.93.126.18's and 177.230.47.65's. I do not appreciate the use of the word "retarded". 2001:4898:80E8:3:FEB4:F184:A5D0:AFD0 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You've got to be fucking kidding me. Read my comment before you embarrass yourself. I really hope this is a bot or something.204.93.126.18 (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Haven't seen any sound policy arguments for opposing. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure that any of the choices is more prevalent than another (protests, riots, or unrest). Personally, I think "unrest" bridges the two extremes and would be more befitting of an article involving protests, riots, and murders. - MrX 🖋 22:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's a great deal of coverage from journalists live on the scene, and their reporting indicates that the predominant activity by the crowds in Kenosha has been rioting rather than protesting. Wsw248 (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support All of the opposes are just talking about the media, my reasons for support are that the we used the word support in previous articles of this type. Idan (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Zvikorn Inaccurate per 1992 Los Angeles riots , 2020 Delhi riots etc Iceness (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Very Strong Support the George Floyd Protests had their fair share of violence and rioting but they're still called "Protests" so as such this should also. Dan the Animator 23:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - As some editors have pointed out, it would be better to move to a more time/place/event-specific title, such as Jacob Blake protests/riots or 2020 Kenosha protests/riots. NoNews! 00:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: Your latter naming convention propose (2020 Kenosha protests/riots) is required in all disaster management articles which it shall be formatted as <year> <place> <event> (Example like 2020 Delhi riots, 1992 Los Angeles riots, 2011 England riots). Even there are exceptions, such as riots in Kenosha which never have riots before then, the naming convention shall be used as redirect. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I acknowledge that -- but I also note the George Floyd protests article is named as it is right now. Therefore I'm voicing my objection to both the existing and proposed article names in favour of the ones I have listed. The result of the discussion will determine the choice between "protests" and "riots". NoNews! 00:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Violent protests can still be called protests. Any closure that does not strike the extreme amount of canvassing and sockpuppetry here should be disregarded. Reywas92 00:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Riot, though not itself defined in the Wisconsin Statutes, is mentioned in the following: 943.20(3)(d)3, 943.20(3)(d)4 (Crimes Against Property); 62.09(8)d (Cities); 61.24 (Counties); 61.24 (Villages); 323.11 (Emergency Management). A riot is defined as three or more persons engaging in unlawful behavior by the use of force or violence. This definition has been in use for centuries and is reflected in the laws of the States and of the United States. The acts committed in Kenosha meet the common law and statutory definitions of riot. 5JVL9 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support; these are overwhelmingly described as protests among reliable sources, eg. . Note that the sources people are presenting to argue otherwise are almost uniformly low-quality, non-WP:RS, and/or opinion pieces; the mainstream news media is overwhelmingly terming them as protests, which even some of the oppose !votes concede. Furthermore, WP:NPOVTITLE requires that we use a more neutral title; calling them 'riots', a plainly incendiary framing, would require strong sourcing that is completely absent here. --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The majority of the demonstrations have been violent its getting to the point were it is worse then Minneapolis in may.- User:Garmin21

• Support George Floyd protests are filed under protests, this is consistent with existing naming convention. Honkinonbobo (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Though George Floyd protests were called protests, it was because of WP:COMMONNAME, most of the news and media called them protests. On the other hand, most news and media have called these riots because people literally go outside every night with guns and go to war with each other. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Also, can we stop SHOUTING and say Very strong Support or Very Strong Oppose, because adding a "very strong" does not carry more weight than just a support or an oppose. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Oh, it's a riot. Big riot. Please Misplaced Pages, just look at the footage, this is just getting silly. Nate Hooper (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support Give me a break. We're supposed to follow what reliable sources say, and the majority are saying protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.129.178 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support per the WP first mentioned in creating this move request, and following the similar naming scheme for the George Floyd protest. Also, just to point this out but I don't think daytime or nighttime matters in what counts as a riot or a protest, as some users seem to think above. -boldblazer (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment The amount of suspicious activity by SPAs and obvious sockpuppets on this RfC is ridiculous. There's absolutely no way that there isn't extensive off site canvassing going on here. Anyway, the whole thing should probably be merged to Shooting of Jacob Blake. Volunteer Marek 04:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the more neutral title for this article is "Kenosha protests" or "Kenosha unrest" which is comply with NPOV. The title like riot, revolt, etc doesn't make it neutral as it places into far-right argument. This is principles of Misplaced Pages which articles that made shall NPOV tone. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment Alright, so in the last few hours, it's been moved multiple times, from riot, to protest, to unrest and now back to riot (quite amusing to be honest). I was one of the people who thinks "riot" is best, but let's just talk on an issue that most of us will agree on. That is the fact that about half of us are on one side and the other half are, by definition, on the other. Now, these are the perfect conditions for an edit war, so we are at an impasse. It seems that there is no way to solve this problem, short of a never-ending edit war... I've never seen such an even split on Misplaced Pages before. Can we flip a coin or something? lol Nate Hooper (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that it's an "even split" when many of the !votes are by IPs whose arguments are entirely devoid of WP policy or any reference to WP:RS. Also see WP:DEMOCRACY. Whoever closes this RfC is in for a nightmare. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - 304,000 hits for "protests" on Google vs. 143,000 for "riots". But there are only 24,000 for "riot", singular. Regardless of the outcome of the RfC, the title should be plural. As it stands it is inaccurate either way. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support The amount of SPAs here unable to cite policies is staggering. One of them is even saying mainstream sources are "brainwashing". We go by WP:COMMONNAME. Robby.is.on (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

How does one go about dealing with all the SPAs and opinions from not-logged-in users (IP addresses) in concluding this move request? Do you just ignore them, and then consider the consensus present? -boldblazer (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The closing admin will weigh the comments against Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. The drive-by sheep will be given very little consideration. WWGB (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support but preference to Kenosha unrest it seems clear there have been protests as well as things often described as rioting. It doesn't make sense for this article to only cover the parts called riots. Protests seems the more common name so would be preferred over riot. But given that many sources do seem to acknowledge some of it goes beyond protests and that unrest is often used, I think it's a good middle ground. If in the future the riots or the protests become clearly the most significant part of this, we can re-asses it then. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Muboshgu. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 08:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose These are not peaceful protests. The violence is quite blatant and changing it to anything else would violate WP:CENSORED. We have to be realistic here. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

GreenFrogsGoRibbit: I struggle to see how WP:CENSORED applies to the title of this article. The policy you've cited deals with the content contained within the article, or the existence of the article overall. If someone were requesting that this article be deleted, or was editing content to exclude any violence that occurred during this unrest, that absolutely would fall under WP:CENSORED. Changing the article's title is only an effort to adhere to WP:COMMONNAME, which is what is in contention here. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 13:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose But needs to be plural since the rioting has lasted several days - article should be changed to Kenosha riots. see similar articles e.g. Watts riots, 1992 Los Angeles riots, etc. Yodabyte (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support The term protests encompasses peaceful demonstrations all the way to violent riots. This is practically the same discussion that we had with the George Floyd protests. Yes, there was violence. But it was mostly peaceful, so we should account for that in the title. I even think that we should merge George Floyd protests with Kenosha protests into 2020 United States protests. JMonkey2006 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lean support per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NPOV. Regarding whether the events in Kenosha are riots or protests is a false dichotomy. There were both peaceful protests related to the killing of Jacob Blake, and rioting. Furthermore, the line between a protest and a riot is often not so clear (MLK: "A riot is the language of the unheard.") A protest can give way to a riot, violent agitators often mingle with otherwise peaceful protestors. As others have noted, a preponderance of sources use the term "protest", etc. However, this move discussion seems focused on this false dichotomy, which is probably a source of our conflict. An alternative option that might satisfy everyone is to move to Kenosha protests and riot. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Strongly object to this "compromise". Violent protests are included in the definition of protests. Peaceful riots do not exist. This is exactly why we need to move from riots to protests! gidonb (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  An alternative option that might satisfy everyone Ha! --JBL (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  I would support changing the title to Kenosha protests and riots. Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A move to Kenosha protests and riot or Kenosha protests and riots is needlessly wordy and does not align with WP:COMMONNAME (unless there is evidence to suggest that people are using this dual terminology). Many users have recommended Kenosha unrest or 2020 Kenosha unrest, which lines up with media descriptions of what is occurring and describes that violence is taking place. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"needlessly wordy"? Are we trying to save electrons? Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop: per WP:PRECISE, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. Also, per WP:CONCISE, the goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area. For example, the official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island is the most concise title to fully identify the subject. The title "Kenosha unrest" is concise and accessible to the layperson seeking information on the specific topic. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 17:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Delta1989—thanks for pinging me. I think the events in Kenosha go beyond "a disturbed or uneasy state", which is the definition Merriam-Webster gives for "unrest". I think the suggested title downplays the level of violence and destruction and arson and looting. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

While you might personally think that the term does not go far enough, 1) as has been repeatedly demonstrated, these events are being covered as "protests" and/or "unrest" by the media; and 2) Misplaced Pages already as a matter of course (e.g. List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States) uses the term "unrest" (i.e. civil unrest) as a term that encompasses everything from non-violent protests being met with violence by the authorities to armed occupations (such as the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge) and overtly violent events such as the Tulsa Race Massacre. It's worth noting that the first example usage of the word unrest in your link is "The country has experienced years of civil unrest," which serves to buttress the argument that the term is, in fact, accurate in describing what has taken place in Kenosha. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You say It's worth noting that the first example usage of the word unrest in your link is "The country has experienced years of civil unrest," which serves to buttress the argument that the term is, in fact, accurate in describing what has taken place in Kenosha. That is in reference to which "country"? Bus stop (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The example given is just that—an example, intended to showcase how the word unrest is used. As such, the dictionary example does not actually refer to a specific country. The usage of the word unrest, however, is apt. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 23:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As "the dictionary example does not actually refer to a specific country" you cannot say it is "accurate in describing what has taken place in Kenosha". But you are correct that the example sentence shows usage. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose A protest is a peaceful assembly to support a particular position, and a riot involves violence and property damage. This is clearly a riot. Pkeets (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the sources identified by Muboshgu and Guettarda. That, and not the opinions/definitions of Misplaced Pages editors (or passersby), is what these determinations are based on. "Unrest" may be preferable to "protests" since it's more inclusive perhaps, but both seem more common than "riot" in the high quality sources. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment FYI 8/27/2020: Newsweek CNN Mocked for Calling Kenosha Riots 'Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Protests Lightburst (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. Isabelle Belato (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Move to "Kenosha unrest", although "Kenosha protests" is preferable to "Kenosha riot". This is per the most recent sources and when discussing it in a variety of contexts: NPR, NPR again, Politico, The Guardian, CNN, CNN again, the Associated Press, ABC News, CBS 2 Chicago, etc. There is a local anti-protest militia, as well as rioting by a subset of protestors, and this is why sources typically say something other than just "protests" (even those that do use that word). This name would follow Ferguson unrest's example. Crossroads 17:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Move to "Kenosha unrest", with "Kenosha protests" as a potential second choice; "Kenosha riot" is not acceptable. The brigading and clear POV-pushing to support "Kenosha riot" would on its own be a reason for the move, per WP:DENY. I don't envy the closer the task of clearing off the mud seeping between the policy-compliant !votes, however. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. In addition to the other great points made, the terms "protests" and "unrest" are simply more accurate descriptions of what's covered in the article. The term "riots", by definition, excludes the peaceful protests that have occurred. The term "protests" doesn't exclude the riots. Frankly, it's embarrassing that these SPAs are able to ensure the article remains under such a biased title for seven long days. Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 19:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support protests, per RS. No RS is using riot (only tabloids, as far as I can see at a glance). Protests is by far the RS supported word. On another note, the level of canvassing here is incredible, though I wouldn't quite say unprecedented. On a final note, we're confusing the heck out of Google: a search for "Kenosha unrest" gives this article, with URL "/Kenosha protests" and with title "Kenosha unrest", even though both the title and page name are "Kenosha riot". Interestingly, a Google for "Kenosha riot" is autocorrecting to "Kenosha unrest". I can't tell if they're trying to correct for our mess and week-long bureaucratic procedure, or if their caches are confused. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support unrest first, protests second. There are protests and there are riots. It makes no sense to have articles for each and unrest is the best proposed title that covers both. The streets of Kenosha have been filled with peaceful mass demonstrations in recent days, but also damaging riots by night in which businesses have been looted and burned. AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support While all riots can be described as protests, not all protests are riots, and this article would be improved immensely if it described the riots as well as other forms of protest. If this was only about the riots, a lot of information would have to be omitted. RobotGoggles (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• For the sake of the encyclopedia, riot seems inappropriate in that something that started out as events intended to be peaceful and seemingly became a riot when militaristic tactics got involved (for whatever reason it is common in these United States for police to use a chemical banned in warefare to “disperse” civilians for excercising the First Amendment). Trillfendi (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support I think the page reads somewhat oddly when the word riot isn't even mentioned in the lead. Comatmebro (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Break after partial closure

Note to participantsJust fyi and to be clear: the above section is closed to !voting and to responses. Because the page was moved to its current title, if you !voted above then you may !vote again below for any other title, you may !vote to keep the current title, or you may elect to leave your first comment unchanged. Your !vote below will not be considered a duplicate !vote but neither do you need to participate again.

• Unrest per my previous suggestion. There has been protesting as well as rioting, so "unrest" covers both of these. The "unrest" option is the most diplomatic and does not have the inflammatory effect of hiding the fact that riots have happened. Finally, I would like to take this moment to criticize those who have said that seasoned veterans should have "known better" than to vote "oppose" for various reasons. BirdValiant (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Kenosha unrest. This is per the most recent sources and when discussing it in a variety of contexts: NPR, NPR again, Politico, The Guardian, CNN, CNN again, the Associated Press, ABC News, CBS 2 Chicago, etc. There is a local anti-protest militia, as well as rioting by a subset of protestors, and this is why sources typically say something other than just "protests" (even those that do use that word). This name would follow Ferguson unrest's example. Crossroads 03:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Closer's comment despite my archiving the discussion above it was not my intention for people to have to reiterate their position (unless they would like to clarify on unrest/protests/etc). I would hope and expect whoever closes this discussion in the end to consider the comments above in assessing the consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - As with Misplaced Pages's established style, no matter what is chosen as the page's title, unrest, protest, or riot, it should be preceded with the year. "2020 Kenosha Protests" is far more encyclopedic and proper, especially when compared to other articles of a similar nature that follow the <year> <city> <event> format. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  See NOYEAR. Can you point to a different topic that may reasonably be confused with this? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

My comment below goes into greater detail, but WP:NCE sets out the general format of year/location/event for titles that concern events limited in time and geographic scope. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Although esthetics are difficult to argue, for what it's worth, plain "Kenosha unrest" to me sounds more like the name of an indie band or roller-derby team, than it does a Misplaced Pages article about civil unrest. Due to the mismatched expectations, I think that this will be confusing to at least some people. Thus I would prefer either "2020 Kenosha unrest" or "Kenosha civil unrest" more than plain "Kenosha unrest". WP:NOYEAR be damned, since I think that applying its guidelines here results in something more confusing than it has to be, such that WP:IAR is a useful option. BirdValiant (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Kenosha unrest: Per sources offered by Crossroads. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support the term unrest, per Crossroads' sources. Additionally recommend the format "2020 Kenosha unrest" per WP:NCE, which states that in the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: when the incident happened; where the incident happened; what happened. The examples given, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, are not confusable with other similar events in similar places, but still have the year included as a useful identifier. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 15:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support moving to Kenosha unrest per Crossroads.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I also support moving to "Kenosha unrest" per Crossroads. -boldblazer (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support the term unrest just like the Ferguson unrest article.--Excel23 (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unrest per Crossroads and Tdl1060. While "protests" seems to be the predominant choice of wording among mainstream media outlets, there have been compelling arguments towards the use of unrest and how it more broadly covers the "riot" and "protest" nature of the events. These users have also provided solid evidence of adoption of the word among RS. Further, the Rittenhouse shooting does not exactly fall into any of these, which is why "unrest" seems to be a preferable blanket term. And it also works as a more neutral option. NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 04:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) By the way I made a comment in the first RfC but I changed my signature in the meantime, so that was me as well.NO MORE HEROES ⚘ TALK 05:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Kenosha unrest" per my comments in the above move request. Unrest is used extensively in sources and bridges the two alternatives: "riots" and "protests" without violating WP:POVTITLE. - MrX 🖋 12:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Over 40% of this article is about the shooting of 3 protestors by a 17-year old from out of state. That material may be spun out into its own article. Until such time as it is, this article needs a name that is suitable for a large chunk of the article being about that event. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

This edit request to Kenosha riot has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

I saw that this was removed and wanted to discuss it here.

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

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

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

Kyle Rittenhouse: militia member? (split)

Milita

(User:Juno has split this into 2 questions)

Is it fair to describe Kyle as a militia member? I lean no. Juno (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Juno, what do reliable sources say? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not seen anything solid that tags him as a member of a group. Juno (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the line because of some confusing wording. I'm surprised media sources are even mentioning him by name, as he is 17. A CBC news article said: The Anti-Defamation League, which tracks extremist activity, told CBS News there were militia members at the Kenosha protest but found no indication from Rittenhouse's social media footprint that he is connected to any extremist movements. KidAd talk 19:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we can thank TMZ (and probably Twitter) for the misinformation. Media conflation determines that 1 there were militia members at the protests and 2, an individual killed people at the protest so therefor the individual was a militia member. KidAd talk 20:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

There's not one single group called "the Militia", it's various different people that oppose the rioters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplosiveResults (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The local paper just published this article, with the title giving away the conclusion: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Kyle Rittenhouse, charged in Kenosha protest homicides, considered himself militia --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that article, but there's nothing at all in the article to support the claim in the headline that he "considered himself militia". Wsw248 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You're second-guessing the source, then. The title and first paragraph definitely make the claim, as does a reference to " and his fellow militiamen." It's not usually required for claims by reputable media to include primary sources.

And, even by that standard, the article includes evidence for the statement, quoting the gunman with

and our job is to protect this business.

The use of the plural indicates that he considers himself part of the group in question (or, alternatively, French royalty from the 17. century) --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Our job" as in the armed civilians on the scene. Unclear how many of these people were militia members. And I wasn't suggesting the article needed to include primary sources, but it should have at least explained the assertion in the title and the first paragraph, which it didn't. Instead, the article did everything except support or explain that central thesis. Maybe that was just their interpretation of "our job", but that seems like a really weak basis for the central thesis of the article. Wsw248 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include per sources . These are outlets that can be trusted to gather and report information reliably even if they don't include the primary source; in this case the reporting seems to be based on deleted/non-public social media posts. –dlthewave ☎ 02:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"based on deleted/non-public social media posts" Other WP:RS sources indicated there was no militia content whatsoever in his previously available social media; only support for police causes and affinity for firearms. Wsw248 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include, widely described as such in sources per the above. --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include but by focusing on self-description and what is known, not conjectures. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal article is fine. We could write something along the lines of "an interview, video and social media suggest the teenager was active as a militia member who saw himself as protecting life and property". Fa suisse (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• No If you read the Sentinel article it actually says "...Miskinis said he didn't know what group Rittenhouse was part of. He wouldn’t comment on the circumstances leading to Tuesday night's shootings, saying the investigation was too new." With that I would hold off on using this terminology until more is known. Comatmebro (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Too soon to say – "There are no overt links on Mr. Rittenhouse’s social media accounts to militias or white supremacist groups who have dispatched armed men to protest events across the country." – --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think we should say "he is a militia member" on current reporting. We can quote him or talk about how he saw himself: that seems a good way forward (depending, as always, on the reporting). Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Name

(User:Juno has split this into 2 questions)

Also: is it reasonable to use his name? I lean yes. Juno (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Juno, what do reliable sources say? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

While I generally lean against mentioning peoples names, let alone minors - a large number of sources have said his name. Thank you, Wsw248 for bringing up WP:MINORS. With that in mind, I would like to move toward not mentioning his name. Juno (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

To the second question, I lean no, due to WP:MINORS. To the first question, probably wait and see until more information becomes available, I suppose. Wsw248 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should avoid the use of his name in-article. It has been broadly publicized but our standard for protection of minors is very high. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this. WP:BLPNAME would suggest that he meets the threshold for using his name, but that he is a minor and, more importantly, that we can describe the events without using his name make me lean slightly toward omit for now. If a trial ensues and this gains continued coverage, I would lean toward inclusion. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't use his name. See WP:BLPCRIME. Not using the names of people who have charged with crimes but not yet convicted is generally preferable, and omitting the name does not result in any significant loss of context in this case. TompaDompa (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems right. --JBL (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include; virtually all news reports after his identity was determined seem to use his name prominently, and he is central to the event. This satisfies the requirements of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME, provided we are clear that he is only accused at the present. WP:MINORS is just an essay (and not one that particularly reflects current practice, especially around the age of 17; in that borderline we generally go with the sources.) Additionally, even by the standards WP:MINORS, the key question is whether he is considered a minor in his locale for the purposes of responsibility for his actions - and the sources are already saying he will be tried as an adult, which answers that question in the negative. --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include per Aquillion. The relevant policies and essay require care and caution when covering suspects, which we're able to meet by clearly labeling him as such. –dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include. It has been published around the world, and he has been charged as an adult. WWGB (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Omit. Seconding EvergreenFir. Even if he is mentioned across media, I'd lean toward not including the name of a minor if possible, which is the case here. Fa suisse (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Omit obviously, per WP:BLPCRIME, which overrides any local consensus. Reliable sources naming him is quite irrelevant here, as that's the entire point of WP:BLPCRIME existing. He is a low profile individual, per our policies, thus BLPCRIME applies. Plus, he's a minor, which should just add more strength to WP:BLP arguments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  The relevant passage of BLPCRIME appears to be When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. Are you suggesting that Kyle's name "has not been widely disseminated"? Newimpartial (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  You’re looking at BLPNAME, not BLPCRIME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  So we're talking about editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime? I'd say the matter has been considered, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  The wording was written in 2007-10, I'm not sure why it hasn't been changed since, but in practice it means "do not add such material". The good thing is these policies override "talk page consideration", as they should, since most editors aren't going to be familiar with them. That the subject is a minor only adds to the issue. Feel free to wade through the archives of BLP and BLPN for further reassurance of this idea, as I had to do when I was mistaken on this matter. There's a very high burden to add a name in defiance of BLPCRIME, and I'm not aware of any cases where that's met (we literally hide the name of a previously convicted rapist at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann under this policy). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  This looks more like a BLUDGEON than a valid precedent, I'd that's where you're pointing. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Precedent would be & this is just with a quick search. It's really up to you to dig the archives. It wouldn't really be logical to interpret BLPCRIME as a formality where editors on the talk page say "duly noted" and add the words in anyway, as you suggest above. Perhaps BLPCRIME needs to be looser and more clearly worded, but this wouldn't be the venue. Even in the case of ambiguities, we should (& I believe do) err on the side of exclusion, especially when (as in this case) no context is lost to the reader by not naming. At a current tally of numbers, not that it matters, we're at 8 in favour of exclusion and 3 in favour of inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm a actually not sure this shouldn't be the trial case, since the (presently) accused person seems to be integral to the event in a way that is not true in the many cases of we know a crime occurred but don't know whodunit, which seem to be more what BLPCRIME has in mind. I don't think there is any reasonable argument that the shooting during the unrest doesn't meet WP:N or NCRIME, and my sense is that the shooter here is integral to the story of the event. On the other hand, I personally am willing to wait until Kyle is no longer a low-profile individual before restoring the name. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  There's also precedent for including the names of the accused as well, I can think of three right now - Killing of Ahmaud Arbery, Death of Nina Pop and Shooting of James Scurlock. So it's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. And when it's an officer involved shooting, there is precedent for that as well, Killing of George Floyd, and the parent article of this one, Shooting of Jacob Blake. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think many cases are just poor understandings of BLP policy, so articles which are undeveloped (like Nina Pop & James Scurlock) and articles which have only introduced names after interest fettered out are poor examples; the policy is probably violated on a countless number of articles, but it doesn't make it any less valid. Police officers, in the case of George Floyd, are exempt because they're WP:WELLKNOWN, thus exempt from both BLPCRIME and BLPNAME. The case of Killing of Ahmaud Arbery I'm not sure, but given how many times they're mentioned in the article alone, I imagine that may be an instance where it's too difficult to write the article without naming.Of course, one could argue that this is a bit ridiculous because we mention the name over half a dozen times in the titles of references on the article, but nevertheless I've seen it applied this way without issue (I think this used to be the case at Derek Chauvin as well, until recent). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  The officer's involved in the Killing of George Floyd were not wellknown before Floyd's death, they only became wellknown because they were involved. And this young man falls into that same scenario. He is now wellknown, due to reliable sources widely reporting his name. Whether his name should be included in this article is a matter of consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  My personal view is that Misplaced Pages "well known" isn't "is now receiving lots of media attention", and I think WP:LOWPROFILE suggests the same. The officers are inherently high profile due to their position. This young man, irrelevant of how much media attention he receives, remains low profile. Unless, of course, it turns out that he did high-profile actions, before or after his arrest (obviously he can still become high profile), but the media deciding to cover him wouldn't (& shouldn't) alone change his status. The whole point of WP:BLPCRIME is to hide names when WP:RS reports them (otherwise it would just be against core content policies), so to use media reporting as a roundabout way to include a name defeats the point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Omit WP:BLPCRIME and WP:MINORS lead me to believe we should hold off on using his name until a conviction. If he is convicted as an adult, those policies might not hold as much weight, and I could see us using his name at that time. I also tend to lean on the side of "don't glorify these people" for doing things like this. Just because everyone else is using his name doesn't mean we have to. Comatmebro (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Comatmebro: Please clarify your use of WP:MINOR. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Disregard. I realize now that you were just trying to cite WP:MINORS. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Corrected to fix the typo. Thank you! Comatmebro (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  No problem. At least my mistake of not understanding at the time ended up being positive. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include A reading of WP:BLPCRIME implies to me that we cannot imply that the suspect is guilty without a conviction, but little else. A simple way to resolve this would be to detail the events without the name, then mention that 'Suspect was arrest by (Illinois/local) police in relation to the event. The Kenosha District Attorney charged Suspect in relation to the event.' This is somewhat similar to how the Boston Marathon bombing was handled where when the authorities named the suspects and what they were alleged to do. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Adding: Regarding WP:MINORS, it is an essay that deals with a person who is not considered to be an adult along with a separate part about a person who " has been adjudged to be incompetent." If we were follow the WP:NONAME part of the essay by not including his name, we also would have to "Be careful of partial identifications, as a reader might assemble only a few facts and thereby use your information to identify the person who should not be identified, or might even mis-identify someone else." Details of the current suspect are well known online to the point that even a general description would be enough to " identify the person who should not be identified ." To do the best to follow this section and not identify the suspect, we would be required to omit everything including age and gender, which still might not be enough to prevent a reader from identifying the suspect due to still needing to cover what is claimed to have happened. There is an addition consideration that the suspect is currently being tried as an adult. WP:MINORS talks about a person adjudged to be incompetent as already noted. I believe that this can be extended despite not being in the essay to the subject, but in the sense that a court will be treating the suspect as an adult. Even if we do identify them, I do believe that a consensus could be reached that the "Editing on a person who must be identified" section of WP:MINORS would apply. That would mean editing what is said about the person so that it is even less contentious than would be acceptable for a competent adult or not contentious at all. Do so not just by adding sources but by toning down the content in a way that remains consistent with sourcing, which I believe should be done anyways due to WP:BLPCRIME. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include We are way beyond the point of WP:BLPNAME. This name has been widely published. Take the usual caution not to imply guilt but publishing his name is not an issue. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include Concur, WP:BLPNAME is baseless at this point. Serious reservations about using WP:MINOR as the government has already announced that they are trying him as an adult.Albertaont (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include - WP:BLPNAME says "... editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime,..." That's what we're doing—seriously considering. Given that this has been widely publicized and video of the murders exists, there is no compelling reason that I can see to omit the name of the suspect. His age is not a factor. - MrX 🖋 11:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Include Yes, he is a minor, but the fact that the police are releasing his name indicates that they intend to charge him as an adult. However, we do need to be careful not to say in Misplaced Pages's voice that he killed the people. I added several "allegedly"s to the article today. No matter what kind of videos or statements come out in the future, he should remain "allegedly" the killer unless and until he is convicted. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  On the note of a being charged as an adult, since the point has been made many times, I must note I feel this point is somewhat flawed. The ideology behind BLPCRIME separates executive (incl prosecution and police) and the judiciary (as impartial). It logically follows that the police/prosecutors deciding to charge him as an adult does not mean that he was (or will be) convicted as one. So him being charged as an adult doesn't diminish his status as a minor. Perhaps we are beyond the point of omitting his name, but even if so, we must still tread carefully and stay true to the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME, which prohibits even implying the person has committed a crime. I think your edits are a good step in that direction, but unambiguous violations do constantly keep cropping up in edits (mainly by newer editors). Thus, I think an editnotice is probably a good idea, as well as a talk notice, to highlight WP:BLPCRIME implications. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Something like User:ProcrastinatingReader/BLPCRIME editnotice perhaps? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Include Both prosecution and defence say that it is Rittenhouse who shot a number of protesters. Shooting someone isn't necessarily a crime: his defence lawyers argue he acted in self-defence. If they are correct (can prove their case in court), then we will still be able to say Rittenhouse shot these protesters, but he will be adjudged to have done so legally. What we can't say, under WP:BLPCRIME, is that Rittenhouse murdered these individuals, or shot them illegally (until such time as he is found guilty of doing so, should that be the outcome of legal proceedings). BLPCRIME applies to a crime (first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, attempted homicide -- what he's been charged with). I don't see that it should stop us describing events that everybody (reliable sources, prosecution, defence) agree occurred (Rittenhouse fired shots that hit people, resulting in 2 deaths). Happy to see wording changed to ensure we are the right side of BLPCRIME, but I think we are within policy to say this was Rittenhouse, he fired these shots. WP:MINORS is only an essay and it seems to me to say that who counts as a minor should be determined by state law, and Rittenhouse is being charged as an adult, ergo doesn't that mean he is an adult under state law and MINORS does not apply? Bondegezou (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

This edit request to Kenosha riot has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "The man subsequently walked past police with a semi-automatic rifle, with members of the public shouting for him to be arrested, but the police took no action." to "The man subsequently walked past police vehicles with a semi-automatic rifle, with members of the public shouting for him to be arrested, but the police took no action."

As stated in the usatoday source article: "The gunman is then seen heading north toward several police tactical vehicles, his arms raised, according to video footage. The tactical vehicles drive by him." And as stated in the cbc source article: "In the cellphone footage, as the crowd scatters, the gunman stands up and continues walking down the street as police cars arrive. The man puts up his hands and walks toward the squad cars, with someone in the crowd yelling at police that the man had just shot someone, but several of the cars drive past him toward the people who had been shot."

It is misleading in its current form, as it implies the police were outside, and therefore heard and willfully ignored the bystanders shouts (casting them in a bad light). Stating that he walked past police vehicles is accurate as per the source, and does not have such implications, as a reader would not infer they necessarily could make out the shouts, and that they willfully ignored them. 108.15.33.17 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I second this. A certain user is butchering the webpage to accurately reflect mainstream news views. These actions violate neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExplosiveResults (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC) — ExplosiveResults (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That is not what the CBC source says. It says:

• According to witness accounts and video footage, police apparently let the young white man suspected of carrying out some or all of the shootings walk past them with a semi-automatic rifle over his shoulder as members of the crowd yelled for him to be arrested. Asked why the gunman was allowed to leave, Beth portrayed a chaotic, high-stress scene, with screaming, chanting, nonstop radio traffic and "people running all over the place" — conditions that can cause "tunnel vision" among law officers.
• CBS says Police not only didn’t arrest Rittenhouse at the scene, but at the start of the night they thanked an armed group who had come out – and at the end of the night, video shows Rittenhouse was able to walk right out of the Kenosha hot zone..
• And the Chicago Tribune says The sheriff also downplayed video indicating police let Rittenhouse walk past them with a semi-automatic rifle over his shoulder as members of the crowd were yelling for him to be arrested because he had shot people. The lack of response, however, allowed Rittenhouse to return to Antioch, a far northern suburb more than 20 miles from Kenosha.

Your interpretation that the mention of vehicles means he was not also walking past police officers and was therefore not allowed to leave is not reflected in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Your overreliancy on mainstream news outlets as the one and only infallible source of events highlights the biases. On top of that, there is a general consensus that we are not identifying minors on the page. You are completely ignoring the general consensus and twisting the entire page to fit a single narrative.ExplosiveResults (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonetheless, we have to go by what the most up-to-date mainstream sources say; as far as I can tell, they do not mention vehicles in this context at all. --Aquillion (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"This is not what the CBC source says." Please search that article for the sentence I quoted verbatim. It is still there as of this writing. "Your interpretation that the mention of vehicles means he was not also walking past police officers and was therefore not allowed to leave is not reflected in the sources." An article is not expected to repeat every detail every time. That is not a reason to assume the details don't remain true. If an article refers to a party named John Doe age 38, and later referred to them as John, do you now assume there is also a John without the last name Doe or not 38?? The article talks of police in vehicles. When it separately refers to the police, the assumption is the police detailed elsewhere, not some new set of police. 108.15.33.17 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The current "...walked past police" actually happens to adequately capture the ambiguity in these different descriptions. And no matter what, the term "police tactical vehicles" must be avoided at all costs, because it's the overwrought faux-professional term of armchair warriors. It's a police car. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Matthias Winkelmann: I don't suggest we go into such details but I would oppose calling all the vehicles "police car", in particular those that drive past. I guess this is another weird American thing, but I think for most of the world, calling what appears to be armoured response vehicles of some kind (maybe Lenco BearCats?) as simply "police car" is just weird. The non moving one one the left (of most videos) can reasonably be described as a police car, as well as those that are driving on the other road parallel. But the 3 that drive past him on the right (again from the perspective of the videos) of the mostly stationary police car which seem to be what the USA Today refers to? No those aren't just police cars, at least for most people outside the US. I think it is entirely reasonable that USA Today referred to them as something else, although again I don't think we need to go into such detail. Simply saying "police vehicles" would be enough if we need to mention the vehicles. Unless there is some reason it makes sense to distinguish between the various vehicles involved. Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:You are right. I had only seen video of "regular" cars. You are also right with regard to the (un)importance of this detail. And, finally, "police vehicle" would indeed be an excellent term to subtly suggest they are somewhat different than what one might expect, without buying into the glorification of war-like violence that buzzwords like "tactical" evoke. --Matthias Winkelmann (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done, added the word "vehicles". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted. None of the three sources used for the sentence at the moment mention vehicles in that context at all; the only one anyone has mentioned in this section, the USAtoday one, is from earlier, before he was identified and before full reports of what happened came out, and in a way that gives us no real reason to think it's the same event that later sources covered and devoted so much more attention to. Beyond that I'm not seeing a consensus for this clearly-controversial suggestion at the moment. --Aquillion (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: As the IP user pointed out, the CBC source says: In the cellphone footage, as the crowd scatters, the gunman stands up and continues walking down the street as police cars arrive. The man puts up his hands and walks toward the squad cars, with someone in the crowd yelling at police that the man had just shot someone, but several of the cars drive past him toward the people who had been shot. A second review of the current sentence seems to suggest that the police were stationary, when in fact they were actually driving past. Therefore, I suggest replacing the entire sentence to "As police vehicles arrived on the scene, the man is filmed walking past police with a rifle. Despite members of the public shouting for him to be arrested, several of the cars continued past him towards the injured." This should adequately address the IP's concerns as well as being backed by an RS. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Numerous sources state specifically in the article text that police allowed him to leave, so we need to reflect that coverage. And later sources, as I pointed out above, usually have no mention of vehicles at all. Focusing on one small detail from an earlier source in a way that tries to refute the specific interpretation and conclusion of the majority of reliable sources is WP:SYNTH at best. We need to go with the interpretation and analysis in reliable sources rather than trying to replace it with our own; and none of them support the idea that is being pushed here; and the key takeaway from all sources is "police allowed him to leave the scene", not "there were some vehicles in the direction he was walking as well." --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I am concerned by the blatant misuse of information. First repeatedly denying the easy to confirm fact that the CBC mentions it. Then now claiming the "majority of reliable sources". At the time of your writing, it was two of four, hardly a majority. Then misappropriating WP:SYNTH. Its stated goal is "do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources". It is perfectly valid to join them to a conclusion mentioned by at least one of them. Heck, the article is already composed of some 63 distinct sources. In other words, if one source states "the perpetrator was wearing a white shirt" and another tells you "the perpetrator was named John Doe", it is obviously not synthesis to say "John Doe was wearing a white shirt". That is the synthesis wikipedia is all about! Lastly, from watching the video each and every of these sources refer to and link, it is obvious that it was vehicles, and not police on the ground. While unusable directly, because of original research, it should make it clear that the interpretation approach you are arguing for is deeply flawed. 108.15.33.17 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

But the key point is that most sources say that police saw him and declined to arrest him; this is the notable aspect of the section. The proposed rewording is being used to dispute that (the first comment in this section specifically says they want to word it in a way that casts doubt on that), which is WP:SYNTH. It is well-cited that police saw him and declined to arrest him, so we need to state so unambiguously and avoid any wording that could imply otherwise. Conversely, the fact that some or all of the police he approached may have been in vehicles at the time (if they were, which the sources disagree on) is trivia - it has no particular meaning and is not what the sources emphasize as important, outside of the WP:SYNTH argument made above. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge to Shooting of Jacob Blake

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

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

Inappropriate infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyle shooting

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

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

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

Interesting

Pursuing vs. Attempting to apprehend

Currently, under the Day 3 section, the text reads (with emphases added):

Video footage showed a young white man initially shooting another man who pursued him into a car parking lot and threw something at him. The shooter is later captured on video as he continued to be pursued down the street by several men before tripping. He is then seen opening fire on those pursuing him.

My concern is that pursuing can be interpreted to involve multiple intentions (e.g., pursuing as in chasing prey, a goal, etc.) It can be read as if the pursuers has intent to harm him (which we do not know). In the second and third instances, I suggest we change wording to

Video footage showed a young white man initially shooting another man who pursued him into a car parking lot and threw something at him. The shooter is later captured on video as several men attempted to apprehend him before tripping in the street. He is then seen shooting at those men.

It seems clear from the video that these men are chasing him in response to his shooting of the first man. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear at all that the crowd was attempting to apprehend him rather than attack him. They did attack him physically and with weapons, as you can see from the footage and as reported in several news outlets, but their end goal is not apparent (beat him up, apprehend him, or kill him).Wsw248 (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A skateboard is a weapon, now? That is news to me. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

A skateboard is a weapon if you use it as one. People have been killed with far less. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. skateboards are not weapons. Neither are rocks. He was just an innocent skateboarder who was swinging his skateboard around in a carefree manner when the shooter walked into his swinging. The shooter should have been more careful to not get hit by the skateboard. Please take right wing hate off Misplaced Pages. There is no place for it here. The Nytimes video shows exactly what happened: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html 86.93.208.34 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Antifa has been using skateboards to bludgeon people regularly, especially in the Pacific Northwest. But I was also talking more specifically about the third victim, who was brandishing a handgun at the shooter. Wsw248 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You clearly have a broader definition of "weapon" (and of "Antifa") than I have. But in any event, I haven't seen any evidence of an attack...with weapons on the shooter, apart from the skateboard hit. It isn't even clear to me that the shooter saw the handgun, and he certainly wasn't "attacked" with it. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Anything can be used as a weapon during an assault. Regardless, I'm not sure "pursuers" is the right framing of this. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I would favor Pursue. "Pursue" is neutral (as you note) -- a person can "Pursue" in an attempt to apprehend or in an attempt to do harm. We cannot know the state of mind of the people pursuing the shooter. Furthermore there is video evidence that both victims who died were at the same 3rd location with the shooter arguing (including yelling "Shoot me, nigga!" at the self-styled militia) before the shooting happened. This means that one reasonable interpretation of the events is that *both* victims who died chased the shooter down a street from the third location, together. As for the 'paramedic' I don't believe he is known to have been at the third (initial) location. Still in the primary source video where he is shot, he can be seen feigning surrender while surreptitiously drawing a pistol, so his motives (in my opinion) are also possibly ill-intentioned. I hope I've made the case that the motives are sufficiently ambiguous that using verbs to imply one is inappropriate. Maddata (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't be trying to assign motives without sourcing, and we certainly shouldn't be using the talk page to suggest that someone who pulled a gun on a person who just shot someone has "ill intent". –dlthewave ☎ 20:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, there's reason to suspect that the guy who pulled the handgun (Grosskreutz) did intend to shoot Rittenhouse. His friend posted on Facebook () that Grosskreutz regrets hesitating before "emptying the mag" into Rittenhouse (mind you, that interaction occurred after the two fatalities were already shot). Of course, this is hearsay and not a WP:RS, but on the other hand it's not wild, arbitrary speculation, either. Wsw248 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Pursue" is what reliable sources are calling it, so that's the word we should be using. We certainly shouldn't call it an "attempted apprehension" or try to piece together motives without sourcing.

At this point, media reports are basically "one video shows x, and another video shows y." Our article will have to be limited to this level of detail until a bigger-picture account of what took place is released. –dlthewave ☎ 20:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight... Your concern is that pursuing can be interpreted to involve multiple intentions (e.g., pursuing as in chasing prey, a goal, etc.) It can be read as if the pursuers has intent to harm him (which we do not know). However, you then say several men attempted to apprehend him. You're making an argument against implicit assumption while advocating it be replaced with an explicit assumption? MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Split proposed

Hi all,

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

xinbenlv 21:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support (COI: norm) xinbenlv 03:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Kyle Rittenhouse deserves his own article. RobotGoggles (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @RobotGoggles:, started as The_shootings_by_Kyle_Rittenhouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinbenlv (talk • contribs) 20:15, August 27, 2020 (UTC)

No, we do not need that WP:CONTENTFORK. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the challenge @Muboshgu:. In my opinion they are substantially different topics and the shootings how becomes notable by itself. Could you help start the official process addressing this disagreement, some kind of "Request for Split"? xinbenlv 00:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. They are the same events. There is the tendency to try to cover every aspect of an ongoing event without long-term perspective. This isn’t Wiki News, after all. See how the content evolves over time before splitting stuff off so soon. VikingB (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Currently there's a suspect, but we cannot say that he's the one who did it and we don't even have a coherent narrative of what took place. It doesn't make sense to have a standalone article for something that lacks basic facts and is easily covered by a couple of paragraphs in the current article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support While related to the Kenosha protests, this is a separate event that occurred in the timeline that I believe warrants it's own article. It doesn't just encapsulate the Black Lives Matter movement, but also Gun politics in the United States and several other congruent issues. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Technical support on the grounds the incident is the most notable part so far, but opposed as it hasn't been detailed enough on here to warrant the split and also opposed due to the non-neutral proposed article name. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral on the split, but the proposed title doesn't conform to MOS. Try Kyle Rittenhouse killings. But its still pretty TOOSOON. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Way too soon, and the name does not conform with the Manual of Style. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. For now, the shootings can be handled within the Protests article. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I consider the shootings to be significant in themselves. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The shooting is an extremely significant event, even outside the context of the Kenosha protests Bravetheif (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Also would like to add that I think the article shouldn't be titled "The shootings by Kyle Rittenhouse". I would prefer something like the "2020 Kenosha protest homicides", to be more in line with other high-profile shooting events such as the 2017 Las Vegas shooting Bravetheif (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Light support but with a better title.--Pokelova (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support: but agree it should be called "2020 Kenosha protest homicides". Leutha (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both topics can be covered together without detriment to either. --Bsherr (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Light oppose only for now. I also believe something along the lines of "2020 Kenosha protest shooting" as using "homicides" would exclude the arm injury, but as of now there really isn't enough to make a full article. I think once the case goes to court and we have court documents to reference it can become its own page. System Lag (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unnecessary split. VQuakr (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral for now, but it seems highly likely that there will be more than enough for a separate article soon enough, so future Support. Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The future has arrived. Coverage of the shooting is over 40% of the article. Let's split now. Bondegezou (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support split now. Seems to be notable in its own right, subject to its own legal analyses and RS discussion, clearly distinct enough to be split now, can be written about separately and sustain its own notability. It's a mess to the structure of this article to keep it here. Wasn't so sure earlier, but it's a quickly changing area. The_shootings_by_Kyle_Rittenhouse is clearly not a good title, though, so we should figure out a decent one before split so we don't immediately need to bash it through a 7 day RM process. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Changed to neutral. I still believe the handling is trending on the lines of a BLP violation, but per MrX below I don't think this is necessary if we follow that sound advice. Further, a splitting only encourages loading the article with the individual's background (as per BLP1E we can't create an article on the person anyway), which would be supported by RS (as they're doing what they do, which is digging up the person's past), and that obviously only furthers the BLP violations here. We can discuss the merits without a split at this time. A split may become necessary at some stage, but it's an organisational decision really and we can get around it. In conclusion, err on the side of not splitting at this time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose For now, doesn't seem necessary. SQL 16:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - This has received independent coverage, has its own legal proceedings, and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this article should focus mainly on the protests themselves rather than have a large section dedicated to the shootings. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Title should be 2020 Kenosha protest shootings per naming convention and to differentiate from the shooting of Jacob Blake. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support, although not under the title used above. It's already reached about a third of this article and is growing rapidly, and has plenty of independent coverage that seems likely to be sustained. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The shooting is important but it is much better covered within the broader context of the protests. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose If we strive for brevity, as opposed to exhaustive detail, I don't believe this will be necessary. - MrX 🖋 17:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with many of the opposer that the proposed title was not good. What I am trying to say the incidence is different from protest itself and now somewhat notable with comprehensive coverage. To avoid WP:BLPCRIME, consider using a even less point-y name something like The Tuesday Fatal Shootings During Kenosha Protest xinbenlv 18:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Xinbenlv Article titles should be precise and concise per MOS:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE. I feel that title fails both those criteria. While "Tuesday" makes sense knowing the context of the Kenosha protests, in isolation it is ambiguous. The preceding "The" is also unnecessary. I already suggested a title, but I prefer the other suggestion of "2020 Kenosha protest shootings"

• Oppose Keep it as part of this "protests" article, of which it is a part. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Since this is being taken into court, it should result in enough coverage for a separate article. I think the title should either be Kyle Rittenhouse shootings, Jacob Blake protest shootings or 2020 Kenosha protest shootings GeorgeMHall 21:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:BLPCRIME at this time. In addition, he is technically a minor. I was surprised we use his name in the article. I think the shooting should stay here for now. Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The shooting is already drawing intense public controversy, debate, legal analysis and a court case. It's rapidly evolving into a more serious issue than it already was to begin with. There's definitely enough coverage to split it as is, and there will only be more as this case develops. This is already over a third of the article, and it's definitely possible for the shooting to become a bigger issue than even the protests. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - There is already enough content to support two articles, and it's 100% certain that more will be written in the coming days, weeks and months. Putting it all into this article will make this article too long. The new article should be called something like "Kenosha protest shooting" or "Kyle Rittenhouse". Lev!vich 15:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support a Rittenhouse article Sadly. pbp 16:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - This article is now much less than 100 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - This deserves more coverage and it will almost certainly expand. It doesn't matter that he's a minor or a horrible person. --User:Sirkh1 7:01, 29 August 2020

Riots (plural)

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

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

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

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

Agreed. Wsw248 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Kenosha Guard

A group of Kenosha residents calling themselves the "Kenosha Guard" approached County Sheriff David Beth and asked him to deputize them in order to "defend City tonight from the evil thugs".

This is a potentially important piece of information, what does the community of Wikipedians think? Here's the source I found. If you can find other sources about this, I think we can bring together a lot of information and better-define the motives of the counter-protestors. Perhaps not now, but later in the article's life. If we collect enough citations, that will be helpful for future editors who might want to find that information. RobotGoggles (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

There is information from BBC, Business Insider, CNBC, Fox Business, The Guardian, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, NPR, and The Verge. Most are on Facebook removing them, but a few are just about their posts on Facebook. There is information here, but I am unsure how much of it belongs in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps none at all, but since this is a developing story, it might in the future. Thank you for your help. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move August 28, 2020

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

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

RobotGoggles, there is an existing move discussion above. You may propose this as an alternative as part of that discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation for Jacob Blake being paralyzed.

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

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

Needs updating

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

Kenosha Protests should be rename to Kenosha Riots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article title is resolved after a lengthy discussion. WWGB (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate info?

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving this talk page

I’m a bit concerned we are archiving after only three days. Surely we should be leaving threads on for at least a few days longer. I propose seven days so people can at least see decisions on things like page moves and article splits. Any objections? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk page is 175kB. 3 days is reasonable until things slow down a bit. VQuakr (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - I propose reducing the talk page archive period to one day to get the file size under control. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

New reporting on criminal complaint

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

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

"Allegedly"

User:Bondegezou removed the word "allegedly" so as to state as fact, in Misplaced Pages’s voice, that Rittenhouse was the shooter. Ironically, the reference they cite says "allegedly" every time, and puts quotes around "killed two" in the headline. IMO we must not call Rittenhouse a killer in Misplaced Pages’s voice unless and until there is a conviction; we need to say "accused" or "alleged" or similar wording. I have restored "allegedly" and I request Bondegezou not to remove it again pending discussion here. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. See WP:SUSPECT. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. My only caveat is we need to state who makes the allegation. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this is an important point. Media outlets follow standards similar to our BLP policies and a careful reading of sources will show that they don't actually come out and say he did it.

In my opinion it would be best to describe the shooting and the suspect separately. Instead of saying "Rittenhouse allegedly shot at multiple people, killing two" (which leaves the question of which parts of the event are confirmed and which are alleged), we should say something like "A person shot at multiple people, killing two. Rittenhouse has been identified as the suspect." This also avoids the awkward use of "allegedly" in every sentence. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I already did that, but it got reverted by User:ProcrastinatingReader. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have personally reverted User:ProcrastinatingReader's edit here due to this discussion. I made a change that is noted in the edit summary to address an issue that they raised in their edit summary that was not discussed here. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Also going to ping, User:Benmite for their edit. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

imo it doesn’t make sense, but I’m not going to obstruct the change if that’s what the majority want. If we’re fixing BLPCRIME violations, we may wish to look at the glaring, egregious violation in the lead. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Ugh, I didn't even notice that since I have been skipping past the lede. Thank you for catching that and I have removed it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC) (Amended 08:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC))

His legal defence team acknowledge it's him in the videos, but are arguing he acted in self-defence: see here. If both prosecution and defence agree it's him, I don't see why we need to tiptoe around the question. Rittenhouse, both sides concur, is in the videos and is the person described in our text. They differ over what he did constitutes murder, so we can say Rittenhouse shot these people, but we can't say he murdered them. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A lawyer's comments to reporters have no legal standing. At the very least we need to wait to see how they formally respond to the charges. If they claim self-defense, that's one thing and we could probably say "shot". If they ultimately decide to plead not guilty, that's another. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Photos

I spent some time in Kenosha Wisconsin today. I interviewed a resident who said Kenosha was a war zone. Hyperbole? She said, cars were exploding, lot of glass smashing, all the street lights were knocked down and businesses were burned to the ground. She said fire and police would not come, they told her they could not. She was quite angry but happy to point out a few sites for me. She showed me a car with a bullet hole in it as well. In any event I present some of the photos that I took at the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting scene, the shooting scene of Jacob Blake, and of course some of the destruction. I saw we are now calling these events a protest...I would hate to see what we call a riot. (Jk I understand i guess) I had to do some google street views of some of these places to get what former use and address, because some of the buildings were no longer standing. I want to say also... I did not see everything. I was uptown and midtown. Apparently there was more destruction downtown. All around I could see residents cleaning and painting on the boarded up buildings while the national guard trucks patrolled. I photographed some of that goodness as well. I will upload a few more, but I thought our articles might be better with photos and it is only a one hour drive to Kenosha for me. They are filed at commons under Kenosha protests. Or preotest Photos Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Were all protestors rioting? Weren’t there peaceful protests? Rioting is a form of protests. This has been covered already, but perhaps a clarification: we need to use the most inclusive, neutral word we can find for this topic. As there were peaceful protestors, calling these the Kenosha riots would tar these people with the same brush. Unless we split off a new article to deal with specific rioting, we need to keep this with its current title. I would oppose a split, maybe we need to make it clear in the article itself there was rioting.

Great photos, btw. I for one appreciate you taking them! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you, my argument is dead. I couldn't help pulling the tiger's tail. lol Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Haha! All good mate, it’s a raw time for a lot of people. Noting there was rioting in the article may actually be a good idea, it’s not like violence and property disruption didn’t occur. It’s a matter of balance. Stay safe dude! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the photos. Keep in mind that the peaceful parts of the protest, which were mentioned by several sources, probably didn't leave much evidence behind. –dlthewave ☎ 01:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: right! Do you have a choice for a photo in the article? Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the photos are very good, thank you for taking them. I also think they are appropriate. If someone had photos of peaceful protestors, that would be also great to add to the article. But the photos as added are an important document of the aftermath of rioting during the protests. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The photo is good, and even iconic, but I'm not sure it's the ideal lead photo for an article with "protests" in its title. Perhaps we could have this image and an image of some peaceful protesting in the infobox? - MrX 🖋 12:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is called "protests" because it covers an array of events, including peaceful protests, rioting, counter-protests and a shooting that has led to homicide charges. We should not be shy of calling certain of these events "rioting", but the article covers more than rioting and thus has a more generic name. Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation 42 contains extreme editorial slant & factual distortions

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

Reference 42, an article from The Guardian, appears to contain quite serious instances of (deliberate or neglectful) false details. Here are several examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please state the source of your claims. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This article has serious issues with bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ratipok, agree. Nothing in WP:RELIABLE stipulates that obviously incorrect or counterfactual information in a source that is otherwise considered as reliable qualifies for inclusion. The entire premise of WP:RELIABLE is that not only the general source but the concrete info that is cited must be reliable - which isn't the case here. And if a particular piece of information isn't correct, it must be removed irrespectively of whether a better one is immediately available. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

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

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

Request to change citation style

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

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

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

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

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

Unbalanced tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think recent editing (by Pkeets) has addressed the specific issue I was referring to. This could have been done much sooner in a collaborative fashion, were it not for the ham-handed approach of certain people who did not even bother to read the arguments presented. Trying to reconnect (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Possession of a long gun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original text was problematic, but it seems fine now. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Issue with shooting section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pictures

A little montage of pictures for the infobox showing the protests, during the time and the aftermath, would be nice. At a glance I can't seem to find any, especially of during protests, that are freely licensed though (on Commons or Flickr). Anyone better at finding pictures than I am? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: can you help here? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: @Chris.sherlock: Unfortunately the photos I took show the aftermath, and the clean up in Kenosha. It is possible to take a screenshot of a Youtube video if the right license is granted - however, it is tricky, - and if no explicit permission the photo gets speed deleted. I will see if I can find any with correct license. Others with more knowledge about our license policies may also want to give it a try. In the mean time I can see about putting something together from photos I have on commons now. Lightburst (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it's pretty slim pickins other than LB's photos on Commons. GMG 14:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

More Background info

If the Background section can include information on the shooter Rittenhouse, can we include some information on those shot as well?

Grosskreutz is a member of the People’s Revolution Movement of Milwaukee.

Rosenbaum taunting/daring a different armed protestor to "shoot me" shortly before his death.

Criminal records of Huber on battery and drugs charges, and Rosenbaum on battery, disorderly conduct, and domestic abuse charges. Rosenbaum is also a sex offender and had a profile on the Wisconsin sex offender registry (profiles of the deceased are removed), but no non-depreciated media have reported this yet. Grosskreutz also has a history of illegal firearm possession while intoxicated, but only the likes of Daily Mail and The Sun have covered this so far. I suppose the reliable sources are more cautious about reporting Grosskreutz's criminal history because he's still alive. --Steverci (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Background on the shooter is important as it pertains to his mindset, motives, etc. What does the background of the victims have to do with the incident? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Including that Rittenhouse is a Blue Lives Matter supporter is hardly different from mentioning Grosskreutz is a social justice organization member, in terms of mindset and motivation. Rosenbaum's "shoot me" isn't really background, it's part of the protests, but the Background section includes information about Rittenhouse from earlier that day as well. The criminal history backgrounds are quite important, because Rittenhouse's attorney is arguing self-defense. --Steverci (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Explain in detail how the 'criminal history backgrounds' are important to mentioning self-defense. My viewpoint is that it wouldn't be knowledge know to the suspect, thus it could be tying together pieces of information that are unrelated to each other as a conclusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a considerable difference in the importance of the motives or mindset of the perpetrator versus the victim, who didn't shoot anybody (I presume). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Gaige Grosskreutz, wounded in Tuesday night shooting in Kenosha, will need arm surgery
2. Kenosha shooting victim seen in video confronting armed men saying, ‘shoot me’
3. Demonstrator shot amid Kenosha protest for Jacob Blake attacked gunman with skateboard, girlfriend says
4. Kenosha shooting victims identified, remembered as ‘sweet,’ ‘loving’ guys by family and friends
5. Milwaukee County Case Number 2016CM001014 State of Wisconsin vs. Gaige P Grosskreutz

The New York Post is not a reliable source, and the New York Daily News is somewhat questionable. Court records are not a suitable source for a BLP/BDP claim. I would be opposed to including criminal records of any of the victims, unless they were covered in several high quality sources. - MrX 🖋 18:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I had checked both before posting, there's no consensus for either source being unreliable (Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) --Steverci (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

NY Post is trending heavily toward not generally reliable. I can't think of a single good reason to use low quality sources for this article when so may good quality sources are covering this. Frankly, I'm not sure what importance the background of the victims is to this article. - MrX 🖋 19:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree that we need reliable secondary sources. We shouldn't be using primary sources and we should avoid the New York Post if possible (but I accept that WP:RSP says the jury's out, so we can use it if there's a good reason). Material about the victims' backgrounds would seem more useful when it's relevant to their actions on the night. If Rittenhouse's defence team make a big play that someone's background means they probably behaved a certain way that meant Rittenhouse genuinely feared for his life, something like that, would be relevant. Obviously, the case hasn't started and we don't have anything like that yet. Simply going "X has some dirty secret" seems much less relevant. This is not an article about Grosskreutz or Rosenbaum: it's an article about the events that occurred that night. Bondegezou (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested redirect from Kenosha riots -> Kenosha protests_Kenosha_protests-2020-08-29T20:51:00.000Z">

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

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

Ah thanks! Ledootdoot (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)_Kenosha_protests"> _Kenosha_protests">

Sequence of events from Rittenhouse's point of view

Since this article suffers from serious bias (pointed out yesterday) the sequence of events from the view of the lawyer of the alleged shooter can be found here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class African diaspora articles
• Low-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• Start-Class Black Lives Matter articles
• High-importance Black Lives Matter articles
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class Firefighting articles
• Low-importance Firefighting articles
• WikiProject Firefighting articles
• C-Class Law enforcement articles
• Low-importance Law enforcement articles
• WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• C-Class American politics articles
• Mid-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• C-Class Wisconsin articles
• Mid-importance Wisconsin articles
• Requested moves