Talk:2022 Bratislava shooting

Discord mentions
I think its best we leave out any mention of discord servers the shooter has been in until a proper investigation from the authorities is conducted. I also feel its best we don’t give said servers unnecessary attention. HavocPlayz (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Nonbinary victim
One of the victims identified as a nonbinary person. I think it is not correct to refer to both victims as "men" but I do not know enough about these issues to edit the statement to be more correct. Any ideas would be welcome. Newklear007 (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I didn't even notice that. Quite an easy fix though, we don't need to refer to any of the victims by their gender. I changed it to say "people" instead. MsNobody (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you Newklear007 (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Move page to "2022 Bratislava terrorist attack" or similar
Now that it is officially classified as a terrorist attack by investigators, I suggest moving the page to the title suggested above.

This should be done as a "shooting" may refer to a mere accident, but this was a coordinated, planned attack at a minority group, so I think it's important to make that very clear. MsNobody (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly support this I wonder if we should use Bratislava or rather be more specific so "2022 Tepláren terrorist attack" or similar. Newklear007 (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While I think it'd be nice to be more specific in the title, it'd also be sort of weird considering this is the English Wikipedia. Harder for most people to find, also.
 * I'd say "2022 Bratislava terror attack" is probably our best bet. Shortened the word terrorist to just terror to make it a bit shorter and less unwieldy, I guess. MsNobody (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't have article titles like that, but we have many with the same format, including: 2022 Buffalo shooting, 2022 Cetinje shooting, 2022 Soweto shooting & 2022 Tel Aviv shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Although the crime was just horrendous, I am afraid I have to disagree with this suggestion. As @Jim Michael 2 pointed out, many similar events are named as "[Year] [City] shooting".
 * For example, see the comparable 2022 Oslo shooting, which is also considered an act of terrorism. Also, look at this list of terrorist incidents in 2022, where article names contain mostly massacre/bombing/shooting/attack words.
 * Regardless, since the police already classified the event as a terrorist attack, it seems justified to add the Bratislava shooting to that list, doesn't it? Alpyn (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Layout of sections
Please stop putting the Background section before the Shooting section. It does not follow the typical layout of other similar articles (see "2022 Oslo shooting") and also makes the article significantly less legible and more confusing by breaking it up into smaller unordered sections. This article does not have to follow chronological order, it is not a news story, but an encyclopedia entry. MsNobody (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't name the shooter
I've spotted a bit of back-and-forth reverting concerning the perpetrator's name.

The issue of whether or not to name the perpetrator in the encyclopedia is not that clear. Let me elaborate on why we should not name the shooter.

Current practice on Wikipedia
Unfortunately, as far as I know, there isn't any straightforward guideline on this topic in Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Moreover, in most Wikipedia articles of similar events, the perp's name is listed, as seen in the 2022 Oslo shooting or 2020 Vienna attack, to name a few. However, why we couldn't take the lead here?

Recent research
There is a growing body of research indicating that not showing mass killers' names and photos is a pretty pragmatic and sensible proposal, as suggested in the paper called Don't Name Them, Don't Show Them, But Report Everything Else: A Pragmatic Proposal for Denying Mass Killers the Attention They Seek and Deterring Future Offenders from 2018 with 123 citations. In the paper, the authors propose to report everything else about these atrocities in as much detail as requested but refrain from publishing the identities or pictures of mass shooters.

Their conclusions are also aligned with the campaign Don't name them of Texas State University, which offers the following reasons for omitting the names:


 * Some suspects are motivated by a desire for fame, notoriety, and/or recognition.
 * When the media focuses on the attacker, they provide this fame, notoriety and recognition.
 * This focus allows the attacker to accomplish one of their goals, and validates their life and actions.
 * Media coverage can create a contagion effect producing more shootings.
 * Some shootings/attacks may be prevented by removing one of the incentives.
 * We encourage the media and others not to name the suspects or focus on their lives.
 * The shooters/attackers should be as unrecognized in their deaths as they were in their lives.
 * Media coverage should focus on the victims and the heroes.

Conclusion
Denník N also adopted this approach; I applaud its bold policy to bypass the murderer's name. The killer is already dead and had not been known publicly before the shooting. The shooter's case is of low importance, so unless you provide compelling arguments for why the name should be shown here, I propose we omit it. Alpyn (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles about attacks routinely name the perpetrators when they've been reported by reliable sources. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for activism or censorship, the role of Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia, is to provide as much relevant information as possible in an objective manner about the subject of each article. The name of the perpetrator is relevant, this article is covering their actions and the impact they had, therefore they should be named or there should be no article at all. Simply naming the perpetrator and providing relevant background information about them is not glorification and there is little evidence that it influences others to commit similar acts. The paper that you referenced, although it makes suggestions about the potential impact of implementing such a policy, does not provide any evidence to suggest that not naming perpetrators has any positive effect in reducing the frequency of these events. Furthermore, and more relevant to this case in particular, the perpetrator explicitly mentioned that they had no interest in infamy and they viewed their name as being of "little importance."
 * Censoring information about a case is not "bold policy", it is frequently practiced by authoritarian regimes and it seems to have little effect on reducing the frequency of similar situations happening in those countries. On Wikipedia there is no precedent for this "policy", and for that reason, in addition to the other reasons I have given, I think that the name of the perpetrator, which is now confirmed, Juraj Krajcik, should be included where the article makes reference to a "perpetrator" or "attacker". NilBill (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Clarity of information
The article states "The murdered Juraj Vankulič was a non-binary person," but also claims Juraj Vankulič was the perpetrator which is backed up by Dennik N news source. Given that the perpetrator published an anti-LGBT (among other sentiments) manifesto, I'm wondering if this information about the perpetrator's identity is correct, or if there's been confusion with a victim. Either way, as it stands now and without knowing which info is correct, calling the perpetrator who took their own life "murdered" seems incorrect. I do not know any Slovak and don't feel comfortable basing edits off of just Google Translate, is there anyone following this story who'd be willing to help clean it up? Cardiganner (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)