Talk:Kenosha unrest/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Infobox photo burned car lot

We should probably begin a discussion about which photo belongs in the information box. One editor has first tagged the article with a failed verification tag, and next deleted the photo. I have reinstated the photo for now. FYI: I took many photos while in Kenosha and the burned car lot was probably the most dramatic. It was the photo of this lot which most news outlets used, and it was a place the President visited. I support the use of the photo but there are many others in commons filed under Kenosha Protests. However this photo has become a symbol for the Kenosha protests.

  • Support as proposer Lightburst (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, per above. Wikipedia desperately needs volunteers like Lightburst to shoot and upload photos, as those that appear in news-media are copyrighted. Trying to reconnect (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Useful image showing what occurred during the protests. There is not reason to remove it, aside from a goal of rewriting history. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 16:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support heavy media coverage - most representative image/montage currently available to us. Juno (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the lead image we should strive to find something that depicts the subject as a whole. An image of property damage devoid of anyone doing any protesting at all is not a summary of collective outrage over systemic racism; it's a sensationalist move more fit for a tabloid than an encyclopedia. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have this image and it's useful documentation, but it's definitely not the right infobox image for this topic. Maybe if we had a topic about Property damage during the Kenosha protests (not that I'm suggesting it) then it would make sense, but an article about protests should depict protests. PS: citing use by news is circular. having uploaded tons of protest (and other) photos and used them in articles, the ones that appear in the article are the ones that get used, regardless of whether they're the best image, so of course if it was in the infobox before then it'll be the most used outside of Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking on Commons, it seems the only photos we have are of property damage, police, and counter-protesters. No wonder we're having this debate -- there's no image that actually depicts protests here. I'll see if I can find something... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment apologies for going when crazies were not punching people and burning things. The Trump supporters were a mild crowd. ultimately, if your intent is to portray this as a "protest" as CNN has done, then you would look for a photo which represents those peaceful moments. However having been to Kenosha twice now, it looks like bombs were dropped on parts of the city. So the photo is representative of the type of protests that took place. I am not a revisionist history proponent. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Lightburst, it's a shame that you didn't stay a few more hours on the 28th [1] [2] [3]. Aside from sidewalk art, the rallies didn't leave behind much evidence, so you can't really characterize them based on what you saw the next day. You're making claims about the overall nature of the event based on your own observations several days later which is OR. –dlthewave ☎ 12:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)'
Dlthewave My observations might be OR but your observations are likely formed by watching the news media craft a story (OR) to fit their narrative - right now the narrative is systemic racism, and bad cops who target people of color or are too quick to shoot them. Regarding Kenosha: I live near by and we had wall to wall coverage which differed from considerably from national news. National news repeated over and over "peaceful protestors". Were there peaceful protests? Sure. But is that the story for the protests? Pockets of people writing peace on sidewalks? We had our TV broadcasts interrupted to announce nightly curfews as far away as Milwaukee County. In addition no non-residents were allowed to go east of I94 after 7pm. According to people I spoke with in Kenosha, protestors were shouting "Fuck the Police" all day and smashing things. Two people I spoke to who lived near Sheridan had to flee. They said daytime was quiet and they would come home in the morning and clean up damage (like the photos I captured of people painting boarded up buildings) and then leave at about 4pm. I know that is anecdotal evidence however if one turned on CNN there was a different story. One that showed pockets of protestors like your Flicker photos. I live an hour aways and each day my Cable tv blasted warnings about curfews, and fires and the no-go zone east of I94. Additionally the ones arrested were primarily out of town agitators of the 252 arrests, 132 did not live there. When I watched CNN I felt like I was being gaslighted. In any event, I see the arguments of Rhododendrites, and I appreciate the editor's insights. I just have a different opinion - perhaps because of proximity. Here is the kind of dichotomy which exists between actual and CNN narrative. Kenosha News here CNN messages on screen. I was dismayed when we changed the name from riots to protests, but I see that it WP:COMMONNAME was invoked. We can keep working on this and get it down to a "Fiery but mostly Peaceful Protest After Police Shooting" Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For disclosure, I've tweeted/reddited about this need for people to upload photos (but haven't linked to this discussion or the talk page at all, of course). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites—you say "an article about protests should depict protests". I do not think so. In most instances an article should depict the underlying subject matter of that article. The title of an article alludes to a subject to be addressed in an article. We are addressing events taking place in Kenosha following an incident in which an individual was shot by police. The shooting incident is addressed at the Shooting of Jacob Blake article and the aftermath, rioting, protests, and unrest is being addressed at the Kenosha protests article. The underlying subject matter would not change if we change the title, which we did a week ago, from Kenosha riots to Kenosha protests. Do you think the scope or the subject matter of the article has changed as a result of that title change? Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'll skip the strawman and just try to clarify: The article is about protests/unrest/whatever, regardless of the title. It's about people reacting to perceived injustice. People are reacting in a wide range of ways, but it's people reacting/protesting/demonstrating, and yes even rioting. Property damage is a sub-topic, not the topic. The image removes the people altogether and focuses on the property damage to the exclusion of everything else. As something a step removed from the central subject, it's fine for the article, sure, but it's not an effective or appropriate lead image, which should most directly depict the subject, and which is what we're discussing here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It does not matter that people are not seen in this image. Their presence is felt. It is universally understood and explained in the article that human beings (people) deliberately burned down the car lot that is seen in that image. Bus stop (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rhododendrites. It might work as part of a collage in the infobox of protests, something related to the shooting, and property damage, but when it's the only image there, it's problematic. This is especially problematic because the question of how to portray this has become such a central front in the culture wars and the US presidential campaign. We can't come across as if we're advancing one side of the narrative in a political campaign. Guettarda (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am ok with or without a Infobox photo, but I do believe that the process should be fair to all parties and discussed rather than the situation that Lightburst touched upon above. Of the images there are on Commons at the moments, I believe that there are a few alternates that could be used as well if this image is a problem. File:Kenosha_Civil_Unrest_-_Downtown.svg shows the rough area of where the protests occurred from August 23rd to the 25th. File:2805_40th_St_Kenosha_WI.jpg shows the location of where Jacob Blake was shot, which is a primary reason for the protests. File:Family_Dollar,_22nd_Avenue,_Kenosha,_WI.jpg shows a positive message related to the protests, though this might need to be cropped to remove the Family Dollar sign. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • To be clear, there were extensive discussions of the image above, here, which started just a few days after the image was added, continued over the course of a week, and plainly failed to reach a consensus (leading to the current state where the image, a recent addition, gets removed per WP:ONUS.) There was some earlier discussion when the images were added, where the only discussion of the lead image were people objecting that it might be non-representative, but that discussion didn't continue as long as the more recent one. Please search the talk page before making sweeping statements about what has and hasn't been discussed. Going to an RFC after the extensive prior discussions failed to reach a consensus makes sense, but re-adding a contested, high-profile addition that has never had a consensus backing it absolutely does not - the image needs to stay out until / unless we have a clear consensus backing one. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments stricken as I was the one who misunderstood the situation with a note here that I did do a search, but only of the failed verification tag which was not mentioned on the talk page and ended up leading to this discussion and my confusion. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep a picture... I can see why someone might want a different picture to represent this article. A burned out car dealership probably isn't the best "summary" picture. Still, I would rather we have it vs no picture. So I'm open to changing but think we should retain the picture until a new one (or mosaic) has been agreed upon. Springee (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose current picture for the infobox (and support the map File:Kenosha_Civil_Unrest_-_Downtown.svg from below in its place); the picture simply isn't representative, and it is clearly shocking per MOS:SHOCK, without the heavy coverage that would make such an image acceptable. There's no indication that the car lot received substantial coverage, and it doesn't reflect comparable images in mainstream coverage, which are largely focused on sign-carrying protestors. --Aquillion (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rhododendrites. I also disagree with Springee: no image is better than an image which isn't representative. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. To use an overused term, this is an iconic image (in my opinion) relating to the subject of this article. The photo by Lightburst identifies this incident better than any other image I've seen deriving from this incident. (Just my opinion.) Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - OP fails to state to whom it is a symbol and what it symbolizes. It's clearly a biased image. Kire1975 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ideally, a montage would be the best way to illustrate the multiple events that this article covers. If we can't find suitable free images, it would be better to go with no image at all or something like this which touches on both the threat to property and peaceful community action. –dlthewave ☎ 18:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for a montage – The car dealer aftermath picture should be fine within a montage, perhaps also including files A, B, or C. Riots are the most recognizable and pictorially available result of the events. —ADavidB 19:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Adding on to my !vote above, I oppose a lead image of any kind at this time (montage or not), as we do not currently have any photos of protesters/protesting in Kenosha. We have only pictures of police/national guard, counter-protesters, and property damage. Those photos are fine for the article, but they do not constitute a summary of this subject such that we should expect for the lead image. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasoning of Rhododendrites soibangla (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Bus stop. The burning of the car lot did receive substantial coverage and the photo does accurately illustrate the events in Kenosha.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see both sides of this and I appreciate Rhododendrites measured and coherent response. The only thing I have trouble appreciating is Aquillion's unilateral moves. First an incorrect verifiability tag on the photo, and when that did not work they twice deleted the photo. Usually we stay with status quo until consensus, but we are forced to go along with Aquillion's decisions here. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Since I was one of those confused as to the order of events, lets go over them so that there is no longer any confusion. First discussion regarding photos being taken by Lightburst (August 28th to August 30th) → Lightburst adds the image to the infobox (August 28th) → Lightburst altering the caption and adding a citation (August 28th) → Second discussion regarding if anyone had pictures of during the protests (August 29th to September 2nd) → Third discussion regarding the car lot photo not being representative of the article as a whole (September 4th to present) → Aquillion adding Template:Failed verification next to the citation (September 9th) → Fourth discussion regarding the failed verification template (September 9th to present) → Lightburst removes the failed verification template (September 9th) → Aquillion removes the image from the infobox regards to the third discussion → RopeTricks adds the image to a section in the article → Bondegezou removes the citation left in the caption (September 10th) → Lightburst re-adds the image and adds a caption to the infobox without removing the image from the section in the article (Two images in the article; September 10th) → Fifth discussion regarding which image should be in the infobox (This discussion here; September 10th to present) → Guettarda removes the image and caption from the infobox (One image in article; September 10th) → Super Goku V reverts Guettarda's edit (Two images in article; September 10th) → Aquillion correctly reverts Super Goku V's edit (One image in article; September 10th) --Super Goku V (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe that this is a decent summary of the order of events. If anyone feels that I have omitted something, feel free to mention it as I haven't been watching the talk page nor article daily and might have omitted edits to either. @Lightburst: Does this clear things up? --Super Goku V (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • To summarize more briefly: Status quo is the longstanding version of an article; it exists under the presumption that something that has been in the article for a long time, without people objecting to it, enjoys implicit consensus. Since this article is new, you added the image recently (and people objected, relatively quickly), so it isn't the "status quo" in that sense - the status quo is to have nothing. Therefore we have to remove it from the lead until you can demonstrate consensus for it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support The car dealership was burned down, it's not like it never happened. I don't understand this obsession with historical revisionism, especially when the events in question happened mere weeks ago. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 13:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Alexiod Palaiologos (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
  • Support pic, I'd prefer a collage of pictures but if we can't get more we can't get more. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I welcome Lightburst's contributions and think they should be used in the article. However, I think File:Kenosha_Civil_Unrest_-_Downtown.svg works better as a neutral, comprehensive and informative graphic for the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Bondegezou—the image you suggest almost entirely avoids the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
No. It shows where events took place. (If you feel it's inaccurate, perhaps ask the person who made it for a revision?) We often use maps in infoboxes. Bondegezou (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Why would you want to waste prime article real estate on little more than a diagram? Does it matter enormously where street A sits in relation to street B? I didn't say it was "inaccurate", Bondegezou. It avoids the subject of the article. Sure, a map of the area could be included in the article. But we are discussing an image for placement in the uppermost portion of the article. Unless we are trying to downplay the death and destruction and looting and arson we would not place the map in uppermost position of the article. We should place in a prominent position an image emblematic of the incident that the article is addressing. That is why the image of the burned out car lot is so useful. It is very shocking that over 50 automobiles in close proximity to one another were set alight in this incident. And the burned out remains stand as stark evidence of the destructive power that was a part of the incident being addressed by the article. If you feel a map accomplishes this better, please explain. In my opinion a map is little more than a diagram. In my opinion it serves little purpose, although I wouldn't argue against its inclusion in the article. I think the information derivable from a map is of secondary importance in this article. Social issues are at the forefront of this article. The burned out car lot evidences the powerful social forces brought to bear in this incident. Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you've made quite clear that you would find the most accurate depiction "death and destruction and looting and arson". What's happening here is that some people disagree with you that an image of "death and destruction and looting and arson" accurately summarizes the subject such that it should be the lead image. Nobody has said we shouldn't show pictures of property damage, etc., and indeed since that's the imagery we have available to us it's going to be prominent in the article. At issue is the lead image. Since we don't have an image that's representative of the subject as a whole, I've argued that we should just skip having a lead image for now. Bondegezou proposed depicting the where rather than the what, which is not ideal but the best option we have at the moment. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
"Nobody has said we shouldn't show pictures of property damage" but not in the "lead image"? Why not? Isn't that what a "lead image" is for? "Since we don't have an image that's representative of the subject as a whole..." Yes we do—it is the burned out car lot. You are saying "others don't agree with [me]". Fine, but please articulate a rationale for omitting the image of the burned out car lot, and please be specific. Is it that there are no human subjects present? (You have said that.) The presence of human beings often makes a photograph engaging. But the absence of people wouldn't invalidate an image, would it? You can't just say, in essence, I don't like it and leave it at that. Pinging Rhododendrites. Bus stop (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
As the article says, the subject is "protests and unrest occurred in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and around the United States as part of the larger Black Lives Matter movement and ongoing responses to high-profile killings by police officers in 2020". That's the subject. Rioting is one part of that. Damage to property is one part of rioting. And the property itself is one part of the damage to property during the rioting. It's steps removed and plays into the standard propaganda playbook of negating concerns of protesters by ignoring the people themselves and the reason why they're protesting and focusing just on the, well, "destruction and looting and arson". Our responsibility is to avoid framing the subject according to one part of it to the best we can, but to represent the subject in general. It's for that reason that it also wouldn't be representative to lead just with, say, a family holding hands in silent prayer or something. I don't have anything else to say on the subject at this time. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Rhododendrites—you are back to your argument that what Wikipedia writes defines the subject of the article. The tail does not wag the dog. You wrote earlier "an article about protests should depict protests". Just because editors succeed in gaining consensus for a characterization does not alter the underlying subject matter of the article. (This article used to be called Kenosha riot.) Now you are writing "As the article says, the subject is 'protests and unrest occurred in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and around the United States as part of the larger Black Lives Matter movement and ongoing responses to high-profile killings by police officers in 2020'. That's the subject". And if we were to zoom in on the "unrest" portion of Wikipedia's definition we would find this image, would we not? Why would that image be unacceptable? Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, I presume you will be going over to, say, Talk:Allied invasion of Sicily to tell them not to waste prime article real estate on little more than a diagram? Bondegezou (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Bondegezou—if you are invoking Allied invasion of Sicily then surely "Kenosha protests" is too tepid a title for this article. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Why would you want to waste prime article real estate on little more than a diagram? It's an informative diagram - it shows where the protests have (largely) taken place. More importantly, a diagram is completely neutral - it neither presents the protests as unduly violent nor as entirely peaceful, but merely informs the reader of the (unequivocally true) fact of where they were largely focused. The lead image is supposed to be both neutral and non-shocking, so based on that I definitely support the map. Truthfully I feel it tells the reader far more useful information than the other suggestions of "here's a random car lot of no particular significance that caught fire" or "here's some random people holding protest signs, because it was a protest." Either of those images could be randomly swapped from any other major protest and the reader wouldn't notice, so they don't actually say anything about here specifically. The map, on the other hand, is clearly specific to this topic and conveys vital context for the entire topic. Your fixation on using "prime article real estate" to present the topic as being primarily about a burned car lot gives the impression that you want to convey a particular message about the protests that you feel the rest of the article doesn't cover - but that is specifically what we are not supposed to use the lead image for. They're meant to be neutral, not emotive, and it's hard to see what could be more neutral than the map. --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Aquillion—you say "a diagram is completely neutral". This image is "completely neutral". Until you can tell me why it is not neutral I would have to assume that it is neutral. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I (and many others) have told you repeatedly, so this is starting to feel like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but it is an image of property damage, which is, at best, only one part of the subject; and it places WP:UNDUE focus on one particular incident (the burning of the car lot) that received very light coverage relative to the massive coverage devoted to the topic as a whole. It is also not broadly reflective of the images used in media coverage, which include many images of peaceful protestors rather than the emotive images of property damage that you prefer (and which, again, have very few images of that car lot in particular.) Therefore, it is unequivocally non-neutral, and will never be acceptable as a lead image; insofar as is possible, a lead image must present an even-handed view of the topic. Now you are unequivocally aware of why many people are telling you that that image is non-neutral, so I hope you will at least stop asking? And your turn, of course - explain why you think the map is not neutral, please? --Aquillion (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The Kenosha map does nothing as a lead image. I am not even going to suggest another specific photo here, but I will argue against the map which does nothing at all- it is neutral? - I guess, is a picture of Sheridan street neutral? Maybe. Why aren't we concerned about neutrality when it comes to Kyle Rittenhouse? The guy was cleaning Grafiti off of buildings before his "incidents" - would we select a neutral photo of Rittenhouse cleaning buildings as a lead photo? No because that is not the article/story. We can choose photos of flowers and love messages for this article.. is that neutral... not really we would be choosing to portray something which is not the story. The lead photo is to set up an article about National guard troops, destruction, fires, and visits from both presidential candidates. That is majority of what the article is about. Without that destruction there would be no Wikipedia article. The fact that we are continually watering this down is our own message-crafting to fit a narrative - or to fit the new title? Protests? Based on the use of the car lot photo our other wikis lead with - they think the photo is representative. Concluding: we can keep whittling this down until we can call it a "Fiery but mostly peaceful protest", but that would be wrongheaded. If we were crafting the article name and message for the Hindenburg disaster we might call it the Hindenburg accident and we might say, "Fiery, but mostly pleasant flight." Maybe we could put up a a lead photo of a map. Of the debris field? Of the spot where they took off? JMTC Lightburst (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Edit: I just did a reverse image search for the car lot photo we are discussing. I found it interesting how many picked up the photo. Just interesting is all - probably because it was free. Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I am also finding Aquillion's actions and words very disturbing. The unilateral decisions, boss-like pronouncements and dismissals of other opinions... using words like "unequivocally non-neutral" and "and will never be acceptable as a lead image". I do not know who put the editor in change but it is troubling. This is what we are discussing here but it may not matter. Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
It is a good photograph and it is of important subject matter, Lightburst. Congratulations on the good work getting that photograph. "CNN is getting roasted for describing protests in Wisconsin as "fiery but mostly peaceful" during a live broadcast — that showed a building fully engulfed in flames Wednesday night."

Aquillion—the map merely provides street names. Why would a reader want to know street names? "Neutrality", in my opinion, is an extraneous concern when comparing these two images. We are comparing a very relevant image to a not so relevant image. Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed Bus Stop. Kenosha had riots uptown, midtown and downtown. The map appears to only show midtown. That is where a lot happened, but it is not representative of the whole. Lightburst (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "Neutrality", in my opinion, is an extraneous concern when comparing these two images. Well, I'm glad you at least seem to be conceding the point that you're not going to defend your preferred image as neutral in that comparison, though I'm wondering why you asked what was non-neutral about the image you preferred if you were going to dismiss the need for neutrality immediately afterwards; but policy is policy. The image can still be used elsewhere, but a non-neutral image cannot be used in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm bothered by your constant refrain that you don't want the message you were trying to send with that photo to be "watered down"; that is not how lead images are supposed to be chosen. They're not supposed to send a message. They are not intended to convince the reader of anything. They are intended to be neutral and unsurprising, or to be reflective of how the topic is most commonly portrayed. The fact that Bus Stop (by citing Fox's criticism of them) implicitly concedes, above, that CNN is not covering the topic the way he thinks they should is telling; I think you do both recognize that this image does not fully reflect the overarching tone or focus of mainstream coverage - indeed, part of the reason you are trying so hard to get it included seems to be because you want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by pushing back against coverage that has devoted substantial focus to peaceful protests and which (while it has certainly covered other aspects) has been careful to place property damage in proper context rather than placing it front-and-center the way you prefer. And regarding the reverse image search, any image prominent on an article in Wikipedia will have substantial appearances due to mirrors, but if you look at the actual image search usages, it has mostly appeared in grindy culture-war blogs and plainly WP:BIASED sites trying to push narratives about the events, which lines up with your own rationale - red meat, fire in the belly, nothing "toned down" from the message they want to send. Forgive me if I don't see the image's heavy use by Green Jihad, "Your source that tells the truth about the environmentalist movement's holy war against mankind", to be an endorsement that it is a neutral, unbiased way to cover the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Aquillion—your assumption that this image is "non-neutral" is incorrect. We are writing an article about an incident that is not primarily peaceful. In the context of this article, peaceful protest/sidewalk art is not as important as death, destruction, looting, arson—2 deaths, $50 million damage, businesses torched and looted, 100 buildings damaged—on the one hand—and peaceful protest and sidewalk art on the other hand. The peaceful and the not-peaceful are both pertinent to the article, but the non-peaceful is much more important. I think it warrants a place at the top of this article. Bus stop (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • How can a picture, in general, be non-neutral? It happened, it just happened. That's like saying a picture of the Holocaust is non-neutral because it doesn't show pictures of peaceful SS Officers drinking beer. Also it seems you're opposed to any mention of the car dealership, even if you include images of the peaceful protests ($50-60 million of damage in a town of only 100,000 people, is simply not mostly peaceful, but let's just pretend it is). So it seems the only one who is non-neutralis you, because you want to blatantly rewrite history and pretend like the car dealership was never burnt down. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 14:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Aquillion, Neutrality does not include rewriting history to reflect your own version of history. Please read the article more carefully. A lead image reflects what the article is about. It is not "neutral and unsurprising"...Just like the Hindenburg Disaster lead image reflects the content of the article.
Reading our article: this is what our article is about
  • Riots
  • Fires
  • Property damage
  • Arrests
  • National guard troops
  • A declaration of a state of emergency
  • Tear gas and rubber bullets
  • Curfews
  • Vigilantes and a "vigilante" shooting
  • "Significant numbers of armed civilians"
  • A presidential visit.
That is a fair reading of our article. We have just a few sentences that say peaceful protest (and they look out of place with no real information about them). So a neutral image would not be one that shows a peaceful protest. In my opinion, changing the title of this article was the first mistake, and the second mistake is trying to make what we describe as riots... look like a peaceful protest.
This is all we have about peaceful protest in our article.
  • The demonstrations were marked by daily peaceful protesting followed by confrontations
  • Peaceful demonstrations were held during the day. - next sentence -national guard troops...
  • (August 26th) Protests continued peacefully with chants and sidewalk art in a park near the courthouse, followed by a march. Riot police and National Guard troops did not have a visible presence
  • Protests continued daily through August 29, when about 1,000 people participated in a march and rally.
  • In our responses section we have coverage of other areas of the country which includes some peaceful demonstrations by athletes and others - nothing to do with the Kenosha article.
Aquillion says Bus Stop is "pushing back against coverage that has devoted substantial focus to peaceful protests" yet the majority of news coverage shows riots and the majority of our article is about riots: how do we explain such an incorrect statement by Aquillion? In reality Aquillion is pushing back against coverage. The photograph of the car lot is a perfect example of a lead image that reflects the article. It is Apolitical. Aquillion is unimpressed by the photo's use in other publications - but I am impressed. Many are not trying to sugar coat what our own article describes as riots and unrest. As I have said there would not be an article here without the Kenosha riots. The situation in Kenosha was a disaster and our lead image should reflect that fact - just as our own article does. Otherwise we are pushing back against coverage. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Can people please stop edit warring to include this image. Wikipedia stops working if people don't abide by fundamental editing processes like WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. The burden is always on those who want to include disputed content to find consensus for it when it's challenged before restoring. That's the process that's happening here. An image was added, it was soon after challenged, now it's being discussed. Maybe there will be consensus to include it, maybe not. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I would add that before this straw poll was started, the photo was challenged in the Representative photo of the protests? section (permalink for posterity). Until there's consensus to include, which I'm not seeing in either section, the challenged photo should not be reinstated. –dlthewave ☎ 14:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah I understand, consensus is only valid when it fits your point of view, thanks for clearing that up. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 15:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
How about you stop edit warring to rewrite history? Also it seems there is a significant consensus to include the picture, represented not only by other Wikipedia editors but by simple fact, and all you can do is spin words around, and suggest that a map of a street somehow accurately represents a protest (what absurd nonsense is that?). So you want a consensus, and of course, fact, but when both go against you, you simply reject it. How nice. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 15:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Also I would like you to also go to the article on the Holocaust, and remove the lead picture, because it doesn't accurately represent all the peaceful SS Officers who drank beer while the Jews were killed. Please note that consensus refers to opinions across a community. You seem to have this idea that consensus is some fancy way of saying my own personal opinion, which, quick reminder, is not true. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 15:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ^^ This is the third boldtext !vote by Alexiod Palaiologos (and the second time they have compared protesters/rioters to Nazis). This page has turned into a Breitbart comments section, and I'm unwatching for the time being. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Rhododendrites that is a rather unfair and hyperbolic characterization of this discussion. Those who disagree with your position are not alt-right but that is how I read your comment above. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: does not represent the totality of the event. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
How could one still image represent the totality of the event? Even a greater number of still images could not represent the totality of the event. The image is not at all inconsistent with with the destructiveness of the Kenosha event. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The coverage wasn't for a peaceful protest. Peaceful protesters don't get much coverage and no articles. It was about the riots. This is what all the news media is covering. Dream Focus 19:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Image showing unrest is important for providing highlights of this overall incident. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The car lot image works and gets across what mainly happened here (rioting, property destruction, etc.) and has been widely used by reliable news services. The use of a map here is near ludicrous for an event of this nature. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The cause of the shooting: the dumpster fire

Why doesn't the section on the shooting mention the cause of the incident? Kyle was caught on video extinguishing a dumpster fire that demonstrators were about to push into a police car, which escalated into the deadly altercation that happened. Oktayey (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Rittenhouse split

DUPLICATE DISCUSSION
This discussion duplicates the discussion above about whether/how to split the information about Rittenhouse/the shootings from this article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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.


Given that Rittenhouse and his lawyer are now suing Joe Biden for libel, his notability is no longer tied to just one incident. Perhaps it's time for him to get his own article now? --Steverci (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Lots of people sue political figures. This doesn't contribute to their notability and no split is warranted. VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Are we talking about splitting off an article about the shooting or about Rittenhouse? Rittenhouse is clearly a BLP1E topic. The shooting is really the topic and Rittenhouse is the key person in that story. Yes, we have some secondary material such as Rittenhouse being accused of being a white supremacist by various politicians/media types. That still ties back to the original incident so it could fit into the topic, "Kenosha protest shootings". We don't need to have an article called "Kyle Rittenhouse" to cover this material. Springee (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Covering the lawsuit in the Responses section could end up quite estranged from the actual topic of the Kenosha unrest. --Steverci (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
So don't cover the lawsuit. We're an encyclopedia, not the news. VQuakr (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I checked that first, and it seemed they are discussing a separate article for the shootings, not the shooter. --Steverci (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The allege shooter alone is likely to fail WP:N. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Suing a political figure for libel related to the same incident being discussed before doesn't really transcend BLP1E. It's still coverage related directly to the "one event". Especially since you're talking about creating another potential BLP problem, I think it's a far better idea to keep things in as few articles as possible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Anyone can sue anyone for anything, and as other people have noted it's still tied to that one event. Let's wait a bit and see what coverage develops - if the lawsuit becomes a big deal then it might be enough, but right now there's no reason think it will. --Aquillion (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
CookieMonster755, I think your draft looks refreshingly impartial. However, I would suggest it should be merged into the article split above. Rittenhouse is very much a poster case for BLP1E. "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Once we have an article on the shooting itself, the article about the shooter who is otherwise not NOTE becomes redundant. Springee (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I am certainly supportive of an article about the shooting (and not Rittenhouse) if that is what everyone wants. Cheers Springee, cookie monster (2020) 755 16:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protests in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin

As a result of an officer involved shooting by Officer Mensah (Alvin Cole was killed) three days so far of "unrest". Here is a video. The policeman was not charged and that was announced October 7. Since then we have had unrest. I guess the officer has had three shootings in five years (2 all 3 dead). I put it here because we have no articles about any of it and - the national guard has been in place for three days also. ATM the protestors are blocking freeways. And the Wauwatosa School District went 100% virtual ahead of the announcement. This is about 34 miles north of Kenosha, Wisconsin. Curfew every night through this coming Monday. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I went out and snapped some photos. National guard are staged at the Mayfair Mall, and protestors by city hall 76th and North. Will upload a few tonight I hope Lightburst (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Photos Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a new Shooting of Alvin Cole article, a link to which has been added in this article's "See also" section. Some of the above content may be appropriatly added to that article. —ADavidB 09:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Adavidb: I went there. The article is taking shape. I did not start one because I was unsure of the notability, however doing some research I can see that it garnered quite a bit of coverage. Lightburst (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Photos

Too bad I did not get the photos you guys wanted in Kenosha. I managed to get some in Wauwatosa at the rally that Jay Z threw. Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Pkeets recent edits deserve particular scrutiny

After repeated attempts to take control of the Public Interest Legal Foundation page and push it towards a certain POV while removing information that they alone seem to consider contentious, they have made a few tentative edits here in the same manner. I encourage editors watching this page to keep an eye on further developments. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:A59E:D6F0:C438:19CE (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm glad you appreciate my work. Pkeets (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Richie McGinnis

I've added the information that the Daily Caller reporter supplied first aid to Rosenbaum, but I'd like to propose adding his name here as well. This was reverted when added once before as unnecessarily involving him in the event, but he's now named as interviewing Rittenhouse. McGinnis is going to be an important eye-witness for the trial, so is pretty well involved already. He appears in the video recordings and is identified by name in several sources. Pkeets (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I see McGinnis' name is out again. Thanks for the response. Pkeets (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenosha_unrest/Archive_8&oldid=986005822"