Jump to content

Talk:2023 Prague shootings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Entering the university with guns

WP:NOTFORUM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melmann (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Is there any info on how the perpetartor managed to enter the university area with guns? Weren't there metal detectors/security at the entrance? Brandmeistertalk 17:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There are no metal detectors in Czech universities. Most lectures are also open to public (seminars etc. are closed off for enrolled students only). Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"According to...." language

Please note that because Wikipedia has its references system, WP:INTEXT says "It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal" — in other words, news media has to say "According to..." due to journalistic considerations of who got the scoop, plus their inability to insert lengthy references in the midst of their article. Wikipedia has refs, and is an encyclopedia, not news, so Wikipedia articles simply report what the sources says while leaving it to the refs to indicate who said it. Abductive (reasoning) 19:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Expanding on this: @AggressiveC, you keep re-adding unnecessary attribution.
"which the news reported stated later in a live interview broadcasted by TV Nova, a Czech television station."
This doesn't need to be in the article. I'm going to remove it unless you or others demonstrate why we need a full sentence which a reader can learn more about by clicking the ref
Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Alternatively, and if it's really necessary to have in the article, it could read like this: "She later gave an account of this interaction to TV Nova." Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the full video was only broadcast on TV Nova, so it would make sense to add this info there, wouldn't it? AggressiveC (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think people reading the article care where the interview aired, but I left a condensed version of the attribution, so for now it is still there. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Should the article mention something was written or X or not?

Some people are changing whether it should say via X, or not. If one or the other, why not remove all mentions of "via X" and not just one? AggressiveC (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have any proof about the weapon?

There are no citations for the fact that it is an AR-15 or AR-10-style weapon, does anyone have any proof that that is the case? 188.231.9.162 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Just a semi auto or bolt rifle, judging by the photo of him which is abit too blurry.
Could we just put long gun or rifle as the gun used for now? Koltinn (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
just "rifle" is fine, as long as there's a citation in the body of the article for the info sawyer * he/they * talk 20:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
It is mentioned in an interview during the news broadcast of "TV Nova" that the rifle is a ZEV 30. AggressiveC (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
ZEV AR-30, i'm pretty sure. AggressiveC (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Region locked source though, so people without an vpn cant easily access it. Koltinn (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I get that, but it's still a source. If I recall correctly, they mention the gun not only during the interview, but before it as well. AggressiveC (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I’m pretty sure that the ZEV AR-30 is based on the Armalite rifle of the same name, which has a shorter-length handguard and barrel than the one seen in the photograph. 188.231.9.162 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Rifle used in shooting?

The Daily Telegraph’s article has a photograph of Kozak holding a rifle upon a balcony, it looks to be a Norwegian variant of the Heckler & Koch G3, the AG-3F1. However, I am not sure. Could someone attempt to verify the rifle used? 188.231.9.162 (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait until a reliable source has confirmed it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
It is mentioned in an interview during the news broadcast of "TV Nova" that the rifle is a ZEV 30. AggressiveC (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Not an AG3, is all black and there isn't any forest green handrail and stock.
it's some magasine fed rifle. Koltinn (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
It looks like some kind of G3-type rifle; possibly a H&K MSG90 or heavily modified PSG1. 188.231.9.162 (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
what it looks like is irrelevant until it's confirmed by reliable sources. sawyer * he/they * talk 21:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I know it’s irrelevant; no harm in speculation, though. 188.231.9.162 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
wikipedia talk pages aren't the place to speculate sawyer * he/they * talk 21:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Nah, just a black rifle shape with a bipod..
Siding with sawyer, at that angle and zoom being shot on cellphone, only the shooter knows at the moment and he's dead.. Koltinn (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Beginning of article

Right now we have "On 21 December 2023, more than 23 people, including the perpetrator, David Kozák, and his father, were killed in a mass shooting at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University on Jan Palach Square in central Prague, Czech Republic."

I propose something like:

"On 21 December 2023 more than X people were killed in a mass shooting Faculty of Arts, Charles University in central Prague, Czech Republic."

Then move the other info somewhere lower: "Police identified David Kozák as the shooter, who took his own life after killing X others. Police said that Kozák shot his father to death earlier in the day." Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Btw., at least one of the victims of the shooting was not directly killed, but fell off a ledge while hiding from the gunman. --ŠJů (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

False information about the city of Kladno

The article contains the sentence: "A police officer with Interpol Prague identified the perpetrator as David K, a 24-year-old world history student from the city of Kladno, 24 kilometers from Prague." with two references.

The first reference, from Novinky.cz, mentions "úmrtí v obci na Kladensku" ("death in a municipality in Kladno region), the screenshot of the police identikit states Kladno District as the domicile of the searched David Kozák. The city of Kladno is not mentioned. (The affected municipality of Hostouň was also not mentioned directly here, this localization was officially announced some time later).

The second reference, from BBC News, does not contain the word "Kladno" at all on the linked page.

It is interesting that while those erroneous and untrue information in the article are repeatedly renewed without verification by someone (someone even repeatedly put them back in the chapter title), some relevant and substantiated information are deleted. In addition, false information is put into the mouth of a police officer or Interpol Prague, who probably did not tell such a lie. Hostouň is closer to Prague than to Kladno. ŠJů (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Association with Klanovický les (Klánovice forest) murders

The BBC is reporting that police believe the suspect is connected to the Klanovicky murders last week, an incident mentioned in The New York Times's article. How should this be integrated into the article? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it can stay in the "suspect" section, and if there ends up being enough substance, a subsection can be created. sawyer * he/they * talk 20:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@ElijahPepe: A translation remark: "Klánovický" is an adjective from the name Klánovice. English language uses similar adjectives more rarely (Czech, Praguer, French, American etc.). "Klánovický les" can be translated as "Klánovice Forest" or "Forest of Klánovice". If you want use an adjective for the murders, you can write "Klánovice murders", but not "Klanovicky murders", because "Klánovický" is a form for masculine singular, while "murders" are plural and its Czech equivalent (vražda) is a feminine. English cannot use Czech adjective forms in English translation because doesn't use grammar gender for inanimate words and Czech endings for grammar number.
Btw., the Klánovice Forest does not lie only on the territory of Klánovice, but also extends to the territory of neighboring districts Újezd nad Lesy and Horní Počernice and municipalities of Jirny and Úvaly. However, the murders were localized as "nearby the Čmelická street", which is really in Klánovice area, nearby the outdoor swimming pool and sports ground. --ŠJů (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Tampering of refs

I'd like to call out 2a02:8308:385:2000:1c75:5f1b:2320:449e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Prague_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1191229183.

As much as I appreciate your concerns, as far as I'm concerned these do not extend to tampering with the title of an article/reference/source lest someone accuse this site of citing "misleading" information. Borgenland (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Foreign victims

Some sources say, there were no foreign victims (https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/kriminalitaet/prag-universitaet-schuesse-tote-verletzte-100.html, German). TheAmerikaner (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

From the article: "In the morning, the Ministry of the Interior said that three of the killed were foreigners. Among the 25 injured are two people from the United Arab Emirates and a Dutch citizen." Celjski Grad (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Shooter's death

Didn't he shoot himself then fall or did he get shot by cops? Some articles say he fell other say he was killed by police gun fire. Koltinn (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Koltinn: The first official information was that the shooter was "eliminated". Unofficial informations had two variants: that he jumped from the roof terrace of the building, and that he shot himself. So far, it seems likely that all three variants are true: he was surrounded by police, shot himself in the neck and fell from a building. The police fired at him, but it is not confirmed if he was hit. An official examination of the body was difficult because it was hugely devastated. Officially, no details have been released yet. --ŠJů (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
There was information about "body falling down" close to the perps death on the police coms. Unfortunatelly that was a girl who fell off the ledge.
The perpetrator was engaged by gun fire from a policeman on the street level and then decided to "eat his shotgun". It has not been confirmed whether any of the police bullets hit him or if he merely committed suicide the first moment he received any resistance. The police officers who reached the rooftop came there only after his suicide.
He also through his sniper rifle (ZEV AR 10) off the roof before suiciding. In a video made by a journalist from the street level it can be seen that the rifle had multiple stoppages as he was shooting from the rooftop. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Possibly fake Telegram account

The Telegram account, including the citations about alleged inspiration from Bryansk and Kazan, was questioned as a possible fake. The information coming from this channel should be clearly separated from the information we know about the person of the offender from trusted sources (such as study focus, academic achievements and his own academic work, which is information that someone deleted from the article). Some politicians and the police president etc. mentioned information from the Telegram acount, but the Czech journalist Ondřej Soukup who covers Russia, after consulting with two Russian journalists (David Frenkel, Timur Olevskiy), came to the conclusion that the account was fake. One of the alleged perpetrator's posts was edited when the perpetrator was already dead. According to the journalists, the posts were written by a native Russian speaker, one who is deeply immersed in the Russian youth context. In addition, there are spelling mistakes that are typical for Russian students. Soukup's version is that some Russian kept his diary and, after hearing about the shooting in Prague, renamed his account to the perpetrator's name. ŠJů (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the police said he had "Russian inspirations": https://www.seznamzpravy.cz/clanek/domaci-zivot-v-cesku-sef-policie-rekl-prvni-detaily-o-strelbe-muz-se-inspiroval-v-rusku-242338 NAADAAN (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@NAADAAN: Yes, the police president mentioned this as an unspecified information from an unnamed social network. At a time when all media (including the linked article) were already discussing a specific channel on one specific social network. Many politicians and journalists quoted the Telegram uncritically, only the Minister of the Interior warned generally against disinformation from Russian troll farms. The Soukup's questioning authenticity of the account was published 18:47 (6:47 PM). In Soukup's opinion, that Telegram account is not organized Russian propaganda, but rather the activity of a Russian student who is in a similar mental state as the perpetrator. --ŠJů (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Knowledgeable source says "Czechia mass shooter is OBVIOUS Ukrainian (judging by his exclusively Ukrainian last name & his Russian-language social media profile." Should we provide more detail? Henrilebec (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Unless your “knowledgeable source” is a WP:RS can be put into a decent citation format, then there is no reason to insert this. Borgenland (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Double murder on the 15th

Would the double murder on the 15th constitute as casualties in this event? If so, the name of the article would probably have to be changed. Jackwag (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough concrete information about that incident (yet) to make that call. There's no rush to change things, since Wikipedia is not a news site. sawyer * he/they * talk 05:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I would not consider them casualties of the event, but pertinent part of the article. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Flag salad "Reactions" section

As many of you know, most editors despise list-formatted "Reactions" sections, especially the flag icons. These sections should be converted into prose—not a bulleted (flagged) list. Sourcing should not be primary, such as tweets, and should have encyclopedic value. A politician giving his/her condolences does not have much, if any, encyclopedic value, and certainly does not need its own sentence. Abductive (reasoning) 00:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree that "International" reaction section should be removed, these politicians just use Virtue signalling for their own gains, and article and situation does not get better from it. MouseInDust (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is this article in American English?

Why are there references to 'strollers' and so on 2A00:23C7:5AD0:8F01:1B16:7279:14B3:4737 (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

see WP:ENGVAR. sawyer * he/they * talk 19:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Title

Should it be 2023 Prague shooting, Charles University shooting, Prague university shooting or something else? X2023X (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current title for now Marginataen (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
If the crimes started outside Prague the title isn't entirely accurate, but then again in that case neither are the listed alternatives. Unless it becomes 2023 Prague and Kladno shootings or the like. Paris1127 (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The Sandy Hook shooting involved the killing of Lanza’s mother; do we call it the Sandy Hook and Newtown shootings? 188.231.9.162 (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@Paris1127: Hostouň is in Kladno District, but not in Kladno. It is closer to Prague than to Kladno. The previous single murder in Hostouň and possibly the double murder in Prague-Klánovice are more a prelude to the encyclopedically significant massacre event than a part of it. From a local point of view, it is more appropriate to refer to the specific faculty whose main building was the scene of the shooting, rather than the entire university or the entire city or country. The historic headquarters and current official seat of the entire university is in a slightly different location. --ŠJů (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe Charles University shooting or Prague university shooting is the way to go; the year isn't needed (unless there was a previous one), and Prague shooting is too vague. Or perhaps Jan Palach Square shooting? Paris1127 (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
+1 for either Charles University shooting or Prague university shooting. Happieryet (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd go for Charles. Too many unis in Prague. Borgenland (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Good point. Charles University shooting is the best option in my opinion. @ŠJů I appreciate your attention to detail and local context, but I feel that referring to the specific faculty in the title would lessen the article's recognizability, especially to a non-Czech audience. To my knowledge, there have been no other shootings at Charles University, so the "Charles University shooting" would be sufficiently specific. Thoughts? Happieryet (talk) 03:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Charles University shooting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Charles University shooting or just Prague shooting is far far better than Prague university shooting. There is no "Prague university" AidanWelch (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

NYT isn’t the only source?

I’d just like the user by the name of Toadspike to know that the New York Times isn’t the only reliable source reporting this incident. 188.231.9.162 (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You can edit the article and add more sources? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: Toadspike Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 18:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. To the IP editor: I do not mean to offend by making many edits based on the NYT article. It is simply the source I have open, and one which says basically the same thing as most of the other American sources. I assume this criticism is about me changing the number of dead to 15. The NYT includes the victims father in the 15, and at the time no other sources cited here reported a number above 15, so I assumed they all also included the father in the 15. Now it seems that the number of dead has unfortunately risen further, so this may be a moot point.
As for me making many, very rapid edits, I am doing this to avoid edit conflicts. I hope it isn't annoying to those tracking the edit history. Toadspike (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
There are plenty of English local sources for example english.radio.cz and expats.cz that are more reliable from what I've seen. AidanWelch (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of the ‘he who shall not be named’ situation with the suspect’s name?

Several news sources have reported the name of the suspect as David Kozak, including the Daily Telegraph and several local news sources. Why keep it hidden any longer? 188.231.9.162 (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It's literally in the article? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
There’s an invisible comment in the introduction stating ‘don’t name the suspect’. People have been upholding this, even though the entire thing is pointless. 188.231.9.162 (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Just don't name him in the lead. His name is given lower down. Abductive (reasoning) 19:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
See WP:SUSPECT. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:SUSPECT: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law."
However, the named suspect is dead and therefore does not fall under BLP. Celjski Grad (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I have named him in the infobox as his full name has been mentioned in reliable sources in Czechia and Slovakia, also considering WP:NOTCENSORED, that he is dead, and he was not a juvenile gives me little reason to ommit it. NAADAAN (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
You can believe that that mass shooter is virtually "innocent" (in the legal fiction of the presumption of innocence) and that his mass shooting was not a crime. However, what happened objectively is quite indisputable and undeniable. And the deceased will not even be charged with a crime or convicted of a crime. The criminal court is designed to pronounce guilt and punishment, not to examine any objective reality. --ŠJů (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
You once again added a large swath of poorly written text to the article. Please stop doing that. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I condensed your recent edit by 191 words. It still communicates most of what you added, just way less messily.Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
"not to examine any objective reality."
That is not true. A court must also determine what they believe objective reality to be based on evidence presented. Being suspected of a crime by police doesn't mean you're actually the one who perpetrated it. In this case it seems pretty straight forward Kozák was the perpetrator, but truth is not always what's straight forward. AidanWelch (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd also like to add (as I have in a section which deals with the name or weapon used) that there is no consensus to add this information. As this has been contested many times, per Wikipedia policy the onus is on those who wish to include this content to gain consensus for inclusion, not the other way around. Of course, headlines should not be altered or bowdlerised if they include the name of the suspect. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Weapon acquired legally? Change the name of the article to "2023 Charles University shooting"

Did anyone read about the fact that the weapons used were acquired legally? I thought I read it in the news, but can't find it.

I also suggest that the name of the article changes to "2023 Charles University shooting", "2023 Charles University mass shooting" or "2023 Charles University mass murder". Scishare (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

what's your reasoning for the name change? sawyer * he/they * talk 20:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
There is a previous discussion regarding the title. See #Title for that discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Scishare: This article in Hospodářské noviny online mentions that the Czech Police President Martin Vondrášek said at the press conference that David Kozák was the legal owner (literally: legal holder) of several guns.

As for the title of the article, I support your proposal (or even more specific name). From Prague's point of view, it is adequate to state the name of the specific faculty in the title. That building (built 1924–1930) is primarily and specifically known as the building of Faculty of Philosophy = Faculty of Arts (of the Charles University). The official and historical seat of the university as a whole is rather the Karolinum (Collegium Carolinum). The building in Celetná street, where the police were waiting for the perpetrator, but where they did not arrive, is the rear part of that historic university complex. Although this shooting is the biggest massacre in the history not only of Prague, but of the entire Czech Republic (which is younger than Czechia itself), the main plot took place only at that one modern building nearby the Vltava river – although he allegedly shot at the opposite building as well as at the nearby bridge over the Vltava, and the panic spread to the nearby nearby Charles Bridge too. Although the significance of the event is pan-European, the shooting was not a Prague-wide event. --ŠJů (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"Czech Republic (which is younger than Czechia itself)" This is not true. Czechia is the modern English short form of Czech Republic, it is not the same as Česko. You could say "Czech Republic (which is younger than the Czech nation)" but I think that would be confusing for most people.
"the shooting was not a Prague-wide event"
Nor were the Defenestrations of Prague. The shooting did occur in Prague so I wouldn't say its inaccurate, and for most of an English speaking audience it provides more information that "Charles University Shooting" or an specific place name. AidanWelch (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Student status

There's a bit of confusion in the "Perpetrator" section about whether he was a (current) student at the university or a graduate (i.e. ex-student). Or is the suggestion that he was graduate who had stayed on to do post-grad work? Any clearer information on this? GrindtXX (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The perpetrator finished his Bachelor degree (apparently in very successfully) and was pursuing Master's degree in history. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
According to one source, he and his family were Ukrainians, his surname is Ukrainian, he wrote in Ukrainian-Russian on line, and he was being pressured to return to Ukraine. Henrilebec (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
His surname is not Ukrainian, it's perfectly common in Czechia, please stop peddling nonsense. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Please be respectful. Russian diznfo farms did their rounds on this and have influenced a number of foreign articles. It may be difficult for foreigners to get their head around it and understandably so. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2023

Please, DO NOT share name of the perpetrator out of respect for the victims and those affected. That was exactly his goal. The study claims that an offender whose personal story is known will create a cult of personality and have a following. Boxip (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: There is an RFC above regarding how the shooter's name should be used that is currently in progress, please comment there instead of opening another thread. Note that the rationale you have given probably won't be accepted per WP:NOTCENSORED and the numerous precedents we have on prior mass shootings and other acts of terrorism. Liu1126 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 Done Liu1126, WP:ONUS clearly states that contested information should be removed until consensus is made for its inclusion, not the other way around. This information is clearly contested and thus should be removed until the discussion has finished. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@GnocchiFan: I wasn't thinking of WP:ONUS when declining, instead I was more concerned with WP:NOCON, which applies here since the shooter is dead. I think your interpretation of ONUS is in line with current consensus, even though it apparently is in conflict with NOCON, so I won't revert you, but note that at the time of writing there is another debate over ONUS's wording on the talk page. Liu1126 (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, WP:QUO suggests keeping the status quo during discussions, although that's only an essay and not a policy. Liu1126 (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
No worries, thank you of alerting me to the other guidelines and discussions, I appreciate it. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Should the perpetrators name and gun type be published?

Based on all the recommendations from countries that experienced shootings like this before, should all this info about the shooter and the guns he used be so easily available? Argument being that people could want to get inspired by him and this way they know so much so easily.. Same with the media, coud the article be a little more general? We don't need this type of specific info to understant the tragedy. 78.80.18.70 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I have removed this content until consensus is to keep this information - see WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. GnocchiFan (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
You cite WP:ONUS which itself has a {{main}} identifier to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. On that same page: Wikipedia is not censored. If secondary sources are publishing the perpetrators name, then it should not be a problem if Wikipedia does so as well. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 18:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the wrong place for this discussion. An editor has started the RFC above. Talk:2023 Prague shooting#Request for comment on naming the shooter. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 18:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Grammar

As this page has obviously been written by Czechs, the lack of English articles (a/an/the) and poor use of plurals (e.g. it should be "passers-by" not "passerby") fits with Czech grammatical rules. A native-English speaker needs to proof-read and clean up the grammar. 2A02:8309:2183:7800:F88D:ECA7:A3A3:312D (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The article says passersby, which is a correct spelling, and lack of articles is common in reporting speech. Many native English speakers have been involved in writing this article since its creation. Celjski Grad (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I've just done some copyediting, it really wasn't that bad though. And passersby without the hyphen is fine. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 01:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Recount

Can someone please do a recount of the death toll? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67830858 Is reporting it as 17 now that Klanovice has been confirmed to be his. Borgenland (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

14 at Charles + 2 in Klánovice + 1 in Hostouň + 1 suicide makes 18 total, the BBC count obviously excludes the perpetrator. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 01:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

Change "antoher" to "another" in the below context.

The line "Member of the Chamber of Deputies Jiří Kobza (SPD) in his post on Facebook marked the shooter as a product of inclusive progressive school system and indicated that the University educates antoher mass shooter." in the Reactions section contains a typo. its a me mario (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
There was a lot more wrong with that sentence than just a typo, and tbh I think it's probably being given undue weight. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 01:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Police officers

This article was clearly written by a Czech person, as Czechs automatically use the masculine for nearly all job titles. As the Czech Republic has female police officers and we cannot be sure that only male officers were in attendance during these events, please can we ensure that the sexist term "policemen" is removed and changed to the neutral "police officers" or simply "officers"? 2A02:8309:2183:7800:F88D:ECA7:A3A3:312D (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a female police officer was one of the first on the scene, here is her testimony: https://you tu.be/yGV66obiTuc?si=WJMVqEXWKPnp-gxN&t=76 Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"The first officers on the scene were carrying handguns." (BBC)

This claim in the BBC article needs better sourcing for the following reasons:

(1) I could not find this claim in single Czech source.

(2) Published body cam video (external links in the article) shows officers with automatic rifles.

(3) Typical Czech police patrol car includes automatic rifle in the trunk. The idea of police officer leaving the rifle in the car in such situation is ridiculous and runs contrary to police rules of engagement.

(4) It seems more in line with the British need to explain that officers were indeed armed given the fact that 90% of policemen in UK serve unarmed. Meanwhile all Czech police officers have handguns and most have automatic rifle in police car.

(5) The article in this part seems to rely on witness evidence. The fact that witness first came into contact with a policeman with handgun does not equate that this was the first policeman on the scene.

I.e. this claim needs to be better substantiated. It is possible that first officers were armed with only handguns, but it is quite unlikely given the prevailing practice and lack of confirmation in other source. Therefore I returned the deleted "better source needed" note. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue here. I've removed this part of the claim for now until we can find more reliable sourcing for this claim. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I've found a Czech language source that suggest that 2 plaincloth detectives with pistols and soft body armor entered building at 15:03 and then at 15:05 first police unit in heavy gear. Unfortunatelly the same source also includes description of suppressive fire by police within building, which was an innitial reporting that has been disproved.
I.e. we still need to wait for a better source. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Comparison with Bataclan

The lead currently says that "It was one of the deadliest mass shootings in Europe since the 2015 Bataclan theatre massacre in Paris." With some WP:OR, it definitely is the worst mass shooting in Europe since Bataclan. However, Bataclan involved three gunmen and was a terrorist attack rather than being the work of a lone gunman. I wonder if the comparison with Bataclan in the lead is needed, or whether it should be removed. ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No alternative, nor the proposed title, has gained much support, and opposition mainly opposes on the position that the current title is sufficient and is mainly used by news articles and therefore is recognizable. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Prague shooting → Charles University shooting – There seems to be a rough consensus above (#Title) but I thought I'd RM this as it's currently linked from the main page. Charles University shooting is a more precise and natural title which doesn't require the year for disambiguation purposes. Additionally many English language sources use the phrasing "university shooting". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

*Comment Maybe not the original title, but maybe moving it to 2023 Charles university shooting would be good Abdullah raji (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - I see no reason why the current title is insufficient, or that the proposed alternative would address any insufficiencies. As mentioned above, Prague is far more well-known than Charles University, and what people would likely be searching if they're looking for information on the event. I think it's better to just leave it as it is. sawyer * he/they * talk 00:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Support – Per consistency within the University and college shootings category, considering the article's primary focus is a shooting at a university campus. Aria1561 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Note that the articles in that category following the Charles/Prague University shooting format include a FA and a GA. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia newbie here. What do these acronyms stand for? Happieryet (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Featured article and good article, which indicates the article(s) passed the respective review process. Featured articles are considered to be among the highest quality articles on Wikipedia and may be taken as an example of the community's best practices. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per @Pawnkingthree. — Eric0892 (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - It works perfectly fine as a redirect to the current name, no need to move it. TheBritinator (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - While two of the three murders did not happen in Prague, they did happen on the outskirts of the city. As such, the broad usage of the term ‘Prague shooting’ would work, perhaps. 77.99.148.243 (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
How about "2023 Charles University Shootings"? 60.48.168.105 (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
how about 2023 Prague shootings? 47.202.136.65 (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - Majority of news articles are referring to it as Prague University Shooting, i’m fine with that. Charles University Shooting makes it sound like it could be anywhere in the world. There’s a Charles University in Los Angeles Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science which people refer to as Charles U. I vote Prague University Shooting or leaving it as it is now. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Support: per WP:CRITERIA, article titles should be a name that people familiar with the subject will recognize (and not necessarily what someone unfamiliar with the subject would use as search terms), and WP:NCWWW, If there is an established, common name for an event, use that name. The category-like when-where-what formula is only to be used in the absence of a common name. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Media mostly refer to it as "Prague shooting" or "Prague University shooting". I.e. this is what people are likely to look for online, including on Wikipedia, and as such is recognizable to the people familiar with the subject. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed removal, non-reputable source

The following paragraph is sourced to a non-reputable website, and should be removed per applicable Wikipedia policies. It appears intended to inject US-centric political debate about concealed carry into an unrelated page about a massacre. The paragraph in question is: "The firearms website zbrojnice.com noted a similarity of the case with the 2005 "Forest Killer" murders, in which a former police officer killed three random victims in forests in preparation for a planned mass murder in the Prague Metro, which was prevented by his early arrest; the article ended with an appeal to readers to remain vigilant and carry their concealed firearms." 174.21.178.251 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not fully sure about this, especially when the text links to Gun law in the Czech Republic and does discuss concealed carry. (Plus there are two sources at the end of the sentence.) Cimmerian praetor, can you explain or clarify your edit? --Super Goku V (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
First of all, apart from zbrojnice.com it was sourced from Hospodářské noviny. I have now added also TV Nova (Czech Republic) and SME (newspaper).
There is no injection of US debate. Simple fact that there was advance warning in connection with the case and that warning included appeal to readers to carry their firearms. I am not sure what does that has to do with "US-centric political debate". Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

University level

I have removed the information, that he was a post-graduate student, because the source doesnt clame it. What we know, that he completed his pre-grad, so he was probably doing his two year Msc. at the moment (not post-graduate), but I havent seen a source supporting that. What I am not sure if we can say that he "graduated" or weather there is another expresion in English for a person to complete his pre-grad studies. Juandev (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The English expression for someone who has completed their bachelors degree and is doing a masters degree is "postgraduate student", see postgraduate education. So it is substantiated by the ref. Already reworded to "masters student", which is also fine. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
OK. Juandev (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, but the sources provided does not include the information of his level either. That is just our hypothesis, that he potetionaly studied Masters digree. But he could study whatever, e.g. second Bachelor. So I wonder why there is that intention, to have this information in there for all costs. Remeber wikipedia is a compilate of publish knowldege. And I am not aware of any source, which would mentioning his status. Juandev (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The source says “masters history student at the university”. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
He successfully defended his bachelor work in June 2022 Problematika antagonismu haličského rolnického a krakovského povstání v roce 1846 | Digitální repozitář UK (cuni.cz).
Hi got the prize in April 2023 Studenti z FF UK obdrželi cenu Mariana Szyjkowského v kategorii nejlepší bakalářské práce | Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy (archive.org)
Bachelor study program is for 3 years, normally students write bachelor work during their 3rd year. So I would expect that he should be in 1st year of master study.
However for some reason he is still in evidence as a student of 3rd year of bachelor study.
Hledání osob (cuni.cz)
Maybe he didn't pass the final exams, I don't know. It would be kind of weird if he wrote his bachelor work during 2nd year of study. Dfsdfaf456 (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
One possible reason would be if he interrupted his study during 3rd year and wrote his bachelor work during the interruption.
However there is no source for this.
I suggest removing "postgraduate student" from the article based on this. Dfsdfaf456 (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
All of this is conjecture, and falls under WP:OR. The BBC however is listed as a reliable source. I would look for reliable reporting that claims he is not a postgraduate student. Celjski Grad (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
University information system is reliable. According to that he was not postgraduate student.
We can wait for secondary source but there are also many contradictions in sources. One has to judge sources somehow. Dfsdfaf456 (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Btw. which source says he is postgraduate student? I can't find it anywhere Dfsdfaf456 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
It's the BBC article sourced in the "Perpetrator" section: "Kozak, a 24-year-old masters history student at the university" Celjski Grad (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, it's reference 24, I see it now. However in the lead no source mention this (references 5,6,7,8 say only student), and in Perpetrator section the second reference (reference 49) also says only student.
I don't believe any source would explicitly say "undergraduate" student.
Based on this I suggest removing "postgraduate" in the lead (as unsourced) and replace "24-year-old masters in world history student" in Perpetrator section with just "24-year-old world history student". Dfsdfaf456 (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead doesn't need any sources, it's a summary of the article. As @Filelakeshoe notes above, postgraduate is an English expression for someone who has completed their bachelor's degree, i.e. a master's student. The second source that calls him a "student" came out the day of the shooting, while the BBC article was a week later, after the initial commotion. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
And here are other reliable sources that refer to him as a master's student: [[1], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]
Celjski Grad (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
And there are now sources which say he is of Ukrainian ancestry, that his family has a 100% Ukrainian name, that he was active on related discussion sites, suggesting a family dispute over joining the Ukrainian cause. Henrilebec (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a large disinformation campaign, quite possibly fueled from Russia. The claims range from "he is Ukrainian" to "it was some Ukrainian, not this Czech student." Be vigilant when encountering this sort of "sources". Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Selfsuicide

Selfsuicide is not presented in the sources as a fact, but rather as hypothesis. Juandev (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

What is "selfsuicide"? WWGB (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Police said that the gunman killed himself, he was not killed by the police.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I've added source to suicide: https://echo24.cz/a/H7akP/zpravy-domaci-po-strelbe-na-ff-uk-je-celkem-15-mrtvych-vcetne-pachatele It is clear that he self-inflicted shot to his head. Police were cautious by saying that it was "most probably" with shotgun. That is normal wording in situation when it was not observed by any of the policemen and the autopsy was not finished yet. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Fall from building

Currently in the victim section:

Thirteen of the victims in the university died in the building, while another died later in hospital, although Czech media reported that one of the fatalities fell off the building while trying to escape and several others were injured in similar circumstances.

This kind of looks like there is a doubt that someone fell from the building and that the report is unreliable.

Here is a tweet from Czech Police where you can see the dead body (under the red light).

Policie ČR on X: "Vyzýváme občany, aby se v blízkém okolí nezdržovali a nevycházeli z domu. Zásah policie stále pokračuje. https://t.co/OHnSsq4G5f" / X (twitter.com)

Dfsdfaf456 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I was looking for information about this on ongoing basis and there are no sources that would make it clear whether the person 'fell' or was 'shot off' of the building.
At this point the investigation is still ogoing and detailed information was not shared by the police yet. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 Prague shooting → 2023 Prague shootings – While the main shooting happened at the school, since Kozák committed the Klánovice Forest murders on the 15th and the murder of his father at their home right before, shouldn’t the name contain “shootings” as opposed to “shooting” in accordance with 2023 Lewiston shootings and Christchurch mosque shootings? MountainDew20 (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose: This is similar to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Lanza killed his mother before the incident, but it is the school shooting that picked up the most media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    maybe, but the Forest murders which occured 6 days earlier also picked up a significant ammount of media coverage in Czech. It certainly would make sense to call it "Shootings" as they occured days apart and focuses on both the forest shootings and the university shooting. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, and no, it's not the same as Sandy Hook, as this article also covers the shooting in Klánovice which happened a week before the Charles University shooting. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    BTW, it's interesting that so many people were opposed to calling this the Charles University shooting because "no one knows where Charles University is", yet no one ever questions the titles "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" or "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting" (which many RS reported as happening in Denver) - it's almost as if we expect people to be familiar with the location of every US "city" with a population of 10, but when it comes to Europe we have to dumb everything down to cater for people who don't know how to use google maps. Anyway, as this article now comprehensively covers both the Klánovice and FFUK shootings I think "Prague shootings" in the plural is the way to go. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: as it covers 3 separate shooting events, which occured days apart
Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Support because multiple shootings occured from the same person in <10 days.
JoshuaAuble (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment on naming the shooter

These typically run for a month, though that's not a hard and fast rule. This has run for a week less than that, but there has only been one !vote in the last eight days and a request for closure has been logged at WP:RFCL. I've evaluated the discussion and find that letting this go a few days extra is extremely unlikely to change the outcome. Therefore, I am here to bring you closure.

By strict head-counting, eight (8) editors supported naming the perpetrator, two (2) opposed naming the perpetrator, four (4) support some form of limited naming of the perpetrator (e.g. in the body but not the lead or by assigning a numerical maximal), and one editor expressed an inscrutable opinion.
In evaluating the strength of arguments on the various sides, the "naming" camp observed that the perpetrator had been widely credited in WP:RS and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. They also noted that the perpetrator is dead, so WP:BLPCRIME no longer applies. The "don't name" camp cited a belief, supported by studies, that not naming a crime perpetrator can help prevent a contagion effect. That may well be the case, however, Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, not the DARE Van. It is neither a guideline nor policy for this project to act as a crime prevention initiative. Ergo, for failure to cite any guidelines or policies, the "no" camp's arguments were disregarded.

There is a consensus to name the perpetrator. Chetsford (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article has gone back and forth on naming the perpetrator; he's dead, and his name has been reported by some media sources. Should we name him? Should he be totally anonymized, abbreviated, or fully named? Relevant policy here could be referenced at WP:BDP & WP:BLPCRIME. sawyer * he/they * talk 03:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been linked to from WP:DISCORD. jp×g🗯️ 03:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. There's no reason not to, policy wise, except people don't like it. He's a deceased legal adult. If we want to remove all of the names from all the articles of all crime perpetrators living or dead then that's a discussion for another day but there really is no reason except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BLP doesn't even apply here so that's irrelevant.PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Fully named. They're dead, so no pressing BLP concerns, and sources are picking up on it, Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 03:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I'll say the same thing here I always say, which is that there's no need to censor a perpetrator's name, but there's also no need to slather the article with it -- it should be mentioned in a section about who the perpetrator was. It shouldn't be there, and also in the lead sentence, and also in two separate lead paragraphs, and also in two separate infoboxes, and also in three body paragraphs about the incident, et cetera, et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 03:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with this generally but saying "the perpetrator"/"the shooter" over and over and over again is so, so awkward. Pains me to write. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Fully named, but only where needed. Why is this even a question? Is somebody going to do a mass shooting because they read his name on this article? If that's the case, I'd love to read the research. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    I posted the RfC because people have been editing it back and forth all day, and a similar RfC was posted for the 2023 Lewiston shootings, so I figured it'd be a good way to gather an "official" consensus for future reference. sawyer * he/they * talk 04:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    There's some concern vis a vis copycats but there's also that over suicide and all crimes generally. It mostly applies to the news as well, and what research does exist is not very strongly favored towards the name or identity of the perpetrator having much to do with it, more that covering mass shootings at all will make some people decide to do them, whether attention is on the perpetrator or not. A relatively small number of shootings are done primarily for attention or fame.
    Also whenever people try to censor their names in practice it hasn't seemed to help with the copycat situation. The Christchurch shooting is the most copycatted shooting since Columbine even though most news outlets refused to say his name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Fully named. The shooter's identity is fairly certain. No one seriously doubts it, many people know the shooter in that school. It's pretty obvious what happened without a doubt. Academically, one can hypothesize that this mass shooting was not a crime and that the perpetrator is not guilty because as a deceased person he will never be tried or convicted. But he was objectively and undoubtedly the shooter, even if his shooting was not formally a crime. If perhaps someone relevant would express doubt about perpetrator's identity, it is possible to add his POV to the article. If someone wants to hide verifiable and obvious facts, he/she should look for a genre other than encyclopedias. Another thing is that nothing verifiable about the shooter's motivation is known yet. Telegram account with his name was probably a fake. However, real verifiable biographical facts about the perpetrator are relevant, even if we do not yet know their connection to the act. --ŠJů (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Fully named. This is an encyclopedia, we document facts. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Not named.
James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, followed a similar strategy in describing the 2016 shooting in Orlando:

You will notice that I am not using the killer’s name and I will try not to do that. Part of what motivates sick people to do this kind of thing is some twisted notion of fame or glory, and I don’t want to be part of that for the sake of the victims and their families, and so that other twisted minds don’t think that this is a path to fame and recognition.17

Recently a contagion effect, similar to a “copycat” effect, has been suggested in mass shootings. This effect suggests that behaviors can be “contagious” and spread across a population. In the example of mass shootings, a contagion effect would be said to exist if a single mass shooting incident increased the likelihood of other instances of mass shootings in the near future.
Contagion has been documented across a variety of other behaviors, including airplane hijackings,2 smoking cessation,3 and binge eating,4 and has been well researched in relation to suicide.5,6 There is now evidence that when a mass shooting occurs, there is a temporary increase in the probability of another event within the next 13 days on average.7
Two weeks after the Parkland school shooting on Valentine’s Day in 2018, 638 copycat threats targeted schools nationwide. These threats are often jokes or hoaxes that spread through social media, but they can still be harmful.
You can read a bit more about this effect here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296697/ and https://www.center4research.org/copy-cats-kill/ .
Scishare (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, what you have said does not show that naming the killer has much of an impact on the copycat effect, more that it happening at all will increase the rate. Previous attempts to lessen the reporting of shooter's names (as has been done in recent years) have not seemed to work as the rate is higher than ever PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
To PARAKANYAA, I find that your primary concerns about reporting a mass killing that took 14 lives, and traumatized a countless amount of individuals is that it 'pains you to write something awkward', is rather confusing to me. These events are not fictional, and do require nuance when implementing them.
I'm of the stance that the name should be mentioned but not put everywhere.
With the points Scishare brought up, especially regarding the contagion of a shooter and the period of time after an event, it could be useful to minimize the current information to make it less accessible when it could be most critical.
You make two comparisons to the most 'copy-catted' shootings.
A. Columbine.
Columbine remains well known ( and at the time was well-known ) due to the extent of information and media which remains of the shooters. There are other duo-shooter incidents that have occurred which many people barely know the name of.
As the events unfolded, the incident was documented across live television as it occurred. The American population was struck with terror as they watched the boy in the window hang out from the Columbine campus, mystified and horrified by the ‘Trench coat mafia’ as misinformed details reached the press. The event was contagious, simply put. Additionally, carrying much wider implications societally due to a vast range of issues.
After the initial shooting, people who saw this ‘movie’ unfold were eager to eat up sequels. Each surge of information and the subsequent exploration of the shooters journals, recorded video tapes, security camera footage - even their year-book photos in which they posed with finger-guns were eaten up. While much of the population was struck with horror, terror, and concerns for social issues, those who empathized with the narrative of the shooters became increasingly inspired. Shooters who want to recreate the infamy Eric and Dylan received as ‘killing their bullies’ and ‘becoming famous’ for their clothes that are seen so prolifically in those ‘aesthetic’ fuzzy VHS tapes.
To summarize, the exposure of an event and the documentation of it from the killer's angle will influence those we are flocking to learn about it.
B. Christchurch.
Christchurch, draws many parallels to Columbine, yet is distinctly unique.
While Columbine has more appeal to more antisocial individuals with problems of bullying and isolation, Christchurch appealed to this category and internet white-supremacism which come hand-in-hand.
The shooter ( which I will prevent name dropping due to the situation of this event ) had a prolific online presence and digital footprint on 4chan, alongside other corresponding digital forums if I’m correct. He was radicalized and close to the ‘degenerate’ comrades he shared his mutual theory of the ‘great replacement.’ He wanted to elevate his status and do something, likely egged on and inspired by former perpetrators like Anders Breivik, who I will mention later.
After forwarding his social media accounts, photos of his weapons, and a link to his Facebook live - he carried out the massacre. 4,000 times it was viewed before being removed. While 4,000 sounds measly in the scope of the internet, the white supremacy movement thrives on propaganda and promises of sainthood through violence. It was recorded, spread across the internet, and cemented as a catastrophic and infamous attack.
After establishing this background, let’s understand that providing a name, ‘aesthetic’, and message behind a shooter provides an identity with future offenders to identify with. It happened with Columbine, and it happened with Christchurch. It provides a Saint for new ‘prophets’ to rally their flocks behind, laying the foundations for future violence.
C. The correlation between notoriety and documented violence.
For those who believe that Columbine or Christchurch are merely products of ‘right place, right time’, and not the documentation of the identity of the killers, I want to take a look at the suicide of Ronnie McNutt.
A man who was previously unknown gained prolific status for his suicide on a Facebook livestream. ( sound familiar? ) I’ve seen it, most people on the internet I’ve spoke to have seen it, and he even has a Wikipedia article dedicated to his suicide. People want recognition. People want to be remembered. Violence is an easy way to ascertain a paragraph in the history books, recording it? Even better. Approximately 132 American commit suicide a day. Have you heard of them? Each 132 of them? Likely not. Their stories are not each individually spread in digitized formats for people to laugh or be shocked at. The names of these people will only circulate amongst those who knew them, not the internet and by proxy, culture at large.
Perhaps the mention of Ronnie McNutt is a false equivalence, so to weigh this point I want to mention Anders Breivik.
I won’t waste too much time giving background on Breivik, as there remains an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to him. Breivik had a substantially high kill count compared to the Christchurch Shooter, yet remains much less revered. While the contagious affect among his admirers was immensely reveled in at the time of his massacre, his lack of a digital footprint and notoriety made his influence vastly wane. He receives occasional resurgences of popularity when new incidents happen, but compared to the Christchurch killing his influence is mostly not comparable.
Reading about his killings is one thing to his admirers.
Seeing it, an entirely different one. It gives a face, a look, an image to replicate. With Breivik, there just isn’t much in the way of his publicity as Christchurch. No decked out guns with whites supremacist dog whistles, no sonnenrad, no collective of comrades and ‘frocking degenerates.’
Conclusion
Whilst it is easy to claim adding a name makes no difference, I do agree with Schischare as these events are most contagious right after it occurred. I mean, we’re here right now, no? I don’t really have a definitive answer on what to do, but I think that we could at least not swarthe the page with his name and information about who he was.
People here should also just have more empathy and understanding of the events as a whole before making comments about not caring about societal implications and how using different language is a ‘pain.’
Lalaloopy (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Use full name but not in the lead. If readers really want to find the shooter's name, they will, so there's no point censoring it, but not featuring it as prominently is wise. A related question is what to call the shooter - "the gunman", "the shooter", "the perpetrator", or use his name? I prefer "shooter" or "gunman", not "perpetrator", since the latter seems very dry, removed, and clinical, but that is a very subjective view. For comparison, Virginia Tech shooting features the shooter's name prominently and refers to him mainly by his last name throughout, which now seems to me like a bad choice. Toadspike (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    I agree sawyer * he/they * talk 23:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    We have no evidence that shifting the man's name slightly down the page will make things any better. Making things less informative and extremely awkwardly phrased for no appreciable benefit for no reason other than to pat ourselves on the back and say we did something about a worldwide crisis like this is dumb. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Use name only once in the "perpetrator" section. Avoid any further use of his name in the article.
Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
There's no policy based reason for doing that except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Either we are censored or we are not. The perpetrator is the cause for the event, and so a substantive, well written Wikipedia article will include relevant information to the shooting, in balance with the wider societal effects and consequences. Censoring his name when he is the reason the attack happened is useless, because the page is about something he did. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • use name in infobox as its stay consistent with other articles like this, the perpetrator is no longer alive so we don’t need to worry about using words like suspect or accused. Plus I highly doubt they’ll put a deceased person on trial.
YatesTucker00090 (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some of the posts here are similar to the request not to name Brenton Tarrant as the perpetrator in the Christchurch mosque shootings. This is not in line with WP:NOTCENSORED when the information is widely available in reliable sources. As for confirmation of the Prague shooter's name, David Kozák seems correct with no real possibility of turning out to be wrong at a later date. Maybe he did want notoriety, but hiding his name in a pointy way isn't going to help.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: @PARAKANYAA:, is it really necessary to respond to every single comment on the other side? jp×g🗯️ 03:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    True I'll stop. I just think there's a few very common comments that pop up on these kinds of articles over and over and it's a bit frustrating to hash it out over and over and over. Still, my bad. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Include his name in the ibox & body, but not the lead. X2023X (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Honestly a bit depressed by this discussion - aside Lenka Hlávková who has an article, all other known victims of this attack - namely professor Jan Dlask, Lucie Špindlerová ("proofreader"), Klára Holcová ("shot putter") and Aneta Richterová ("volunteer firefighter") have been reduced to an occupation or pastime, and Magdalena Křístková isn't mentioned at all, but boy are there some strong opinions going around that the murderer's name must be plastered all over the article. Lovely. Anyway I would agree with User:Cimmerian praetor's compromise solution and just because there isn't a guideline about this kind of thing doesn't mean there couldn't or shouldn't be (something for the RfC closer to consider). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
    When I inserted it, I was not sure whether it would violate WP:MEMORIAL, although in retrospect, Klara Holcova would probably have had a better chance of inclusion since she already had prior notability. Feel free to include them and let the rest of the community decide. Borgenland (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes and fully named, if reliable sources are naming him, so should this Wikipedia article. Some1 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Not named Giving any "fame" to the killer is in my opinion deeply immoral and hurtful to many people. I believe that there should be a wikipedia-wide discussion about this. In the meantime, we should just keep in mind what damage naming him is causing, no matter whether it technically doesn't break the guidelines. Side note - there are other instances, where some names are withheld from wikipedia for ethical reasons even though they are publicly known. Such as the former names of many trans people, living or dead. Tavildara (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    Well, I think that the mere fact of the guy's name is a detail of the event just like anything else -- albeit a minor detail, not something that needs to be mentioned over and over and over. jp×g🗯️ 08:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Not mentioned in lead, and specific murder weapon not mentioned. I would like to omit the name altogether in order to not draw undue publicity to the perpetrator, but perhaps the cat is already out of the bag on that one given all the mentions in the media used here. If there is consensus to include the name (which seems likely), then I think it should be in the article prose and not in the infobox or lead. Oppose including any contested information until this RfC has completed per WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. – GnocchiFan (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes and fully named Article now has David Kozák referred to as "the perpetrator/gunman/shooter" leading to such nonsense as the police looking for "the gunman" of a shooting that hadn't happened yet. His name is reported in reliable sources so should be included here. Dougal18 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Full name should be added, in the first paragraph and wherever needed and suitable. For the historical record and full proper information without any kind of soft hiding. He is not living matters of privacy and legal prejudicing don't apply so there is no good reason to not have it. Braxmate (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Include name. Wikipedia is not censored. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. This kind of debate has come up before. The arguments for and against naming the perpetrator may need to be discussed in a more centralized place. Senorangel (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Full Name - (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) We have to put personal preference aside and execute according to policy, in this matter the perpetrator is deceased which is covered in WP:BDP policy.
MaximusEditor (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The date of the double homicide should be added at the top of the page and in the infobox

Given that the victims of the double homicide are counted in the victim count, it would be appropriate to place information about the crime at the beginning of the page and the date of the crime in the infobox and not leave it as something secondary in the "events" tab, because it could be confused.

Taking the attack at the Dendermonde daycare as an example, the perpetrator also killed a person a week before, however this victim is not counted in the information in the infobox or at the top of the page Kelsykelsykarter2 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of detailed description of perp's movement around the forest

I am of the opinion that the very detailed copying of the perp's suicide note's decription of movement around the forest during the 15 Dec murders is trivia that should not be in the article. I'd like to get some second opinions before deleting though. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I support a considerable trimming /summarizing the description as non-encyclopedic trivia. --Altenmann >talk 21:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Prague_shootings/Archive_1&oldid=1265052243"