There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Kyle Rittenhouse
This draft is going nowhere[edit]
Should there be a vote to purge this? — Unsigned, by: Patty Pat / talk / contribs
Needs more legal analysis.[edit]
I'm not a lawyer, I just report on what lawyers say, they aren't surprised that he isn't legally considered to be a killer or a terrorist. If there just isn't anything nice to say here, well, that's life? I don't think an article on a person should fixate on one event either, which is why I added in the context that he was a right-winger and supported the blue line crap before he even went to Kenosha, I think that colours his motivations and puts some doubt on them at least. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Analysis/rebuttal of claims made by his apologists should be added[edit]
I would do it myself, but I don't think I have the necessary knowledge about the case to do so. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then you should do the research and add the section.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)