Talk:Suspect in Kenosha, Wisconsin protester killings released from jail on US$2 million bond

Explanation
The reader is likely not to recognize the name Kyle Rittenhouse. This should be explained up-front in both the headline and the first sentence of the lede; for the headline, from a human readership perspective it's more important to explain who they are than what their name is (though I know some will object that including the name in the headline helps with search engine scores, which I do not deny is a reasonable concern). --Pi zero (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary thoughts

 * "While it has yet to be confirmed whether [...]"
 * This doesn't identify the information source, and doesn't say as-of-when ("face the past" when reporting).

--Pi zero (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted, thank you. The Irate Communist (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Something I'd like to add if this passes review
Apparently he posed for a Twitter photo with some actor after he was released. I feel like this could be an interesting fact to add to the article as it relates to the focal point. Let me know The Irate Communist (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC) EDIT: It appears review hasn't started yet, I'm gonna go in and add this The Irate Communist (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Technical note: When the haveyoursay is called on an unpublished article, which therefore doesn't yet have an opinions page, it checks for something-or-other on the article talk page (a review template, maybe?).  Checking the talk page means transcluding it.  Fine so far; but the footnote feature, &lt;ref&gt;, was grafted onto wiki markup in an awkward way, so that when a page with footnotes on it is transcluded, the footnotes appear on the transcluding page regardless of whether any of the text of the transcluded page is actually copied onto the transcluding page.  So the act of checking the talk page causes footnotes on the talk page to appear on the unpublished-article page.  This problem should go away when the article is published; but meanwhile, in reviewing it I'm supposed to be eliminating problems, so having a footnote appear there that doesn't belong is quite distracting, hence my desire to get rid of it.  The moral of the story is either that the wiki platform software has not been as elegantly designed as one might wish, or perhaps that one shouldn't use footnotes on talk pages.  Or, of course, both. --Pi zero (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that. I was a lil confused, but I was gonna fix it anyway after my message on this thread was addressed. Cheers, The Irate Communist (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I deleted pieces of the article until the footnote went away, and thus discovered that I could delete everything except haveyoursay and it'd still be there. --Pi zero (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Fringe/conservative
I felt like Rittenhouse's actions were highly controversial/extreme, and I didn't want to throw regular conservatives under the bus in the article, I guess. The Irate Communist (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can understand the sentiment; though it's separately not okay, in addressing that, to introduce name-calling ("fringe"). --Pi zero (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4593284 [Passed]
This article fails basic NPOV. It was written in a slant that is suggestive/misleading and not informative about the actual killings. Framing it as a "shooting of protesters" is highly suggestive, along with the emphasis on "shooting and killing two people who were participating in demonstrations protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake". The "crossing state lines and shooting and killing" is similarly suggestive and doesn't correspond to any actual charge that Rittenhouse ever faced. This article is just shy of "Reddit/Twitter writes the news". C. A. Russell (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Framing it as a "shooting of protesters" is highly suggestive": How so? That's what he did, right? Unless you are suggesting they be called "rioters". The next thing is explaining what the protesters were doing, without which the article would be confusing. The last one, if I were reviewing it, I probably would have removed as redundant because, as you say, crossing state lines was not in the name of the charges he faced. I have no idea what your closing comment means. Note we don't rewrite old articles (Orwell). --Heavy Water (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)