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]
• Include name. Wikipedia is not censored. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]