Talk:2023 Prague shootings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reidgreg (talk | contribs) at 01:04, 31 December 2023 (→‎Requested move 23 December 2023: acronyms). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Title

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

I'm fine with the current title for now Marginataen (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
+1 for either Charles University shooting or Prague university shooting. Happieryet (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for Charles. Too many unis in Prague. Borgenland (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with Charles University shooting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You can edit the article and add more sources? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: Toadspike Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 18:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's literally in the article? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just don't name him in the lead. His name is given lower down. Abductive (reasoning) 19:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SUSPECT. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request for comment on naming the shooter

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)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been linked to from WP:DISCORD. jp×g🗯️ 03:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Fully named. This is an encyclopedia, we document facts. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    I agree sawyer * he/they * talk 23:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment: @PARAKANYAA:, is it really necessary to respond to every single comment on the other side? jp×g🗯️ 03:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Include his name in the ibox & body, but not the lead. X2023X (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Yes and fully named, if reliable sources are naming him, so should this Wikipedia article. Some1 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
His surname is not Ukrainian, it's perfectly common in Czechia, please stop peddling nonsense. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Requested move 23 December 2023

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)[reply]

*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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia newbie here. What do these acronyms stand for? Happieryet (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose per @Pawnkingthree. — Eric0892 (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How about "2023 Charles University Shootings"? 60.48.168.105 (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how about 2023 Prague shootings? 47.202.136.65 (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I would not consider them casualties of the event, but pertinent part of the article. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No worries, thank you of alerting me to the other guidelines and discussions, I appreciate it. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Prague_shootings&oldid=1192734793"