Talk:Shooting of Jacob Blake/Archive 2

"Leaned in to where a knife was located"
User:SPECIFICO has twice removed "where a knife was located" from the sentence "He was shot as he opened the driver's door to his SUV and leaned into the vehicle where a knife was located". This has been sourced in the article, and this nearly-exact phrase "leaned in to where a knife was located" has been published in hundreds of news sources by now. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose mentioning the knife. He had a knife in the car, so what? If he had tried to use the knife, that would be something. There's no indication that he was going for the knife. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The presence of the knife is critical to the incident. It means that Blake was armed, or had the capacity to arm himself. This removes the assertion that “Blake was unarmed”. Blake has also admitted having a knife. It is unclear to me why anyone would want to hide this important fact, WWGB (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? It was in the floorboard, i.e., he wasn't "armed". He was unarmed when he was shot. If he had gone after the cop with a knife, that would be one thing. People have knives and other tools in their car. It appears to be another attempt to invalidate a Black victim of the police using excessive force by suggesting he had it coming. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WWGB: Do you believe it's common procedure for police to shoot a person in the back even when they are "armed"? Like what about the couple in St. Louis who were on tv for the Republican Convention this week? Should police have come and shot them? I know the wife only had a little pistol, but still... The lead is a condensed summary that can only tell just the few most significant facts relevant to the event. The event was his being shot seven times in the back. There's no narrative that tells us a knife under the car seat is relevant to that. The news articles you cite are longer and give more context to many details to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that surely would result from the wording I removed from the lead.  SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He was shot in the back as he leaned into the vehicle to where his knife was located, followed by millions of dollars in property damage and two deaths. This is sourced and highly relevant. This article has had almost 400,000 views in two days. Let's try to get our facts straight for our readers, who may find the truth refreshing. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So if I have a knife in my car, the police can shoot me in the back? Just in Wisconsin or anywhere in the world, or what are you telling us?  SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't troll other editors; you know full well that he said nothing of the sort. Of 19 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence in the lede appears to be a synthesis of two separate statements in the inline cited source, probably "moved toward his car and leaned in" and "agents recovered a knife on the driver's side floorboards of Mr. Blake's vehicle."". The lede sentence portion in question makes several assertions not present in the source: 1) the knife was already in the car 2) that the knife was present at the time of the shooting. 3) That the knife is relevant at all. I've removed the prose in question. Restore if there are reliable sources explicitly stating that he 'leaned in to where a knife was located'. Zindor (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677, are you blaming the mutilated person for the property damage and the deaths caused by a vigilante charged with homicide while he lay in a hospital? O3000 (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I propose, "He was shot as he opened the driver's door to his SUV and leaned in; a location where a knife was later located". There are sources already in the article supporting this. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Provide a reliable source where he was in reach of a knife, and the officers knew this. O3000 (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that he is not, please don't get emotional and stick to the facts. Of 19 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right, you should have done that. But you now know about AGF for next time, we all make mistakes. Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia i appreciate your willingness to word this differently. Your proposed reword reads as if the knife was found in the driver's door. Did you perhaps intend something like "He was shot as he opened the driver's door to his SUV and leaned in. A knife was later found on the driver's side floorboards."? I have an uneasy feeling that discussing Blake's movements and the location of the knife in the same paragraph creates an undue implication regarding Blake and the knife. I'll have to read more about the subject before i support any new wordings. Thanks for discussing this. Regards, Zindor (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Zindor, Much better wording. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The knife is irrelevant. SPECIFICO talk 11:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pray tell how? Given that the article mentions the police yelling "drop the knife", and a witness not seeing one, it is highly relevant that one was found on the scene. That the AG and sources thought so too is also telling. Though of course the later wording is correct, since we don't know that it was necessarily the one police yelled of. If you are concerned that relevance is synonymous with total justification, as stated in earlier posts, I am afraid the two concepts are being confused. Perhaps this demonstrates the difference: Do we mention the motivations of a serial killer or terrorist in wikipedia articles (when reliably sourced)? Of course. Do we claim that such facts are justification for their actions? Of course not. The narrative is relevant, in as much as it lends understanding of, and explanation for, actions taken, not because it necessarily justifies them. Given that a knife is reliably sourced as something police were yelling about, reliably sourced details of knives at the scene are relevant to painting a picture of their interaction, one piece at a time. 108.15.33.17 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The same source used for police yelling “drop the knife”, says in the next sentence: “Police then fired shots as Blake moved to open the driver’s side door”. That’s in direct contradiction to "He was shot as he opened the driver's door to his SUV and leaned in.” Such is the problem with articles on recent events, and particularly controversial events, and why we should not include any detail that isn’t solidly based. O3000 (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

We should include this information unless a judge rules the evidence inadmissible. RSs seem to think it's important Anon0098 (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By default, even if there were any plausible NPOV reason to include this, we always omit such content. The default is not to include, and fix it when a judge rules it inadmissible in court. Moreover, we follow WP policies, not rules of criminal evidence.  SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The article now reads: Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said that a knife was recovered from the driver-side front floorboard of the car Blake was leaning into when he was shot in the back. Blake also told investigators he had a knife. Important enough that the state's Attorney General mentioned it.  They did tell him to drop the knife, he saying he had one, and he ignoring them and opens the door to his vehicle where there is a knife.  That is clearly relevant here.    D r e a m Focus  20:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact (mentioned in the National Post, among other sources) that Kaul, when asked point-blank, specifically refused to say whether the knife was related to the shooting, does seem relevant enough to mention in the article if we mention this aspect at all. It's also enough to make the detail WP:UNDUE for the lead at the very least, and probably undue overall, though we can wait and see.  My feeling is that if the sources are specifically highlighting that the Attorney General refused to say that the knife was related to the shooting, then it's still trivia for now (especially given that his attorneys are contradicting the police account that you're quoting) - perhaps we could make the inference you're suggesting under normal circumstances, but not when the sources directly imply otherwise (ie. the caution they use there clearly indicates that, while the AG brought it up, there is currently no reason to think the knife found on the floor of his car is important or relevant - if the AG knew otherwise he would obviously have answered the question in the affirmative.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They don't say anything not prepared beforehand for legal and political reasons. And the lawyers working for the guy who got shot aren't really reliable sources.   D r e a m Focus  20:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But lawyers for the police (let's be real, that's what SA/DAs/AG are) are? Interesting. Praxidicae (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We trust the WP:SECONDARY sources that cover events, and reflect what they say; obviously police and prosecutors (who by definition want to make their case) are no more trustworthy than the guy's lawyers. Since this concerns WP:BLP and the accusation of a crime, the fact that his lawyers dispute the AG's narrative of events must be mentioned every time it is brought up, ie. every time we mention the knife we must also mention that it is under dispute from his lawyers.  Beyond that, the sources treat Kaul's reluctance to state the knife's relevant as important, so we must treat it as significant well - if Kaul has evidence that the knife is relevant, he will doubtless bring it up at a future press conference and we can update our coverage then.  But without that we absolutely cannot mention it in any way that would imply that it is relevant when the sources plainly question that fact.  Similarly, we have to be extremely careful to word anything that sources report as merely a claim by Kaul as something he said rather than as fact.  Kaul's claim about the knife's presence, what Kaul said Blake said to investigators, etc - all of this must be attributed to Kaul every time it is mentioned. We must cover things as our best sources do, and they are taking a cautious tone with anything claimed by police, prosecutors, or the AG; it is absolutely not acceptable to turn a sources saying "the AG said that [X was true]..." into "[X was true]" in the article voice. In particular, I notice that Kaul's claim that Blake said he had a knife seems to keep getting metamorphism from an assertion by the AG into an undisputed statement of fact, which isn't acceptable.  Police screw up, misstate themselves, or outright lie all the time - this is why the sources are being cautious, and it's why we have to be careful to reflect that caution.  That's especially true given that in this particular case the shooting victim happily survived, which means that 1. WP:BLP will continue to apply to them for the foreseeable future, and 2. they are able to give their own account of events (through their lawyers, currently), which will have to be properly reflected in the article, at least with weight appropriate to the credence sources give conflicting accounts (and currently, sources seem to be giving Blake and his lawyers as much credence as the police.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The knife issue seems to be another one where IMO we should just relax and include what we can based on reliable sourcing and not worry so much about what we can't include. Does it matter that much if we can't cover certain details for a few weeks? It seems obvious that the knife is going to be a significant/noteworthy issue in the future since one of the officers said "drop the knife" as per the video and witness, and also the fact a knife was found. So whether he actually had a knife or the officer misidentified something else as a knife or if this is an area of dispute which is never resolved will eventually be covered once the sourcing is there. BTW, the above discussion seems to illustrate why we have to wait for the sourcing. Some people seem to be suggesting that he was reaching for a knife in the car. Yet others suggest based on what they think they see in the video and/or the officer's comments, that he was holding a knife; which we presume he dropped probably when he was shot. Only one knife was found, so unless it's a magic knife it seems unlikely both of these are true, either he was holding a knife or he was reaching for a knife. And it's equally possible he never had a knife nor was reaching for it. Hence why we wait for sourcing. IMO all editors will do well to remember just because something will eventually have to be included, doesn't mean we have to include it right now. We do have to wait for the sourcing especially in a BLP case. And repeating something I said at AN, while BLP applies all ways and technically excluding important information has negative ramifications, ultimately it's still more important to exclude information if the sourcing doesn't meet BLP standards. (BTW I said that in relation to the warrant not this since these 2 examples seem very similar cases of people getting into too much of a fuss about something which will eventually be resolved. The biggest differences is that the warrant one is simpler and seems likely to be resolved sooner.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, as long as there are questions we should err on the side of caution. I keep saying that in BLP territory, and I mean it. "Lean in to where a knife was located" is leading. "There was a warrant for someone at that address" is leading. Yes, it takes time, and we're always rushing here. I read today that the dude who was shot at the White House, just when Trump was finally giving something like a press conference, had a comb. He was armed with a comb. So yes, "...doesn't mean we have to include it right now" is the right attitude, and the slower we go, the less chance of us falling victim to the trolls, or at least wasting SO MUCH TIME on them on these talk pages. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The news media reported this, it is important enough the state's Attorney General mentioned it, it should be in the article. There is no valid reason to remove it. It is written in a neutral way.  Maybe he was reaching for it, maybe he was just getting in his vehicle to drive off, there no way to tell by watching the video.   D r e a m Focus  02:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The knife is mentioned in the main body of the article, which seems fine to me. I removed that prose from the lede because the sentence was created using synthesis of separate information, and its presence so close together (in the lede) created an undue implication regarding Blake and the knife.


 * The RS are careful not to synthesize the information they've found, and we should exercise caution too, as Drmies quite rightly advises. There's a mass of conflicting narratives going on, and the information being given by the police and justice department is evidently being taken with a pinch more salt than previously given by RS. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, being the stand up citizen that Jacob Blake was with no prior police contact, there is a chance he wasn't reaching for the knife which was in the driver side compartment of the car he was reaching into with intent to harm. But how is everyone who has contributed to the above section so 100% certain that Jacob Blake did not intend to use the knife to cause harm? Reading the above text is like everyone is Jacob Blake's attorney all of a sudden. He was being apprehended (right or wrong that is for lawyers to argue), he was not compliant, he didn't freeze as instructed and while Police had weapons drawn reached into a compartment where a knife was later found. All news sources state this. 86.93.208.34 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse -- "17 year old man"
I'm sorry, but on what planet is a 17 year old a "man"? By literally every standard, journalists only use "man" once the person turns 18.

Kyle Rittenhouse is a 17-year-old boy. Let's be accurate as possible here. 2001:569:7611:1800:FCD5:1881:7C11:4091 (talk) ADS —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite right. The article now states "17-year-old boy". Fa suisse (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed to male. O3000 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Male, while my first thought, is quite impersonal. BBC uses 'boy', Wall Street Journal uses 'antioch resident'. Other sources seem to drop the qualifier entirely. Zindor (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Male" is the perfect word. Neither "boy" nor "man" nor "teen" works here, he kind of falls in the cracks. Especially since they are charging him as an adult. Thanks, O3000, "17-year-old male" solves the problem.  -- MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s the most neutral term. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This should probably link to what is currently the primary topic on the shooting here []. Springee (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2020
the document claims that this was an incident, body camera footage shows jacob blake saying he had a weapon in the vehicle and was going to use it. i do not believe that this should be labeled as an incident because a cop deserves to protect his own life. 107.77.206.96 (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: State exactly what you propose changing and provide reliable sources to support it  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What body camera footage are you referring to? Kenosha police don't have body cameras. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove "Blake's hands were empty."
In the section "shooting" paragraph 4, there is a sentence that reads "Blake's hands were empty." This should be removed, as the video seems to show there was something in his left hand. It is still inconclusive that there was 100% something in his hand, but that also means it is not conclusive that "Blake's hands were empty". This is an unverifiable statement at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.43.7.130 (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IP is right, sources don't support this. WaPO article says 'unarmed' not 'hands were empty', Kenosha News says witnesses say he was unarmed. Zindor (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was also surprised to see this. Given that precisely what was in his hand is a major point of debate at the moment (see US Attorney General William Barr's recent statement that Blake was "armed", and the subsequent backlash and counter-backlash), I would expect very strong, close-to-the-source citations to state it so categorically. I've added a protected edit request. Jml7c5 (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

✅ - Hands probably were empty. But, it's not in the cites and I can't find a reliable cite for this. Removed the text. O3000 (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

4 of 7
It's a good thing the 2nd sentence here clarifies 4/7 of Rusten's shots made contact. It's a detail left out of a LOT of the coverage.

Are we not going to make note of the massive amounts of "shot seven times" misinformation circulated in all kinds of articles? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53927756 still says:
 * Jacob Blake (left) was shot seven times in the back by police
 * Josh Kaul told reporters on Wednesday that Rusten Sheskey shot Jacob Blake seven times in the back

Plus the Jacob Blake sr quote:
 * 'They shot my son seven times!'

Some outlets appear to be attempting to be accurate, either saying "multiple times" or "shot AT seven times" or BBC using a suspicious "several times".

I can't seem to find any stories running with "4 times" in the title whereas it seems like dozens of major outlets are using "7 times" and not bothering alter them or retract the misinformation.

Anyway I was hoping for more details if we have them. Is "the back" ever elaborated upon? Like does that only mean the back of the torso, or does it include the back of the head, back of the arm, back of the leg? 64.228.90.251 (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

In the cited articles, I didn't find any information saying four of the seven shots hit Jacob Blake. Are there actually any sources that specify how many bullets hit him? I've been searching through as many news sources as I can find and there's nothin'! Then, I found a friend on Facebook saying, without providing any explanation as to how she'd come to the conclusion, that Jacob Blake had been hit by only one of the seven shots fired. I'm only hitting dead ends while trying to find specifics on this. I'll review the cited articles again to see if I missed the info, though. Kristina Dahl (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Two sources in the lead refer to "struck by four of the seven shots fired at him":  WWGB (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Those two sources qualify the information by saying it came from Crump, Blake's lawyer. We need to follow the reliable source and attribute 4/7 to Crump. Also, note that the information is not that reliable when Crump is the only source of the information. Furthermore, we have no idea where Crump got that information, if it's true. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A list of injuries would be useful, I heard some called out on the news and it sounded like there was more than four but that could be due to multiple injuries caused by a single bullet. WakandaQT (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

car keys vs vehicle keys
The opening paragraph of this article says SUV. Also this is technically a car classification, we should note that so too is a minivan and I doubt either of them are described as a "car" in common parlance.

The first section "Shooting" is the first to use the term "car":
 * According to multiple official sources, the female caller referred to Blake as her "boyfriend", said he was not permitted to be on the premises, and that he'd taken her car keys

This is not from the CBS source following it https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jacob-blake-kenosha-shooting-wisconsin-police-black-man-protesters-gather/ which words it like this:
 * A 911 dispatcher reported that a complainant said Blake wasn't supposed to be there, and that he had taken the complainant's keys and refused to give them back.

Nor is it from the CNN source following it https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/27/us/jacob-blake-shooting-what-we-know/index.html which words it like this:
 * In a police call, a dispatcher names Blake and says he "isn't supposed to be there" and that he took the complainant's keys and refused to leave.

Why when both sources say "complainant's keys" have this been altered this to say "car keys"?

The 2nd instance in this article phrases it "stolen her keys". This is followed by a NYT article which does not mention keys at all, and http://archive.is/YcYRU#30% which describes it:
 * broken into the residence and stole vehicle keys, a vehicle anda debit card

The use of "car" to describe the vehicle (SUV) or the keys seems like original research not actually backed up by the sources. Even though some refer to SUVs as cars, I don't think we should take that step when sources seem to be more consistent about just referring to it as a "vehicle".

So I think we should just say "vehicle keys" or perhaps "SUV keys" but not "car keys". WakandaQT (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Upon further looking, I guess since the complainant herself used the term "car" we should acknowledge that, even though reporters on the story don't repeat it and just say "vehicle" since they probably realize that there isn't use of "car" for larger stuff SUVs/minivans in common parlance: The next-day pickup by NYP contains a more extended transcript of the quote:

This "looked the other way" description seems notable here. Fiance is basically implying that Shesky was blind-firing. WakandaQT (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

use of middle initial
The opening sentence presently says Jacob S. Blake. This is not cited in any of the references. Does anyone know what supports it's inclusion?

If nobody can find it under existing references you could use this:

I've also seen him called "Jacob Blake Junior" a distinction which seems important since his father is called "Jacob Blake Senior" in media interviews.

I would expect we should write this Jacob S. Blake aka Jacob Blake Junior rather than Jacob S. Blake Junior as I am unsure if the father would have the same middle initial and if we do not know that then Jr. should not be appended to the use of the initial. WakandaQT (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

alleged sexual assault

 * LNB stated the defendant penetrating her digitally caused her pain and humiliation and was donewithout her consent [current ref18]
 * the police reportedly arrived only after being called by a woman who alleged that Blake digitally raped her in front of one of her children RCP

I think the current text can be updated to be more clear about the alleged assault. 205.175.106.163 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no. We won't be including any Ben Shapiro nonsense in this article. Please take the time to learn what a reliable source is. - MrX 🖋 11:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems like there are 2 instances of alleged sexual assault according to sources
 * the 3 May 2020 incident alleged to be 3rd degree "Sexual intercourse with a person without consent of that person"
 * the 23 August 2020 incident which Gabrielle Fenrouge describes "The alleged victim said Blake “penetrating her digitally caused her pain and humiliation and was done without her consent”

The latter does not appear to fit under the parameters of 3rd degree. If this happened it sounds like it would at least be 4th degree (misdemeanour) but could be upgraded to 2nd if it:
 * "used threat of violence"
 * "causes injury" (including mental anguish requiring psychiatric care)

1st degree requires even more extreme criteria:
 * "threatening to use a dangerous weapon"
 * "inflicts great bodily harm"

Doesn't sound like there would be enough for 1st. 2nd remains to see. I expect we don't know yet since they haven't filed charges based on the Aug 28th complaint yet. WakandaQT (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction: upon further reading it sounds like there was only 1 charge of assault from May 3rd (not August 23rd). I guess I just got confused because the description in the report doesn't appear to match up with the parameters at https://www.uwrf.edu/StudentConductAndCommunityStandards/SexualAssaultAndHarassment/DefinitionsAndWisconsinLaws.cfm for 3rd-degree. It either requires "penile ejaculation" (the crime report doesn't mention that) or "sexual intercourse" which I thought required penile penetration. I assumed wrongly that digital penetration would've been classified as "sexual contact" instead. But wisconsin.gov shows I was wrong:
 * Legislative Council Note, 1981: Presently, [in sub. (5) (a)] the definition of “sexual intercourse" in the sexual assault statute includes any intrusion of any part of a person's body or of any object into the genital or anal opening of another person.
 * This proposal clarifies that the intrusion of the body part or object may be caused by the direct act of the offender (defendant) or may occur as a result of an act by the victim which is done in compliance with instructions of the offender (defendant). [Bill 630-S]

Unless that was changed since 1981, digital penetration without consent would be classified as "sexual intercourse" per Wisconsin law. WakandaQT (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2020
Change Sheskey shot Blake seven times in his back during an arrest; to Sheskey fired his service weapon at Blake seven times in his back during an arrest; Zipline47 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅, but not with the exact same wording. WWGB (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

injuries list and EIGHT bullet in body
present summary in template:
 * Gunshot wounds; paralyzed from the waist down; damage to his stomach, kidney, and liver; most of small intestines and colon removed.

I am hoping we could dedicate a section describing this in more detail, like saying where each bullet entered and how each caused specific damage.

The template does not link sources (probably to avoid clutter) so in such a section we could list quotes to source the injury descriptions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jacob-blake-no-longer-shackled-his-hospital-bed-lawyer-says-n1238720 for example quotes his lawyer Patrick A. Salvi Jr.:
 * The injury that he sustained — not only a traumatic spinal cord injury which creates just unbearable nerve-related pain — he also had five or six other bullets into his body other than the two that made contact with his spine
 * between his abdominal injury, his arm injury and his spine, he can barely move a millimeter without being in excruciating pain
 * Blake may have been shot eight times, not seven as authorities have said, according to Salvi.

This "two in spine" plus "six other bullets" claim appears to contrast with what we heard earlier. The opening line "four of the seven shots hit blake" has 2 references listed...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-usa-wisconsin-shots/wisconsin-investigators-say-knife-found-at-scene-of-police-shooting-of-jacob-blake-idUSKBN25M0KY "According to Crump, Blake was struck by four of the seven gunshot rounds fired at him on Sunday."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/unrest-flares-kenosha-mother-jacob-blake-calls-calm-200826042545135.html "Blake, who had been attempting to break up a quarrel between two women, was struck by four of the seven shots fired"

It seems like Reuters is the more neutral source here (ascribing "four" to Crump) whereas Al Jazeera is just reporting Crump's claim as fact.

It seems Bob K's hesitance was warranted. According to https://www.salvilaw.com/shooting-of-jacob-blake/ it appears that Salvi Law has been taken on as co-counsel to Crump but the two lawyers have been giving inconsistent reports to the media about how many bullets hit Blake: Crump saying four, Salvi saying eight.

Have any media outlets drawn light to this inconsistency yet? I'm not really sure who to go with here so maybe both should be reported?

I'm wondering if the answer might be something like 8 bullets hit (even though in the vid it only sounds like 7 shots to me) but only 4 lodged in the body?

Another possibility is if Salvi got confused by what Blake's father said. Per https://www.fox23.com/news/trending/jacob-blake-paralyzed-waist-down-after-being-shot-by-police-wisconsin-father-says/5G27IFSRKNFMNIE745TUPR4MAI/
 * Blake’s father, who shares his son’s name, told the Chicago Sun-Times that Sunday’s shooting left “eight holes” in the younger Blake’s body.

It is possible for 1 bullet to cause 3 holes (example: enter torso, exit torso, enter arm) but perhaps Salvi got mixed up about # of wounds vs # of bullets? It's hard to think Crump would've overlooked 4 bullets. WakandaQT (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's quite likely that four bullets would cause eight wounds ("holes"): one entry wound and one exit wound for each bullet. WWGB (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That could well be the case. An example of reporters glossing over that difference would be the non-RS Metro which makes a claim in an article title about '8 bullets' but that resolves to '8 holes' in the body of the text. I suppose we'll have to keep an eye on RS and see if they start talking about 8 bullets. Zindor (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The non-RS source Metro that Zindor highlighted (specifically the reporter Jimmy McCloskey) probably would argue in defense (if it were possible to sue tabloids for such misleading incompetence) something about "technical accuracy" in that if each bullet causes 2 holes then each bullet is technically "shooting Blake twice" (ie shot first when the bullet enters the body, shot second when the bullet exits the body)

Crump's co-counsel Salvi Jr. however uses wording which can't even be read that way:
 * "he also had five or six other bullets into his body other than the two that made contact with his spine"

The grammar "bullets into his body" is a little off (wouldn't it just be "bullets in his body"?) but he's definitely talking about the actual slugs that medical examiners would be taking out. I don't really see how Salvi can defend this kind of wording if indeed only four bullets hit Blake.

One thing that might help settle this "seven or eight" thing: have any sources reported on what service weapon (ie sidearm/pistol) Rusten Shesky was using? Like so as to find out the magazine size it would hold? That could help determine if 7 shots would "empty the clip" for example, which would require a 2nd officer to shoot for an 8th bullet to exist (shots happened too quickly for a reload).

I'm aware that there was a 2nd officer with their weapon drawn but has anyone alleged they shot too? Article only refers to "another officer" right now... https://www.wsj.com/articles/jacob-blake-shooting-what-happened-in-kenosha-wisconsin-11598368824 mentions:
 * After Kenosha Police Officer Rusten Sheskey unsuccessfully used a stun gun to try to stop Mr. Blake, a second officer, Vincent Arenas, used his stun gun as well on Mr. Blake.

Strangely there is no mention of which officers (Sheskey and Arenas) used the stun guns. The closest thing is that "2 Police Officers Tried To Stop Jacob Blake With Stun Guns: Wisconsin Justice Department" is presently a reference listed (#23 at present moment but that could change) after "Officers attempted to subdue Blake, and two officers used tasers on him." Not exactly sure why we've changed 'stun guns' to 'tasers' here.
 * Especially weird too is the URL for that article is https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jacob-blake-police-kenosha-wisconsin-1.5703414 which lists the title "Judge delays extradition of alleged Kenosha gunman". Perhaps it should link to something like https://ca.news.yahoo.com/2-police-officers-tried-stop-145302456.html instead. That mirror URL does credit CBC for the original story though, which makes me think that could've been the title when it was added to Wikipedia prior to being archived at 22:20:19 which shows the new title...
 * ah I'm right, at 17:51:02 it DID say that and then CBC for some reason killed the article and overwrote the Rittenhouse story atop it without changing the URL. Is this kind of tampering by CBC common?

https://www.kenosha.org/images/police/policies/53.1_Uniforms,_Inspection_of_Personnel,_and_Officer_Equipment.pdf from 2016 doesn't go into specifics, just "Issued Sidearm"... anyone have some idea here? Do municipal police in Wisconsin tend to have consistency as to what pistol they are issued? Or at least regulations about magazine size?

I still have not found the name of the gun Sheskey shot, but https://www.kenosha.org/images/police/policies/1.3_Use_of_Force.pdf might also be useful here as it is a 9 March 2016 "Use of Force" section 1.3 of the "Kenosha Police Department Policy and Procedure Manual". Their official name for a stungun/taser appears to be "Electronic Control Device" abbreviated ECD. Pg 2/13 has section "VI. USE OF NON- DEADLY FORCE" where part B (pg 3) mentions this on pg 4:
 * 4. In each instance, when an ECD is deployed during an incident, a determination will be made regarding the need for cover provided by another officer with his/her

firearm;
 * this type of cover shall be required in all cases in which the subject possesses a firearm, knife or other deadly weapon.

So it seems official policy, if someone is using a knife, is that 1 officer must cover that person with their pistol while the other attempts to use the ECD. So if Blake did have a knife (opinions seem to vary) and BOTH officers used their ECD it should not have been simultaneously, it would need to be consecutively. Whoever used the ECD first would need to holster/drop it and take out their pistol to cover the 2nd guy before it is acceptable for 2nd guy to holster his weapon and draw his own ECD. WakandaQT (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delving into original research on talk pages is normally considered insensitive. Anyone could be reading, including the victim's family. I'm sure RS will have looked into these points themselves. Regards, Zindor (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding one of the comments above, in addition to Reuters, Al Jazeera attributed the "four of seven shots" comment to Crump. As far as I know, no reliable source has mentioned the "four of seven" claim without qualifying it by saying it came from Crump. The one article that states it as fact without attributing it to Crump is Wikipedia, even though there is no substantiation and it is contradicted by Blake's other lawyer who gives more specifics. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From a quote at the end of this ref, Crump apparently changed his story and said that the policeman "shot 7 times into Jacob’s back." Bob K31416 (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

boyfriend "sources"
re this sentence:
 * According to multiple official sources, the female caller referred to Blake as her "boyfriend"

Two references are listed after this sentence. The first is Nicole Chavez who wrote:
 * A woman called saying "her boyfriend was present and was not supposed to be on the premises," according to investigators from the Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation.

The 2nd reference is from CBS and I see no mention of the word boyfriend.

Given that Chavez uses a direct quote, it seems likely that only 1 person said that exact sentence. Why is this plural?

In looking up this quote, I found a more informative source than CNN. BBC more directly attributes that quote:
 * Wisconsin's Attorney-General Josh Kaul said officers had been called to an address after a woman reported that "her boyfriend was present and was not supposed to be on the premises".

It sounds like we should replace "multiple official sources" with "Josh Kaul" per BBC's more-competent reporting. Chavez using "investigators" just seems like a goof, you don't correctly attribute multiple people for something one specific person said. WakandaQT (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Scribd and big revert
I made this edit with edit summary "Scribd uses original court document--WP:OR. Made similar replacement as Mr. X.   Discuss:  [here]". I agree with 's edit and I replaced the ScribD with the AP source Mr.X added. These good edits by Mr. X fixing the ScribD entry were reverted by along with about 15 other edits using Twinkle. My guess is that only one edit was supposed to be reverted and a bunch of other good edits were accidentally reverted as well. Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to sort that out. I just wanted to make this one fix. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * pinging those who may have been inadvertently reverted: , , , , , , , , ,   by this edit. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Appears I did revert more than I intended. Odd this was not mentioned a week ago. But, it looks like some of the edits by the above editors had already been nullified by additions and reverts, including MrX's, and some have been re-added. I'll leave it to the original editors to sort this out as they know better their intentions. O3000 (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had wondered about O3000’s edit. Good to see it was nothing more than a accidental capture of other edits while making a good faith change.  I've fixed the parts I was involved with already.  Springee (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * O3000, Maybe you shouldn't use Twinkle anymore. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good grief, I've used it hundreds of times. Have you not misclicked? You want me to stop, take it to a noticeboard. O3000 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's another example . Bob K31416 (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That was intentional. You'll notice one of those edits had its edit summary rev deleted. If you intend to review my entire history, this is not the place. O3000 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear the second item in the delete didn't fit the edit summary and wasn't intentional. Or do you feel the "four of seven" item should be removed from the article? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That was obviously my feeling at the time based on what was known at that time. Not sure it should be included now either. Frankly, I'd rather have the opinion of a medical examiner about the body than an attorney. O3000 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Two things: first, I don't see how citing a document on Scribd that is used by an RS (Snopes in this case) is an OR violation: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed." The decision to cite Snopes (which links to Scribd) was Mr. X's, as he thought the NY Post was a less reliable source.
 * Second, I believe either "the vehicle" should be used to describe the silver SUV—the article already mentions that police claim "the officers were dispatched because of a complaint that Blake was attempting to steal the caller’s keys and vehicle." To cite even more specific sources: "According to the police association, the initial call that brought officers there was that Blake was trying to steal the keys to the caller’s vehicle, and that the SUV Blake is seen entering in widely shared video was not Blake’s vehicle." And the police press report unequivocally states: "The silver SUV seen in the widely circulated video was not Mr. Blake’s vehicle." I am aware that numerous news outlets have referred to the SUV as "his", but if that turns out to be false, we will have done our encyclopedia a disservice by not being more prudent and judicious now—and whatever the value of specifying "his vehicle" may be, it hardly seems worth the real risk of misinforming Wikipedia users. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Elle makes a good point about Snopes' use legitimizing the Scribd, but I think based on that we should not list Scribd sources by themself. Rather we should do a "two part reference" where first we cite snopes, and then include a note about snopes linking to the URL, and THEN provide the Scribd URL. That way it is apparent why we consider that Scribd source reliable. Using Scribd by itself does not make apparent to readers what makes the link reliable or relevant, whereas source-pairing will do that. WakandaQT (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

no mention of other aspects of previous incident charging theft of credit card and Ford Explorer nor that it was made in May or restraining order


Right now the details in this article are very vague. There is mention that Blake was wanted on assault charges but not:
 * that they were from May (3 months prior)
 * that in addition to the warrant for his arrest, the complainant had also been granted a restraining order against him
 * that in May she had also alleged the theft of her card and of 2 fraudulent withdrawals
 * that in May she had also alleged the theft of her keys/vehicle just like in August
 * that a day after filing police charges, the SUV was returned via her sister

The SUV that Blake's 3 kids were in is presumably the Ford Explorer previously reported as stolen/returned, unless the woman happens to have two SUVs.

Another thing is to ask, if the 3 kids were in the car, how did they get there? Did the mom put them there? Did the dad?

Given the implied lack of permission to take the vehicle (mom reporting a 2nd attempt at theft) there is also an implied lack of permission to take the children, which would seem like kidnapping, as this source mentions:

These all seem like important things to note, as police would be aware of all this en route to confronting Blake. WakandaQT (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLPCRIME we try to avoid including allegations about LP's in articles. The details of the allegation haven't been cross-examined in a court of law and a jury hasn't determined 'beyond reasonable doubt' that it happened. The threshold for a restraining order requires a much lower burden of proof: preponderance of evidence.


 * Blake wasn't really 'wanted', it was an open warrant; the police weren't actively seeking him. We also have to remember that this article is about the shooting, and while the this May incident is related somewhat, there isn't yet weight for inclusion of all the details. RS would have to be drawing significant comparisons between the two incidents for us to include the exact details.


 * I doubt the police were informed of the specifics of the May case on their short drive to the scene. Regards, Zindor (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

user:Zindor the distinction of an open warrant is not one I'm familiar with, is the antonym a closed warrant? I'd like to explain these in articles if I could get some help finding information explaining them. WakandaQT (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe 'outstanding' would be the antonym of 'closed', when referring to warrants. This website explains the difference between 'active' and 'open'. Bear in mind i'm not a lawyer, this is just my best understanding of the situation.


 * I too noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have much info on warrants. I looked into the viability of having articles on those terms, and felt that maybe the information would be better inserted within the 'United States' section at the Arrest warrant article. I can't see a lot of info online about warrants; i'd say it's all written down in some law books. Regards, Zindor (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Is 7-day archiving standard, and/or is it unnecessarily brief?
I'm not familiar with standard practice in this area, but it seems that archiving the page with a bot every 7 days is curtailing discussions sooner than is necessary, given that the page isn't that jam-packed. Can someone with experience explain what the rationale is for doing it so frequently on this page? Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed it to 2 weeks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

POV
user:Magnolia677 gave outsized attention to what Sheskey's attorney has to say about the shooting in their most recent edit. --BazingaMan455 (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)       (Personal attacks removed per No personal attacks. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC))


 * I don't see how this is the appropriate forum for a broad attack on someone's good-faith edits, and the accusation of "a bone to pick with Jacob Blake" is a contemptible, completely unfounded conclusion. More to the point: I don't see how a single sentence with the officer's explanation (through his attorney) is "outsized attention", given that unnamed "witnesses" are quoted at length, along with Blake's legal team. On the contrary, it strikes me that it would be a serious POV violation not to include the explanation given by the actual shooter—whether accurate or not. Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

SUV Ownership in Question
The article's source claims that Jacob Blake was reaching into an SUV that he owned. However, other sources ( Ricochet, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) make the claim that Blake attempted to enter a SUV, which may not have been his vehicle. The article should be changed to reflect neutral ownership of the SUV unless a definite single source can be established. --47.37.56.179 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not see any source that comes up with the position "which may not have been his vehicle". No source says it was not his vehicle, so we are left with multiple sources saying it was, and they are not contradicted. WWGB (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * In any case AFAICT, we do not say anything about who owns the SUV. We simply say "his SUV", "his car" etc. This seems to be the correct way to handle it, since unless the ownership of the SUV is a significant part of the story, and I see no evidence that it is, it doesn't matter to readers, or us as editors, who owns it. There seems to be no question he was in control and drove the SUV there and there's also no suggestion it was stolen. Therefore calling it "his SUV" is a reasonable summation of the situation regardless of who actually owned the SUV. Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it should be "the SUV" and disagree that "his SUV" is "reasonable", since "his" implies ownership. And the matter of ownership is quite significant, as the Wikipedia article itself states that the 911 caller reportedly claimed Blake had "taken her car keys and was refusing to give them back" and further that police claim "the officers were dispatched because of a complaint that Blake was attempting to steal the caller’s keys and vehicle." To cite even more specific sources: "According to the police association, the initial call that brought officers there was that Blake was trying to steal the keys to the caller’s vehicle, and that the SUV Blake is seen entering in widely shared video was not Blake’s vehicle." And the police press report unequivocally states: "The silver SUV seen in the widely circulated video was not Mr. Blake’s vehicle." I am aware that numerous news outlets have referred to the SUV as "his", but if, as seems quite possible, that turns out to be false, we will have done our encyclopedia a disservice by not being more prudent and judicious now—and while I'm happy to hear opinions on why specifying "his vehicle" is important to the article, it hardly seems worth the real risk of misinforming Wikipedia users. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "his" SUV implies ownership. If a 18 year old talks about their (in a singular fashion) car when it's actually owned by their parents, no one bats an eyelid. Likewise if a person talks about a car as their car when it's actually owned by their significant other. For that matter, it's perfectly normal to refer to a leased or rental vehicle as your vehicle. Also you seem to be conflating different things. According to our article the vehicle was driven there by Blake. If this is disputed, then your article needs major updates, you need to present sources and we should be concentrating on that rather than semantic arguments. I don't know what vehicle Blake was allegedly trying to steal, but it clearly could not be the one he drove there, since if he had stolen that, he had already done so and didn't need to steal the keys again.  Finally, do you have a source which isn't the police association or directly reporting what the police association said? This is a widely covered story so there should be reliable secondary sources discussing this alleged dispute if there is one. Note that if the officers incorrectly assumed that the vehicle was the one Blake was trying to steal, then this is probably a significant point we should cover if it's documented in reliable secondary sources. But this is a separate issue from the vehicle ownership.  If the officers had looked into who appeared to own the vehicle from their records and found out it wasn't Blake and they say it played a part in their decision making then of course this should be mentioned if supported by reliable sources. But again the focus should be on documenting this rather than arguing semantics over "his vehicle". (I'm not saying I would oppose such a change in such a case, but we should focus on the more important issues first and then worry about what term to use.)  However if the officers had no idea of this at the time, and Blake was legitimately in control of the vehicle and the officers made an incorrect assumption that he wasn't, then any attempt by them to divert attention from this mistaken assumption by overplaying the fact that he didn't technically own the vehicle when they didn't actually know this, is not something we should participate in.  Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * By googling Jacob Blake SUV it is seen that a large majority of reliable sources don't use "his". Bob K31416 (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * NYT and WaPo call it his. I've seen other RS use "an SUV" or "the SUV", but of course absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Do you have RS that actually state it isn't his? Zindor (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And NYT and WaPo don't call it his. An officer's lawyer says in an RS that it wasn't his. A Wisconsin official called it his. Looks like it hasn't been decided one way or the other yet.  Maybe being non-specific and using "the" or "an"  may be best because it covers both cases, whereas "his" doesn't. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Rittenhouse
Why is his name being mentioned in this article so controversial yet in Kenosha unrest, his name is mentioned as if it is the word "the"? It makes absolutely no sense. The articles cited for "A 17-year-old..." specifically say Kyle Rittenhouse in the citation. So the whole protect him from undue harm is nonsense. Just leave it as Kyle Rittenhouse. Capriaf 18:31 October 26, 2020 (UTC)
 * Good, I was going to start a section here for this slow motion edit war. I'm not experienced enough in Wikiprudence to know if we should name him. --intelatitalk 18:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about the shooting of Jacob Blake. The 17 year-old played no part in that shooting. I think it’s worth adding events like this in the aftermath. But, I’m not seeing how including his name improves this article. It is due for the shootings for which he is charged. We should lean on the side of caution with WP:BLPs, particularly when dealing with a WP:SUSPECT, and more so due to his age. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Capriaf is absolutely correct. It is relevant to this article. It is not a WP:BLP violation. It is in no way WP:UNDUE to state his name. It is verifiable, it is in a neutral point of view (his name is a hard fact), it is well sourced, it is not original research. There is nothing in these policies that preclude inclusion of his name.Jacona (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * A long time ago i read a moving article written by the mother of someone who committed a crime when they were a teenager, and the naming of her son on Wikipedia greatly affected him long after the conviction was spent and he'd tried to move on with his life. Employers would find his name written on Wikipedia, new friends would find it. Her son is no longer with us. I don't have a link to the article, but i'm sure other experienced editors have similar knowledge.


 * The editorial decision to leave some names of living people out of articles is one detailed at WP:LPNAME. It's not censorship or whitewashing, it's considerate editorship. We have a responsibility to all LPs, regardless of their political affiliation or any crime they might have committed, to limit naming them to where necessary.


 * Just because the suspect's name is splattered elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't mean it must remain here. It is not necessary to name him in this article, and the frequency at which he's named at Kenosha unrest, and the detail at which the event is described, is concerning.This is a WP:SUSPECT, and a 17 year old one at that.


 * As O3000 quite correctly states above, this is an article about the shooting of Jacob Blake, an event in which the 17 yr old was not involved.


 * We're a tertiary source, not a parrot. Zindor (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with O3000. Springee (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Rittenhouse's name is a substantial part of things, and we should not hide it. It should be included in the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Rittenhouse is being charged as an adult, so his age is not relevant. If you read WP:LPNAME, it states "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it..." In this case, the name has been widely disseminated. Extremely widely disseminated. Blocking it out just makes us look like we're trying to hide something. Something that can't be hidden because it's international news. Jacona (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Our guidelines are more strict than state laws. What are we trying to hide in this particular article? His name is in the relevant article and I have no problem with that. I just don't see why it should be in other articles. Particularly since there is no conviction. Look, I personally am thoroughly disgusted by his actions and think the public should be protected from him in some manner. But, our personal views are not relevant. The question at hand is how does this help this particular article. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly the name was widely distributed by news media, but as surprising as it might sound news articles typically have a short life online before the URL rots. Add to that the hype-effect present in secondary sources, and the next sentence in LPNAME after the one quoted above starts to make a lot more sense. There's always context. Also what has the archaic law of Wisconsin got to do with anything? For instance he'd be treated as a minor on the other side of Lake Michigan. We're talking about a 17 year old teenager here. Zindor (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of those premises of BLP is to protect information which is not already widely disseminated; if, for example, someone goes and digs through some court records and finds someone's name, but it wasn't widely known or available. That's clearly not the case here, and a search for "Kyle Rittenhouse" on a search engine in five or ten or twenty years will still return you plenty of material about the Kenosha incident. If we're not including the name, readers may not immediately make the connection that the shooting incident was the one they've already heard of. We are doing a disservice to the legibility and comprehensiveness of the article by failing to include it, while not protecting anything at all&mdash;that horse isn't just already out of the barn, it's four states away by now. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But what does he personally have to do with the shooting of Jacob Blake? O3000 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Enough to merit inclusion in the article's lead, apparently: Two protesters were also fatally shot in a confrontation with an armed civilian. Who was that masked man? Well, of course, that "armed civilian" was Rittenhouse, and we ought to say so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet, the names of those killed aren't anywhere in the article. Who were those dead people? O3000 (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't include the victims' names in the lead, but they probably should go in the body. However, Rittenhouse's name is well known and immediately recognizable, so that should be included with any mention of the shooting to immediately permit the reader to make that connection. If I were reading this article as it stands now, my first thought would be that the identity of the shooter is either unknown or has not yet been released to the public, since it is not present. I would not immediately associate it with the Rittenhouse incident. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Doubling down on mistakes isn't the way to handle this, and it sets precedent for further errors in judgement. Instead of disseminating the name of this LP further, we should be reeling in the hasty usage. Literally the opposite of what's being suggested., you've presented an argument for the removal of that line from the lede, not one for adding further undue content.


 * Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL as far as naming victims, especially in such broad articles. Zindor (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well then, while I rather can't believe there's the need to hold one, I guess we'll be looking at holding an RfC. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * NOTMEMORIAL is not about excluding notable information, it's for not writing a memorial article for your friends and family. There is no policy reason to exclude the well-sourced names of the victims. The exclusion of Rittenhouse's name from the lede looks obviously censored, and there is a policy against that.Jacona (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly that. Also, the BLP name policy states that it applies when When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed and when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. I think it is beyond obvious that the first condition is not true here, and I don't think the second is either&mdash;failing to include Rittenhouse's name does result in a substantial loss of context by losing that immediate association. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The not-memorial policy extends beyond family and friends. The names of individual victims, unless the person's are notable, add no encyclopedic value. Lets stick to numbers of victims, not memorialising them by publishing the names. Zindor (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not know the policies of Wikipedia nearly well enough to have an opinion. I think the RfC should be something in to the affect of should we name the (charged/accused)? I think we need to bring more experience into this article. I support the RfC proposal.--intelatitalk 14:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * More simple than that, really. BLPNAME applies only when both the name has been intentionally concealed and not widely disseminated, and when its omission would not cause substantial loss of context. The RfC need only ask if those two conditions are or are not true. If both are true we omit; if not we retain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose or support inclusion of the name. Those involved provide their own reasoning, not spoonfed it by the proposal. Zindor (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not "spoonfed it by the proposal". That is the wording taken directly from the policy as to when it is applicable. I think the answer to at least the first of those conditions is quite obvious, but apparently there is disagreement on it, so we need a definitive answer. But there is nothing wrong with asking about the policy in its very own words. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A general RfC on inclusion would not only distill consensus on the interpretation of LPNAME, but would address all the other relevant points raised. There's no point having a narrow-scoped RfC solely about a line that has been taken out of context. Zindor (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What context has it been taken out of? My assertion is that no policy prohibits inclusion of the name, since BLPNAME is, by its own clear standards, not applicable here. If you are not asserting that BLPNAME is what prohibits it, what policy is it that you do think requires it? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

With this article being the Jacob Blake shooting, and not the Kenosha Unrest shootings we run into WP: OR issues when we get into the details of the Kenosha Unrest shootings. Because of this, we have the possibility of doing harm by omission, and I think it is more in line with BLP policy to omit the name on this article while it would be appropriate to have it all over the Kenosha Unrest article. Kyohyi (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Kyohyi, toggle your mouse over the citation for the sentence that says 17-year-old. It starts off with KYLE RITTENHOUSE. It's not doing harm from putting his name out there. It's widely disseminated. It's his name. It should be mentioned. The fact that it isn't is seen as whitewashing, which is very concerning. He was arrested. It did not say he was convicted. We can add a note saying he hasn't been convicted if we are trying to avoid harm. Capriaf
 * And? How is he directly related to the shooting of Jacob Blake?  How does his name enhance the understanding of this article?  BLP requires that we be conservative in our presentation of information on living people, and I do not see how naming someone who's not directly related to this incident as beneficial.  However I do see potentials for harm.  --Kyohyi (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)-

Lead

 * Since the lead has been brought up, as I understand WP:LEAD, it is a summary of the body. What’s odd here is that nearly as much space is given to separate shootings involving people unrelated to Blake as is devoted to the subject of the article despite the fact these shootings are a small part of the body. We have a separate article on that shooting where details belong. Currently, it looks as if the lead is unintentionally distracting attention of the reader away from the actual subject of the article – the shooting of Jacob Blake. O3000 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like that's a different discussion. From a cursory read, I feel like the initial paragraph needs to be expanded to match the content length of the body. The aftermath paragraph is fine as is at this point. --intelatitalk 14:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead is being used as a rationale to include the name, which is why I put it in the above section. We should be concentrating on the details of the subject of the article -- not a later shooting with people uninvolved with the subject. This is a distraction. One commonly seen in right-wing media. O3000 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think it's a separate discussion subject, but the lead, while it should continue to mention the aftermath, should include more detail on the shooting itself since that is the primary subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I fear we will need an RfC as I don't see adding the name of someone unrelated to the shooting of Jacob Blake. A highly controversial shooting which must be explained with great care once you add a name and the related BLP concerns. I'd hate to see this distraction grow in size in this article when it is covered elsewhere. O3000 (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And I'd hate to see the name of the white guy who shot and killed people treated like a victim and censored out of the article over invalid BLP concerns. So an RfC is in order.Jacona (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Now thats neutrality at its finest. Zindor (talk)
 * You're kinda making my point here. O3000 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a response to the WP:NPOV demonstrated here and elsewhere. Whatever he is, he is not a victim, he arrived armed and shot people. Removing his name demonstrates non-neutral POV, censorship, and bias. It is not as O3000 states, a controversial shooting. No one is denying he was the shooter, there is no reason to "protect" him.Jacona (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are again making my point. You are making assumptions about a WP:SUSPECT in a serious crime. You're most likely correct. But, it's still a BLP vio. O3000 (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I would fully agree that we should not make any statement as to Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence in the matter, as that would violate NPOV. We should stick strictly to facts. It is acknowledged even by the defense that Rittenhouse was indeed the one who did the shooting, so I think we can quite fairly say that. Rittenhouse claims that the shootings were justified by self-defense; the prosecution disagrees. Ultimately, that will be up to a jury, not us, to decide. We just stick strictly neutrally to the facts. But one of those facts was who he actually is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * O3000 is correct, this isn't an article about Rittenhouse. A good case can be made for removing this information entirely from this article as the shootings were not directly in response to the Blake shooting.  Rather they were at the other end of a chain of events.  Also, since we have a primary article on the related protests again, that information isn't strictly relevant here.  This article should focus on Blake (to the extent that it relates to the events of the shooting), the police, the events/facts that contributed to the shooting and the aftermath.  In cases where the aftermath is covered by other articles then only a summary of those articles should make it to the body of this article.  That's just clean hierarchical style.  Too much focus on Rittenhouse takes away from the focus of this article.  My argument here is largely a MOS type of argument.  At a higher level I see this as something where we don't have strong policy guidance in either direction.  Those who say Rittenhouse's name is well published and exists in other Wiki articles are correct.  Those who say he's a minor and this article isn't focused on him are also correct.  I think this is a case where consensus of editorial judgement rather than policy based arguments should ultimately decide what makes it into the article.  Springee (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have perfectly clear policy guidance. We omit a name when both of the following are true: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed and when (omission of the name) does not result in a significant loss of context. I would argue that neither of those are true here, but I think the first very obviously is not. That being the case, policy is quite clear on the matter: In goes the name. In fact, it even says it is only "often preferable" to omit the name when those two conditions are met, so that is when it is subject to "editorial judgment". In this case, it is not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we also omit the name if we can't find sources that meet our sourcing requirements. In this case, what source which is directly about the shooting of Jacob Blake gives us Kyle Rittenhouse's name?  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with the part about Do articles about Blake talk about Rittenhouse. Springee (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The answer is: Yes, they do. I've provided several examples below. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at the BBC and CNN articles and would argue they aren't about the Blake shooting, rather the whole unrest picture. I see them as about the Kenosha Unrest vs about Blake or about Rittenhouse.  I didn't check the others.  Springee (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. You asked for sources which link together the Blake and Rittenhouse shooting. You were provided them. We are not going to move the goalposts here. Did you have any other objection since that one has been addressed? Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No movement of goalpost here. Please review what I said above.  I asked if articles about Blake talk about Rittenhouse.  Not articles if articles about the larger topic of the protests, their causes and their outcomes etc. link the two.  Springee (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The articles I cited are about both Blake and Rittenhouse, often directly comparing the two incidents. So yes, they are linked. I am not going to play a game of "But it doesn't link it in exactly this way. So that is addressed. Any other objections? Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And if you want something explicitly putting the two together, several of them do that too. As an example, from the BBC: The first saw Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old black father, shot several times by a white officer, leaving him paralysed in hospital. The second followed in the unrest sparked by Mr Blake's shooting, where white 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two protesters. That is in a crystal clear, unambiguous way stating that the two events were related to one another. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC talks separately about two incidents in Kenosha as a way of looking at how the police reacted. This wasn’t linking the two people. It was a study of police in one city in different circumstances. Exactly the same with the Guardian article. Basically, the two are talking about how police react to different races. The NYTimes article talks about Kyle deeply into the article in a separate section. No mention of Blake is made in the Kyle section or vice-versa. The CNN article, yet again, appears to be mostly about the difference in reactions to these two incidents. The Tribune article is an opinion column again discussing how different people are treated differently by the police based on race. Basically, these articles are not tying Kyle to the subject of this article. They are discussing racial problems in America using two convenient incidents in the same police department. This is a subject that belongs in the Kenosha unrest article, not here. O3000 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the comparisons belong there. But the name still belongs here. Otherwise, it is confusing, as it confused me when I first read the thing. Articles should provide information, not withhold it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How does omission of the name result in a significant loss of context? Any loss of context? Kyle had nothing to do with the shooting of Jacob Blake, the subject of this article. It's highly unlikely that Kyle had ever heard of anyone involved in the shooting prior to the shooting or vice-versa. He wasn't even in the same state as the subject of this article. This is a distraction. O3000 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The very reason I came to look at the talk page is because I was confused reading the article. I initially thought, upon reading that section, that there had been a different shooting than the Rittenhouse one for which the identity of the shooter remained unknown or unreleased. I only found out that it was the same one by digging further and coming here to look, and while I'd know to do that, I suspect most readers would not. If it confused me, I guarantee you it's confusing other readers of the article as well. Including Rittenhouse's name would provide that context. So far as reliable sources which mention the Blake and Rittenhouse incidents as clearly connected: CNN, BBC , the Guardian , the New York Times , the Chicago Tribune , and I could well go on from there but I trust five is enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea that these two articles should not mention each other in any way is similar to taking the same stance on the articles the Boston tea party and the American revolution. It’s just ridiculous.Jacona (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yo lost me on that one. O3000 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for reverting an admin. But, you are involved and I don't see a consensus. The lack of continuing arguments against your position does not mean acceptance. It can mean avoiding repetition and lack of BLUGDEON. As this is under BLP, and a minor at that, we need a better reason for inclusion than editors stopped responding to your position. Perhaps an RfC is required. regards, O3000 (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I've addressed all the objections. So unless you have further ones, back in it goes. We're not going to play at obstruction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And I have addressed all your objections. And do not accuse me of obstruction or "playing" when I am just looking for consensus. This is a BLP problem. Please follow our resolution procedures. Extra bits in your profile don't count in content disagreement. O3000 (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade, I think O3000 is correct here. My feeling is this is a case where there isn't a hard and set rule we have to follow (clear BLP violation or SYNTH etc) then we are dealing more with editorial judgement.  In this case we roughly the same number of experienced editors on both sides with no agreement.  My feeling that we should keep it out isn't overly strong but I do feel we should follow the process and I don't think any of us would view the above as a consensus.  Perhaps this would be a good RfC case.  A few outside voices might be helpful if feelings are so strong in either direction.  Springee (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Invocation of "BLP" here is falsely invoking it. There is no "BLP issue". Even Rittenhouse's own defense team acknowledges that he fired the shots. Their assertion is that he was justified in doing so in self-defense. We need take no position on that here, but just saying that he was the shooter is firmly backed by high-quality sources and is therefore no BLP issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rittenhouse is named in a multitude of reliable sources. Not naming him here makes Wikipedia appear lame and censored. WWGB (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that he had nothing to do with the shooting of Jacob Blake, the subject of this article. I'm fine with use of his name in relevant articles. O3000 (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If that were true, Jacob Blake wouldn’t be mentioned in all those other articles.Jacona (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, if a man goes on a shooting spree because he didn’t like the election results; he should be mentioned in the Trump, Biden, Democratic Party, and all other election related articles. Makes no sense. Kyle did what he did for unknown reasons. I think it makes sense to mention the aftermath of Blake’s shooting – but without details that really have nothing to do with the actual shooting. O3000 (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirmed edit request
"On August 25, two protesters were killed and a third seriously wounded; A 17-year-old male was arrested the next day and charged with first-degree intentional homicide. His defense lawyers argue the shootings were in self-defense."

Somewhere in here, could a link be added to Kenosha unrest shooting? I see there's discussion about mentioning Rittenhouse himself, but I feel like this is fine to link in here, as it doesn't name him and it provides more info on the topic. Skarmory  (talk)  09:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ It's already covered well enough under this section which links to the unrest that covers it. This article is specifically about the shooting itself, not the events afterward (other than perhaps prosecution.) Praxidicae (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New York Post bias
1,000 National Guard troops were sent to Kenosha to restore order during protests.[47]

There has to be a better more neutral way to say this. CNN worded it "The National Guard has been mobilized in Wisconsin ahead of anticipated protests" https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/05/us/kenosha-national-guard-jacob-blake/index.html

WSJ used similar wording. https://www.wsj.com/articles/wisconsin-national-guard-deployed-ahead-of-charging-decision-in-jacob-blake-case-11609806626

I propose we change that image capton to "1,000 National Guard troops were sent to Kenosha in anticipation of protests"

Especially with protests being about the role of police and what they do. Using NY Post. A right-leaning news source for this seems not neutral.

101.98.135.42 (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of Kyle Rittenhouse’s name
Should the name of the person currently identified as “a 17 year-old male” in the article section on “Subsequent protests” be included? There is a lengthy discussion in the above section which can be continued in the Threaded discussion subsection below. O3000 (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey
*Oppose per reasoning by O3000 GMPX1234 (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
 * Oppose Undue, unethical, pre-judicial: irrelevant. Zindor (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Basically, I think the name adds nothing to the understanding of the shooting of Jacob Blake, the subject of this article, as it’s about different shootings. Kyle was not in the same state as this shooting, knew none of the involved parties, and the separate shootings did not precipitate the shooting of Jacob Blake. We don’t know why the second shootings took place. As Kyle is still a WP:SUSPECT, and a teen at that, we need to take care to talk to that incident in a larger context if his name is to be used. This is done, with his name, in separate articles. I have no problem with that. I think this is WP:UNDUE here and would be a distraction if filled out with the needed, broader context. For any reader interested in the name of the suspect in those shootings, we have included links to those articles. So, there is no “censorship”. O3000 (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with O3000, adding Rittenhouse here takes away from the focus on Blake. To that end I think the Rittenhouse material should be very limited (but with a direct link to the Rittenhouse article).  I don't think inclusion of the name is a policy issue in either direction.  I can't see, for example, how BLP or BLP1E says we can't mention the name.  However, I see it as a hierarchy.  Rittenhouse is a downstream event of the Blake shooting.  If Rittenhouse had stayed home we would still have a story about Blake.  Conversely, if Blake had stayed home there would be no Rittenhouse story.  Thus don't see the Rittenhouse story as overly significant in terms of Blake.  It's significant in terms of the Kenosha unrest that happened as a result of the Blake shooting (and likely the general mood of the 2020 summer). This is a case where I think it comes down to editorial judgement and preference since we aren't talking about removing material from Wikipedia at large and anything that doesn't appear in this article is still linked from this article.   Springee (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no doubt that Rittenhouse was the shooter; even his own defense acknowledges that. There is no reason given for exclusion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, looks like you provided one. You said: There is no doubt that Rittenhouse was the shooter. This article is titled the Shooting of Jacob Blake. Hope readers don't think KR shot Jacob Blake. O3000 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the ever intelligent O3000.--Jorm (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no one disputing he shot three people in the aftermath protests. His defense team even said so. If you toggle your mouse over the citation, it will say his name. So you aren't protecting him by keeping it off. His name is well known now. If it was a lesser known incident, I would say oppose, but it is too well known. (Capriaf)
 * Support. If it can be sourced properly and make sure to be cautios with wording then yes. It's not up to us to decide what information people can and cannot see. 101.98.135.42 (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021
Your opening statement needs to point out that Blake was shot after resisting arrest and physically fighting police. This shooting was not random or without context, as your opening sentence suggests by omission. Also, numerous statements in this article need to be brought in line with the facts as elucidated in the county DA's report, found at https://www.kenoshacounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/11827/Report-on-the-Officer-Involved-Shooting-of-Jacob-Blake. For instance, the SUV was in no way "his SUV" - it was rented under the name of the girlfriend who had called the police explicitly complaining in part that he had taken her keys. Furthermore, the kids in the SUV were not simply his, they also belonged to the girlfriend who had called police, also clearly concerned that Blake had "her kids." Obviously they are his kids as well as her kids, but she wanted neither the SUV nor the kids departing the scene with Blake - and the police were there to ensure that that did not happen. If anyone putting this article together thinks any of this is irrelevant, that is your bias showing through: include every fact, and you'll be providing the intended Wikipedia purpose. TRsezJohn62829 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Possession of the death car is unclear. Blake's girlfriend alleged that he tried to take a set of car keys, but for which vehicle? If the death car was rented by the girlfriend, then how did Blake get to the property? Perhaps the allegedly stolen keys referred to another vehicle, not the death car? Many reliable sources say that he was attempting to enter his car when he was shot. WWGB (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Jack Frost (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The SUV was not Blake's. It was rented in his girlfriend's name. Change "his SUV" to "a SUV that was rented by his girlfriend, the keys to which he had taken from her, leading her to call 911"
Start looking at this page for details of this incident: "https://www.kenoshacounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/11827/Report-on-the-Officer-Involved-Shooting-of-Jacob-Blake" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:DD02:2000:C47B:893F:AE61:4360 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a primary source; using it for something controversial would probably be original research. As mentioned below, numerous sources say it was his car, so we'd need sources highlighting this aspect specifically both to contest those and to establish that it is relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can list what the official legal document about the case says. The fact that news media jumped on the story to get ratings before getting the facts straight isn't relevant.  You have no possible reason to doubt the primary source for this issue, then you can use it.   D r e a m Focus  18:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I simply changed it from "his SUV" to "an SUV". The controversy about whose it is is found in the sections describing the event: namely, a woman phoned the police saying that Blake had her car keys and was taking off with the car. There are sources which confirm this concerned the silver Mercedes he entered. We perhaps should not say that the criminal complaint is true, but equally we cannot say it is untrue by claiming the car belonged to him in the lede. For now, until it becomes clearer, we should be neutral. He was leaning into "an SUV". Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The word choice 'his SUV' was based on RS usage. There's no reason for a tertiary source like us to switch terms unless the prevalence has changed in secondary sources. Has it? If we switch to neutral terms based on impressions of controversy we'll be a very vague encyclopedia. FWIW I think it's likely the usage will change, if it hasn't already. Page 3 of the DA document linked above is rather clear in stating the SUV was rented, and not by Blake. Zindor (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Children in car
Most sources claim that there were three children (all Blake's) in the back of the car. However, by Blake's own account, only two of his children seem to have been in the back of the car: "Blake recalled the bullets hitting him as two of his children -- his 'babies' -- watched from the backseat of the car." The article does confirm that he has three with the mother, however: "It was Aug. 23, 2020, and Blake was at the home of Laquisha Booker, the mother of three of his children."

This is a weird discrepancy. In reality, were there only two children in the back of the car? Or were there three children in the back, including one that was not his own? Possibly the statement could also be interpreted as meaning that all of the children in the backseat were his, but one of them wasn't watching (e.g., was sleeping) during the shooting. This should be clarified. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

add to lead: Blake armed with knife; officer's claim of self-defense
Given that both investigators and Blake have confirmed that he was armed—with a knife in his hand—at the time he was shot, this information needs to be added to the lead. Any article about a police shooting obviously must include whether and how the suspect was armed. It's especially relevant here given that the officer claims he shot Blake in self-defense—something that also must be included in the article. I see that and  have also discussed this recently. Without these two pieces of information, one could read the lead and have no idea why a police officer—not unjustifiably, according to the DA—shot Blake. Not including obviously essential facts up front does our users a huge disservice and must be immediately remedied. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While not for the same reasons, I do agree that it should be in the lede. The positioning at the end of the first paragraph looked to be a good choice, not so prominent as to give undue weight but not lost either. The wording needs to be nailed down and neutral however. This was a little vague and one-sided. There's loads of RS reporting, particular detailing the minutae of the police accounts, but also on Blake maintaining that he had no intention to use the knife. Some prose that accurately reflects secondary sources is definitely possible, it might just take input from several of us. Zindor (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * whole page is full of nothing but people question why this isn't in the lede but some guy is laughably reverting saying to get consensus.2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

We shall stick with what the sources actually say. It does not go in the lede. This has already been discussed.--Jorm (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * up to date sources have debunked the lies Blake's lawyers fed to the media regarding the knife and potential relevance to the shooting. At this point the police and Blake have confirmed he possessed a knife at the time of the shooting. Have you not been following the case? anyway, you seem to be the only person currently arguing to remove the metnion, while everyone else making a position regarding seem pretty strong on the inclusion side of the spectrum.2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * according to this not only did he admit to having it but in fact that he regreted that picking the knife up and only hought ht e wasn't going to get shot because he was walking away from the police. So at minimum blake himself is admiting to the important of the knife in the shootinhg. This is pretty open and shut include.  https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-jacob-blake-knife-shot-20210115-p24s2je7rfcpbopvliihu5krdm-story.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not opposed to including it, but we need a better source than NY Daily News (see WP:RSP).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We decided in September against the inclusion of "leaned in to where a knife was located", back when the indication was that Blake was unarmed and any knife was already in the car. It's now known that's not the case. We're not super late to the party, on Jan 5 there was still some secondary RS such as the BBC casting doubt on Blake being armed. On Jan 6 however the WaPo issued a correction on themselves and published some prose detailing the relevance of the knife. It's no longer a contentious statement to say he had a knife, Blake himself admitted the possession (ABC, NaRe Jan 14)


 * If we look at updated RS reports, descriptions of the shooting include the knife (WSJ,CNN); including on the knife being the reason Sheskey was not charged. (NYT,ABC, NBC).


 * The dust has settled, there's due weight in RS for inclusion in the lede, and an accurate summary of the article would favour inclusion. Zindor (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Is this new information or information that was all known at the time of the last RfC? If it's new information what are the sources?  I think having a knife in hand would be a critical fact to have in the lead if RSs are now saying it was the case.  Absent a review of new RSs supporting that view why relitigate the old RfC?  Springee (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee, above i was referring to this rather than an RfC. If there's an RfC on this I missed I'd love a link. All the secondary sources I linked are published either Jan 5/6 or Jan 14 this year, and bring to light new info about Blake's possession of the knife. Early Jan sources are probably based on Blake's court admission *and the DA info, his interview admission coming later on Jan 13. Regards, Zindor (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you. Your assertion that there is consensus is incorrect. You and an IP (that is bordering on conspiracy theory type comments) are the only two people here making the argument. The last RFC decided against it's inclusion in the lead and two other editors have pointed that out. You also assert that the DA's website/court transcripts are sufficient, but fail to adhere to WP:BLPPRIVACY which explicitly states: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents and this article is more than covered by WP:BLP. CUPIDICAE💕  17:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , actually I drew the prose from reliable secondary sources already used in the body (NYT,CNN) and there's support for the wording and due-weight in many more.


 * I'd really like a link to this RfC that is being referred to. I've followed this page closely, am very familiar with the sourcing and have been involved in previous discussions. How I missed an RfC, i don't know, and I can't seem to find it in the archives either.


 * Nowhere do I claim those documents are sufficient for supporting this. Where I linked the DA report above I was clearly making a comment about where RS might be drawing their information.


 * In this thread alone I've cited numerous secondary RS to support inclusion in the lede that Blake had a knife. BLP is obviously applicable but the assertion that I've violated BLP policy is entirely unsupported.


 * I'm coming at this from a different angle than Elle Kpyros, don't know about the I.P.


 * seemed inclined to support this should it involve sources not previously discussed. if a better source than NY Daily News was presented, which I believe I have done. Apologies you two if i'm not representing your views accurately here.


 * Praxidicae, I expect this RfC you're referring to is entirely conclusive because otherwise I'm not seeing much of a foundation for future reverts on this. Regards as ever, Zindor (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The crux of the matter seems to be that Blake did not have the knife at the start of the incident, but rather picked it up when he leaned into the car. The current wording is ambiguous, and many readers may assume that he had the knife in his possession throughout the incident. If we are going to refer to the knife in the lead, we should reflect that. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nick, your narrative is unfortunately out-dated. He always had the knife but at least according to Blake's account it ended up in his hand when he dropped it during the initial struggle. Suggest checking out reliable sources post 6th January for stable versions of the event. Regards, Zindor (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as points out, the NYT states that, according to the DA: "Blake had admitted to holding a knife — even describing switching it from one hand to another as he moved to open a car door — and that statements from officers and other witnesses indicated that Mr. Blake had turned toward an officer with the knife immediately before he was shot." I of course assume good faith, but am struggling to understand efforts to frustrate the inclusion of information in the lead that is patently essential to understanding the article's subject. There is:
 * video of the knife
 * audio of police yelling at Blake to drop it
 * police and civilian eyewitness testimony of the knife
 * the retrieval of the actual knife
 * and the fact that Blake himself admits to having the knife in hand when he was shot.
 * Are people seriously suggesting that Blake didn't have an open knife in his hand when he was shot? If so, does any RS subsequent to the release of the DA's exhaustive report credibly claim that? If not—what's the beef? Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the lead focuses on the major facts and is a summary of the body, we can't add this to the lead and imply that it was the cause of the shooting which is what it reads as. Given how much debate there is about the knife anyway, that's as good of a reason not to include it in the lead. VAXIDICAE💉  18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The murderer was reinstated
The first paragraph of this article says that the guy who murdered Jacob Blake is still on administrative leave. The police department put out a statement recently saying that there was nothing wrong with shooting the man seven times in the back, point blank, that it's aligned with their training policies, and that the murderer is fully reinstated.

Reliablelibel (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have added to the article the fact that Sheskey is back on duty. However I have to challenge your referring to him as a "murderer". Are you not aware that Blake is still alive? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Type of knife
No one seems interested in the type of knife Blake had. It could be anything from a small table knife to a large zombie knife. Actually it was a pocket knife - a Karambit type almost certainly this one. There is a photo of the actual knife here.51.9.50.190 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No original research please. Need sources  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021
I think it is important to note in the article that Jacob Blake was wanted with a sexual assault warrant. When he was shot jacob blake was abducting the children off the woman that filed the sexual assault complain and he was stealing her car in the process when police arrived.

These are all verified truths and were presented in court as well. 46.199.70.74 (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Blake was armed by his own account.
There seems to a bias trend in this article. There is no mention the Blake ? Jacob805 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Show a reliable source that claims he admitted he tried to stab anyone -- or strike your accusation as it is a serious WP:BLP violation without a source. O3000 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that he tried to stab anyone, but it is indeed correct that Blake was armed by his own account: Bueller 007 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fourth paragraph of the 'Shooting' section mentions it three times.
 * Zindor (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Zindor (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Zindor (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The SUV had been rented by Laquisha Booker in her name and Laquisha Booker had indicated to police that Jacob Blake did not have permission to drive the vehicle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3CA:203:13A0:6CF6:3C36:F07E:F36C (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Bad lede
This article currently begins: "On August 23, 2020, Jacob S. Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, was shot and seriously injured by police officer Rusten Sheskey in Kenosha, Wisconsin.[2] Believing he was about to be stabbed, Sheskey shot at Blake's back seven times[3][4] when Blake opened the driver's door to an SUV and leaned into it.[5][6]." Of course no source can know what Mr. Sheskey believed. The intended meaning must be that the officer says he thought he was about to be attacked with a knife. However, none of the cited sources would appear to support even that more neutral phrasing. Why on earth would our encyclopedia begin an article on this pivotal event in so weirdly? Is this wording the result of a mix-mash of items being edited out? In any case, none of the cited sources says anything about what the policeman says he thought or felt, so it certainly needs to be fixed. - phi (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Revised first sentences
Here's the revised version:

On August 23, 2020, Jacob S. Blake, a 29-year-old black man, was shot and seriously injured by police officer Rusten Sheskey in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Sheskey shot Blake in the back, firing seven times while inflicting multiple wounds when Blake opened the driver's door to an SUV and leaned into it. Sheskey later recounted that he believed he was about to be stabbed. Three of Blake's sons were in the backseat at the time. Earlier during the encounter, Blake had been tasered and had scuffled with officers.

It fixes the problem that not all shots landed (previously implied) and it detaches Sheskey's action in the moment from his later account of his frame of mind. &mdash; MaxEnt 22:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Two sentences hoisted into lead to address shocking imbalance
Without diving into the weeds about the woman who allegedly called the police onto the scene that day (has she stated this herself to the media, or do we only have the police reports to go by on this?), at least this much redresses the appalling imbalance of the current lead:

Blake had a warrant for his arrest from July, based on charges of third-degree sexual assault, trespassing, and disorderly conduct in connection with domestic abuse. Both Kenosha Police Chief Daniel Miskinis and the Kenosha Professional Police Association stated that the officers dispatched on August 23 were aware of the pending warrant for Blake before they arrived on scene.

The warrant is most like a matter of plain fact. In the second sentence it's clear that this relies entirely upon a police account of their own actions (for those disposed to disbelieve the police on even the most mundane facts).

Second issue: What does children being present in the back seat add to the lead? There are people out there sufficiently deranged to harm their own children or to use them as a human shield (not many, but more than zero). Were the children being protected or harmed (and if so, by which side?), was everyone on the scene even aware of their existence and were they then effectively unwitting bystanders to what would have transpired had they not been there? None of this is clarified. It's left entirely blank to function as anger food. Did the presence of the children call the violent police action into additional disrepute? Not even that much is made clear in the lead as it stands. &mdash; MaxEnt 22:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * About the warrant. I consulted both citations and the precise nature of the warrant is not made 100% clear. It's quite possible that Blake was aware he would be promptly arrested in any situation where his identity and record became known to police. This kind of knowledge does not always bring out the best behaviour of the "wanted" person when police arrive. Two sources are clear on this [ed: the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant], and even without further clarification, I don't see how the matter of the warrant can be elided from the lead. &mdash; MaxEnt 22:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Errors in page
Apparently part of this article says Jacob Blake was shot 7 times with only 4 hitting, while earlier in the article it says 7 times with 4 in back and 3 in the side.

Wording for warrant says pending, but from what I looked up warrant existed a month before shooting incident so it wasn't pending. 174.107.112.148 (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Without comment on the discrepancies about the shooting: Wikipedia doesn't care about any research you do on your own "looking up" things.  The reason we don't care about it is because the definition of "pending" on a warrant doesn't mean what you think it means.  In this case it means "the warrant is pending because it hasn't been executed" and not "the warrant is pending because it hasn't been made," which is what you seem to think is happening.
 * This is why we do not allow Original Research. Jorm (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Rittenhouse
The reference to Rittenhouse shooting two protestors should include “in self defense, while they chased and attacked him” 104.153.228.65 (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)