Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse: Difference between revisions
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
::::::::I suggest we shorten the first sentence as indicated above, and just let the rest be. There has been no substantive argument to change it. -- [[User:M.boli|M.boli]] ([[User talk:M.boli|talk]]) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
::::::::I suggest we shorten the first sentence as indicated above, and just let the rest be. There has been no substantive argument to change it. -- [[User:M.boli|M.boli]] ([[User talk:M.boli|talk]]) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::18 is the age of majority in the USA, so subject being under 18 at the time of the shooting is significant. I am not sure that part should be removed. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::::18 is the age of majority in the USA, so subject being under 18 at the time of the shooting is significant. I am not sure that part should be removed. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::Is there a way to move the age to later in the first few sentences? I think the age is significant as VQuarkr mentions. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 21:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:52, 15 April 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kyle Rittenhouse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 July 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cause célèbre
I suggest we change "Rittenhouse's prosecution attracted widespread media coverage, and became a cause célèbre for right-wing organizations and media." to "Rittenhouse's prosecution attracted widespread media coverage, and became a cause célèbre for organizations and media on both sides of the political spectrum". Seeing as the case became a politizised cause célèbre for both the left and right, it seems misleading to single out right organizations/media for this in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.220.250.130 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Subject’s book
Under the “Media projects” section, Rittenhouse’s 2023 book Acquitted should be mentioned, along with reviews and sales. It was written along with Mark Richards and Michael Quinn Sullivan and was released on Kindle on November 19, where it reached number 510 on the Kindle Nonfiction book rankings on December 2 (source here). By December 5, it had fallen to a ranking of 557 (source here). Autographed copies sell for $59.99 (source here). General sources covering the book are here, and here, among many others. —2601:8C0:380:35C0:F0A3:D34F:C26E:1CB3 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Update article to mention self-defense.
Hi,
This article needs to be updated noting that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense after being attacked by 3 men who chased him for 800 yards and tried to beat him with a skateboard and other objects, and had an illegal firearm pointed at him.
Update this article for accuracy immediately. 2600:6C5E:14F0:9BC0:B94C:B55A:286:EC7A (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= oder |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
– Change busineses to businesses
The first sentence says: "In late August 2020, 17-year-old Rittenhouse traveled from Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin to help protect local busineses..."
– Adjust sentence for clarity
Currently reads: After a man chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot and grabbed the barrel of his rifle, the youth fatally shot him. His name was Joseph Rosenbaum.
Suggestion: Shortly before midnight, a man named Joseph Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into a parking lot. When Rosenbaum reached for his gun, Rittenhouse fatally shot him.[1] Mayifixthatforyou (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Irltoad (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= oder |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first paragraph intentionally obfuscates the fact that Rittenhouse acted in self defense. The only mention of self defense is within the final sentence: "He testified that he had acted in self-defense." This verbiage is uncommon and nonsensical outside of an article discussing an ongoing trial. The question of whether or not he acted in self defense has been settled in a court of law, where evidence beyond his own testimony was presented. As a result, I suggest the opening paragraph be changed to:
Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003) is an American man who shot three men, two fatally, in self defense during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, when he was aged 17. Rittenhouse was acquitted at his trial in November 2021. CodingApe (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Self-defense is already mentioned in the first paragraph.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)- My request was clearly to correct the context of which it is mentioned, as the paragraph is currently (and likely intentionally) misleading. How is this an appropriate response to the issues raised in my request? I do not understand how you could respond with this if you were not purposefully ignoring the crux of my argument.
- The first paragraph clearly obfuscates the fact that, from a legal standpoint, Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. How is his own testimony even relevant? CodingApe (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- By that reasoning the jury verdict in the Scopes trial forces Wikipedia to say evolution is false. -- M.boli (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that is logically sound and comes off a bit as attacking a newbi. In this case the jury wasn't asked to rule on scientific fact. The view that Rittenhouse acted in self defense is very reasonable and we shouldn't treat the view that the lead underplays the self defense aspect as unreasonable. It certainly is reasonable to assume that the combination of a self defense claim and an acquittal = "acted in self defense". However, since many RSs reported in a way that doubted that claim it's best to stick to the facts we know to be true, as the current article does, that he testified that acted in self defense and that the jury, at minimum, had reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense. Springee (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- My bad! I was overly abrupt responding to a newbie.
- It is frequently suggested to change this article as above: to say in wiki-voice that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. The sourcing for this being acquittal at trial. Some who propose this change go into the rules of trials and presumptions of fact and who needed to prove what and etc.
- But that's all within the game-world. Within the game world O.J. Simpson didn't kill anybody. In real-world many reliable sources tell us Simpson was charged with murder and acquitted. As with Rittenhouse.
- Adding to the lede that Rittenhouse testified self-defense was the result of those discussions.
- But still there are frequent requests as above, to use wiki-voice to state KR acted in self-defense. Some have been rather persistent, at least one turned out to be a major sock puppet of a banned account.
- @CodingApe: I apologize, my response was needlessly sarcastic. I hope the explanation makes sense to you. The substance of the request has been considered in the past. The result comports with the facts and reliable sources, without ignoring that Rittenhouse claimed self-defense.
- -- M.boli (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- The focus of O.J. Simpson's trial was whether or not he was the perpetrator. Simpson's defense was not that he acted in self defense, which is extremely important. From a legal standpoint, it's ridiculous for that case to even be brought up as an analogy. Also, Simpson was found liable in civil court for the deaths of Simpson and Goldman, which adds even more nuance.
- Whether or not Rittenhouse shot the 3 men was not a focus of his trial, it was not even a question. There is video evidence that he was the shooter, he admitted that he was the shooter, etc. It seems the article acknowledges this as well considering it clearly states that he shot 3 men.
- The entire point of Rittenhouse's trial was to determine whether or not he acted in self defense. 'Self defense' was his defense, which is very important. The jury's purpose was to determine if, under Wisconsin law, he used reasonable force to defend himself and subsequently could not be found guilty of the charges weighed against him. Even the article acknowledges this within the notes section:
- "In Wisconsin, a defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of first-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that the defendant reasonably believed that the defendant was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with the defendant's person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"
- When someone argues a claim of self-defense in court and is subsequently acquitted of charges, from a legal standpoint it is correct to state that they "acted in self defense". The acquittal indicates that the court found sufficient evidence to support their claim that they acted in self-defense, or at the very least found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not. CodingApe (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- My argument is that, from a legal standpoint, it is correct to state that someone 'acted in self-defense' if they were acquitted of all charges in a trial where their defense was self-defense. This is objectively true from a legal standpoint, the jury specifically deliberated over whether or not Rittenhouse used justifiable force against a threat of great bodily harm or death (otherwise referred to as 'self-defense'), and they determined that he in-fact did, or, at the very least, that there was not enough evidence to claim that he did not.
- The following questions are the basis of my argument:
- Whether or not stating that he acted in self-defense is correct from a legal standpoint
- Whether or not it is an important fact the public should be aware of when informed that he shot 3 men
- The is first is objectively true, regardless of whether or not others 'doubt his claim'. The second is generally a matter of opinion; however, I genuinely believe that most people would agree that it is very important.
- As a result of this, I cannot comprehend why it would be omitted from this article, unless the purpose is to intentionally obfuscate the facts of the event/trial and subsequently mislead and misinform the public. CodingApe (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose putting "in self defense" in Wikivoice. Acquittal at trial makes the subject's not guilty status a fact but not the affirmative details of their defense. VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is your own opinion... Once again, if the argued defense was self-defense, then it is factually correct to state that they acted in self-defense following acquittal. Do you believe that if there was a guilty verdict, it'd be appropriate to use terms like 'homicide', 'murdered', etc? That seems to be the standard set on this website given those terms are frequently used on articles for convicted persons. So it's only acceptable to describe events/people based on the outcome of a trial in certain situations, primarily when the defendant was convicted? This is a contradiction, it makes no sense, and it doesn't follow basic legal standards understood by most people.
- You can make an argument regarding whether or not the outcome of a self-defense trial should be accepted and respected (as you just did). You could also make an argument debating what is/isn't self-defense; however, your own options have nothing to do with whether or not Rittenhouse was defending himself in Kenosha (he was, according to a jury of his peers). Neither of these opinions should have an effect on an objective article. CodingApe (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Once again, if the argued defense was self-defense, then it is factually correct to state that they acted in self-defense following acquittal.
No, we don't agree on this assertion. The jury was free to acquit for any reason, and a legal finding of not guilty establishes no facts beyond the subject not being guilty. Our coverage of convicted subjects in articles isn't relevant because the two cases are not symmetrical. VQuakr (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I get where you are coming from. I would suggest looking through some of the talk page archives and see the previous discussions on this topic. I think there are two aspects of this discussion. The first is if we can say "Rittenhouse acted in self defense" in Wiki voice. The second is if we can make more prominent in the article opening that he used a self defense argument as is defense and that he was acquitted. The problem with the first is "claim of self defense" + "acquittal" doesn't legally mean "acted in self defense". Using a hypothetical, what if the prosecution was found to have grossly lied and fabricated evidence? What if the prosecution was grossly incompetent and presented a case that made no sense? Legally, and logically, the prosecution could have just done a bad job making the case and the jurors ended up feeling that Rittenhouse was guilty of something but not any of the actual charges brought against him. This isn't a parallel to the OJ case but many people feel that OJ walked not because he was innocent but because the prosecution screwed up. So for this reason it's Original Research on our part if we state that as a fact. Additionally, many people feel that it's hard to decide when it's self defense vs a provoked fight (thus not subject to a self defense claim).
- The second issue is if we are burying the lead by talking about the shootings etc and only eventually mentioning the self defense and acquittal. That is a legitimate question and suggestions for reworking the sentences to make the self defense claim and acquittal more prominent should be considered and can't be dismissed as original research. Personally I think putting these facts in the second sentence is OK. However, as a proposal what about this: "Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003) is an American man who was acquitted of shooting three men, two fatally, during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020, when he was aged 17. At his trial testified that he had acted in self-defense." That has the acquittal is right next to the shooting so anyone who reads just the first sentence can see this wasn't a typical murder case. Springee (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think the second sentence is fine. I would oppose reframing it to start with the acquittal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to push for the change but I'm curious why you oppose putting the acquittal in the first sentence. I think I can see cases both for and against. Springee (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't oppose including the acquittal in the first sentence, just starting with it. We have a very crowded first sentence, but I would be fine with something that stripped down looks like "Kyle Rittenhouse is an American man who shot three men, two fatally, in 2020 and who was acquitted at his trial in 2021." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The specific phrasing proposed of "...who was acquitted of shooting three men" leaves it ambiguous as to whether he pulled the trigger, which is not a fact in dispute in this case. So I'm opposed to that specific formulation but open to other possible phrasings that mention or allude to acquittal in the first sentence somehow. VQuakr (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Kyle Howard Rittenhouse (born January 3, 2003) is an American man who shot three men, two fatally, during the civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in
I see nothing particularly wrong with the lede paragraph, except as somebody noted the first sentence is crowded. I've indicated details which I think could safely be elided. With or without those details, the lede sentence is a good one-sentence statement of what KR is known for. The next two stentences elaborate, stating to other notable aspects of his story. That he was tried and acquitted was major news, no problem to find it notable. The sentence about his claim of self-defense is there because multiple people contributing to talk-page discussion made it evident that the self-defense claim is a important part of his notability in some circles.August2020,when he was aged 17. Rittenhouse was acquitted at his trial in November 2021. He testified that he had acted in self-defense.- The only reason we are having this discussion is that people keep showing up requesting that
KR shot people in self defense
be the lede. And the requester did as I predicted: present a synthetic argument why courtroom in-game rules force us to give this preferred narrative as a statement of fact in wiki-voice. - I suggest we shorten the first sentence as indicated above, and just let the rest be. There has been no substantive argument to change it. -- M.boli (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- 18 is the age of majority in the USA, so subject being under 18 at the time of the shooting is significant. I am not sure that part should be removed. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a way to move the age to later in the first few sentences? I think the age is significant as VQuarkr mentions. Springee (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- 18 is the age of majority in the USA, so subject being under 18 at the time of the shooting is significant. I am not sure that part should be removed. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to push for the change but I'm curious why you oppose putting the acquittal in the first sentence. I think I can see cases both for and against. Springee (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think the second sentence is fine. I would oppose reframing it to start with the acquittal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose putting "in self defense" in Wikivoice. Acquittal at trial makes the subject's not guilty status a fact but not the affirmative details of their defense. VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that is logically sound and comes off a bit as attacking a newbi. In this case the jury wasn't asked to rule on scientific fact. The view that Rittenhouse acted in self defense is very reasonable and we shouldn't treat the view that the lead underplays the self defense aspect as unreasonable. It certainly is reasonable to assume that the combination of a self defense claim and an acquittal = "acted in self defense". However, since many RSs reported in a way that doubted that claim it's best to stick to the facts we know to be true, as the current article does, that he testified that acted in self defense and that the jury, at minimum, had reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense. Springee (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
- Mid-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
- C-Class Wisconsin articles
- Mid-importance Wisconsin articles