Rittenhouse Trial ("Kenosha Unrest" article) is getting lots of back room action

[Strelnikov]

Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keno ... _for_trial?
Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keno ... t_shooting

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

64.237.85.136 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Can You please The middle initial “H.” To Kyle Rittenhouse’s Name? His Initial was mentioned when he was acquitted

Why? It's not like he will be confused with any other "Kyle Rittenhouse". He is no John Smith. WWGB (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

***

Section for Lies and Corruption

You must provide reliable sources for any controversial claims about living or recently dead people. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2021 (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.

it's no secret now that the prosecution was not in the right during this trial, as well as a number of falsehoods pushed by the media. In light of a verdict that is supported by evidence, I believe it's necessary to make it apparent what was proven to be a lie court and which media establishments pushed it. 142.136.62.203 (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Impossible, since Wikipedia relies entirely on media as a source for information. So unless the media reports on itself having lied - and only those specific media organizations Wikpedians have deemed "reliable" according to WP:RSP - this will not be included in the article. Perhaps not fair, but this is the rule of Wikipedia. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:11C1:1AB5:4E8C:E203 (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense, all one must do is link an article with the false claim (example: Rittenhouse brought a gun over state lines) and refute it with the trial itself. A section showing all of the corruption is absolutely necessary to ensure no misinformation can be gleaned from the article. 142.136.62.203 (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be considered original research or synthesis, as you would use both the media's claims and the information from the trial to produce information - that the media has lied - which is not stated in either of those sources. How sensible these rules are is dubious and an argument could be made that such strict adherence to news media claims is a flawed way of building an encyclopedia, but those are the rules. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:11C1:1AB5:4E8C:E203 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2021 (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.

****

Strelnikov response: We need to check these IP addresses....142.136.62.203 is in Charlotte, South Carolina (assuming no nonsense.) I'm sure other IP editors might be socking or using a VPN and will turn out to be known editors.

[Jake Is A Sellout]

It's such a mystery why Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -Libs.html