Jump to content

Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dw31415 (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 10 February 2024 (→‎Say their names - Victim name treatment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misleading intro

In the intro it says " Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36-year-old unarmed Kenosha man, ran at Rittenhouse and threw a plastic bag at him, which Rittenhouse testified he believed was a chain. Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times at close range"

This makes it sound like Rosenbaum was shot for throwing an empty plastic bag. According to the main body:

"During the chase, Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag containing socks, underwear, and deodorant at Rittenhouse. Ziminski fired a shot into the air, and was later charged with disorderly conduct using a dangerous weapon. After the shot was fired, Rittenhouse turned around, to see Rosenbaum now only a few feet away from him. According to McGinniss, who was standing near Rittenhouse at the time, Rosenbaum then shouted "fuck you!" and "lunged" at Rittenhouse and grabbed the barrel of his rifle. Rittenhouse then fired four shots at Rosenbaum, killing him"

I think the intro should be changed to say "Joseph Rosenbaum, a 36-year-old unarmed Kenosha man, ran at Rittenhouse and grabbed his rifle. Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times at close range" 165.124.85.133 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this could be improved. WWGB's edit described the bag more accurately but I think it we could zoom out a bit. At the time of the throw Rittenhouse was running from Rosenbaum. He only stopped running when his path was blocked. I think we could say something about attempted to grabbed or appeared to grab for the rifle. Perhaps start by saying he was running from Rosenbaum would help. Springee (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Rosenbaum a "Kenosha man" is not obvious to me since he was a semi transient sex offender who'd been recently released from a mental hospital. I agree the article is deceptively worded to imply Rosenbaum was shot for throwing a bag. It is also highly misleading to identify a man attacking an armed man as unarmed--he is attempting to gain control of a weapon. He is not unarmed.

2600:1006:B00E:E089:18A8:C91A:9616:9A6C (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acquittal in lead

The lead currently mentions twice that Rittenhouse was acquitted. It also includes an over-emphasized point of view that Rittenhouse's acquittal was "apparently on those grounds", with the grounds being self-defense. A citation is included which states this as the view of one prosecutor. It's not enough weight to mention this in the lead, and one person's view doesn't make an opinion "apparent". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the recent addition doesn't read well regardless of where one stands on the actual legal outcome. Honestly, I've looked at the lead several times and I'm not sure about changing it. I can understand the concern with putting the acquittal later in the lead and how that looks like people are trying to burry it. However, the current lead does a decent job of laying out the fact, all of which are important, about the events that night. Yes, that ends up putting the trial and acquittal at the end of the lead rather than in the first paragraph. However, if you reverse things it tends to come across as Rittenhouse was the most important part of the whole story. Outside of the lens of defensive gun use debate, I'm not sure that is actually true. Certainly for the families of the deceased and injured the trial is secondary to the events of that night. The current lead neither buries nor promotes the outcome of the trial and presents the facts in reasonable chronological order. While it is reasonable to put the acquittal right up front in the Rittenhouse BLP, I think it's current location in this article is logical. Springee (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Springee. The "current lead", assuming you mean the one live as of this comment, mentions the acquittal at the end of paragraph 3 and at the very end in a mini-paragraph. Do you mean that you prefer this version, or the status quo ante (just the bit in para 3)? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mean the stable version. I don't like the recently added last sentence. I can sympathize with the thinking but I think it reads poorly. Springee (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the added sentence/paragraph improves the article. I consider it duplicative and not written from a neutral point of view. —ADavidB 17:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in. Between the comments here and in the section below, I feel there's enough consensus to remove the line. At the very least, WP:ONUS hasn't been met. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"At trial ..." as the final lead para

I added a one-sentence concluding para to the lede ("At trial, Rittenhouse claimed self-defense and was acquitted of all charges, apparently on those grounds."), supported by a cited source and linking a footnote giving a quote from the cited source ("One former federal prosecutor commented, "The not-guilty verdict appears to have rested on the definition of self-defence in Wisconsin state law and the jury’s interpretation of videos of the incident"). This was quickly tagged as a duplicate because of earlier mentions of self-defense in the lede and also tagged pov-inline (reason=Over-emphasis of one prosecutor's view, never mentioned in the body). My edit was in reaction to this previous edit which removed an assertion that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense from the lede and saying, "the self defense questions is not particularity contentions with the exception of some fringe opinions. It was the basis for his acquittal".

My thought leading to my edit were that the defense put on an affirmative defense based on self-defense and that the reason the jury found for the defense was probably largely because they bought the defense that was presented. I don't think that is particularly fringe or particularly POV. The reason I placed it the end of the lede was that I thought it appropriate to conclude the summary in the lede with info about the outcome of the trial.

I'm happy not to dispute editorial consensus. If the consensus is that it is not appropriate to conclude the lede with info about the conclusion of the trial, remove my added concluding sentence. If the consensus is that the lede over-emphasizes self-defence, editors with a better nose for style would do a better job than I in reducing the over-emphasis. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your concern. We seem to burry the aquittal part well into the lead thus one who reads only the first paragraph (say in a Google search return) might assume this was a case of someone trying to commit a shooting vs responding to being attacked. Perhaps noting that Rittenhouse was attacked early in the lead might address the concern or changing the order by stating Rittenhouse was chassed then fired. Leaving the reader with the impression this was a malicious act vs a reaction is an issue. I don't like the sound of "apparently on those grounds". It sounds unconvinced etc. It's better to simply state his pleading was self defense and he was acquitted. Springee (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case you missed it, you can see more of my thoughts in the above section. If you think the jury outcome is best placed at the end of the lead, we could try a re-arrangement, but it's hard to make it work with all the content about the reaction to the verdict. We could also try starting the paragraph about the trial with the outcome and then flash-back to the charges, which would put things out of chronological order but might be worthwhile. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading this article, not an editor, but I’ve never seen a Wikipedia article use the term “apparently” threw me off quite a bit. Can this be cleaned up? It’s off of Wikipedia’s usual detached voice. 2600:1700:76F2:F310:44CB:AC8D:3C22:6B05 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rittenhouse was threatened before fleeing

I feel like I might be nitpicking here, but the sentence "Rittenhouse fled and was pursued by a crowd" present in the second pharagraph seems to impli Kyle was chased after fleeing, or as a result of fleeing, when in the videos it is clear he was first yelled at and threatend by the crowd before he started running

But maybe I'm just reading a tad too deep into this, especialy since I can't think of an elegant way to reword that without making it eedlessly long or drawing attention to unecessary details (like he getting yelled at) Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable but we need a reliable source to state it. We can't infer it from watching videos or from some commentators. Springee (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Say their names - Victim name treatment

Proposal: Add victim names to first paragraph.

(Note this section was deleted at some point. I'm adding it back because I think removing it was not in keeping with Talk page guidelines. Above is concrete proposal to react to. Below is original section text)

“36 -year-old Joseph Rosenbaum, of Kenosha, and 26-year-old Anthony Huber, of Silver Lake, Wisconsin were killed by a young man from out of state.” Or similar should appear in the first paragraph.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/who-were-the-victims-killed-in-the-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-in-kenosha/2688161/

~~In my opinion this article currently fails the worst criticism of dehumanizing black lives and describing black and white victims in completely different terms.

Is there a Wikipedia policy/goal of treating white and black people equally.~~

(End previous comment)

Note: The victims were white, but I think the question still stands about the weight of victims names vs perpetrator?

Dw31415 (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if addding back my section that was deleted is appropriate, but I think commends are supposed to remain and be closed. There's probably issues with my comment but I'll review the article again and respond / close the section if the original issue was addressed. Dw31415 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Modified my section text to include definitive proposal Dw31415 (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for other editors to respond, or keep responding, to talk page comments. The section you added here previously is in Archive 4. It received comments from four editors, who pointed out that that the shooter and those shot were all white, which your comments above do not show as your understanding. The people shot are all identified in the article's second paragraph. (I believe 'who did what' is almost always described before 'to whom'.) An administrator noted an "apparent misunderstanding" of the shooting's sources and closed the former talk section's discussion. —ADavidB 17:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adavidb, thanks for the context. I'll edit the proposal to remove the issues around race. Do you support or oppose adding the victims names in the first paragraph? Dw31415 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting&oldid=1205894295"