Talk:Shooting of Jacob Blake

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 [1] 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)

References

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. --intelati^talk 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 [2], 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—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. Seraphimblade, 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—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.--intelati^talk 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. --intelati^talk 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 oder 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 [3], BBC [4], the Guardian [5], the New York Times [6], the Chicago Tribune [7], 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)

• @Seraphimblade: 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)

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 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 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 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)

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)

 Not done 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)