Talk:Uherský Brod shooting

"In the country's peacetime history"

As the 1975 event happened in Czechoslovakia (albeit still within peacetime in the land now known as the Czech Republic), does it deserve to be called the worst in "the country's" peacetime history? '''tAD''' (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is particularly problematic, as both the unfortunate events took place within the borders of today's Czech Republic, and they are comparable. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

OK '''tAD''' (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, if we wanted to be technical, Czechoslovakia was a federation since 1960, with Czech and Slovak (until 1990 "Socialist") Republics as its constituent parts. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Motive

According to media, the most probable motive seems a mix of the man's mental illness and perceived attempt of the state to take the guns away (in connection with the mental illness). Apparently, he decided to conduct a revenge on society in general. I am not sure how to write into the article. Source: http://zpravy.aktualne.cz/domaci/strelci-prodlouzili-v-lednu-zbrojni-pas-rodina-byla-proti/r~ec509042bdab11e4a7d8002590604f2e (already in the article) Can anyone help? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

misdemeanor

misdemeanor should be changed to either petty offense or infraction - throughout the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaultsuit (talk • contribs) 08:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure about it. The dictionary translates "přestupek" as misdemeanor. But I am open to hear the reasons for change. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

---

CONSENSUS DISCUSSION

OK, let's discuss these edits, which I believe violate synthesis and speculation. Check diffs as needed. Quis separabit? 13:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, particularly the following was deleted for not good reason:

In the Czech Republic, pentagenarian and sexagenarian men are the group with the highest suicide rate, as well as the one that commits the largest murderous acts. Many of these men became economically unsuccessful after the Velvet revolution: both murderers in Frenštát and Brod were long-term unemployed, blamed society for their failures and had frequent conflicts with their neighbors.

Media further pointed out that in the atheist Czech society, pubs and restaurants play a very important societal function. Targeting a restaurant in the Czech Republic thus has the same symbolism as does targeting a church in other countries.

Both information are relevant to the article (most mass murders in US are committed by teenagers, in Western Europe by 30-40 yo males), they also point to the motive (without expressly speculating about it), the symbolism is also clear. No speculation in either. In addition, all information was taken from the linked source - a weekly that deals with the shooting in articles taking over 8 pages - no synthesis was made by me.

I have some understanding for deletion of the Charlie Hebdo and Copenhagen mention, even though those were also directly taken from the linked source.

Also, Quis separabit? should make his head. First, the reason for deletion was speculation and synthesis, now it is NPOV. I am puzzled, what happened to the speculation? Why is it NPOV now? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply

"Also, @Rms125a@hotmail.com should make his head" -- I don't know what this means.

I corrected the text to reflect speculation, not NPOV, not that that really changes anything. The point of this exercise is to solicit the opinions of other editors, I would point out. Quis separabit? 17:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What I meant is that you first said that you deleted because it is likely speculation. When I point out that it is all well sourced, then you write it is NPOV. Still, you are not pointing out in which way is information about the fact that both killers were from high suicide/murder risk age, that both were long term unemployed and had conflicts with other people not neutral. Also how is the information that the Czech society is atheist and that pubs serve important societal role NPOV, similar to churchers elsewhere, NPOV. I don't know how to react to you since you have put no basis of your arguments, only your feelings regarding NPOV on the table. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Forget NPOV, focus on synthesis and speculation .Quis separabit? 17:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I won't forget it. You are just making it up as you go.

As regards synthesis - as I said, I haven't written anything that wasn't directly in the sources.

Speculation - please be precise in pointing out what exactly is speculative about the content you deleted. It is hard to answer something that you don't say. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not making it up as I go. I have held that the text in question comprises synthesis and speculation. I erroneously added NPOV, which I withdrew as it was not included in my original opposition, and you are clinging to it because you think it is some kind of loophole. I think we should wait for other (uninvolved) editors to express their opinions re this matter. I will abide by majority consensus. Quis separabit? 18:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not loophole, but bad faith trolling. Still, you have not put a single argument forward apart from "I think it is synthesis/speculation". You haven't stated what makes it synthesis or speculative. Please do so. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

All of the deleted content I've seen definitely sounds like speculation. Unless we have something that can definitely tie the gunman's motives to that content, I would be in huge support of that deletion. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not add in speculated motives. If an actual motive is revelead it needs to be from a reliable source. Everything that deleted should have been deleted. Benbuff91 20:52, 9 March 2015

How exactly is, for example, this a speculation??? Media further pointed out that in the atheist Czech society, pubs and restaurants play a very important societal function. Targeting a restaurant in the Czech Republic thus has the same symbolism as does targeting a church in other countries. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Connection to other mass murder

I am not challenging the sources or anything, but there is no indication of how both incidents are related. I don't know the Czech language, nor do I have an online translate tool, so can someone find a reason why these mass murders are linked and put it in the 'Background' section? Even if the reasons are actually not disclosed yet? That kind of information is unclear. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It was making more sense with all the content that has been deleted and is considered speculation as per discussion above.

Czech media and experts immediately linked the Uherský Brod massacre to a mass murder that took place two years before in Frenštát pod Radhoštěm, another Moravian town lying 90 kms northwards. In the attack, a 57-years-old man attempted to blow up a block of flats after having been ordered to vacate his flat that had been foreclosed by creditors. During night, the murderer first blocked both exits from the building, and then removed and opened the main gas supply into the building's corridor. A neighbor disturbed the murderer, who proceeded to set the gas on fire before the gas could spread throughout the whole building. Still, the explosion and subsequent fire was large enough to demolish part of the building, killing the perpetrator and 5 other people immediately, wounding 11 others, one of whom died on 17 February 2015.

In the Czech Republic, pentagenarian and sextagenarian men are the group with the highest suicide rate, as well as the one that commits the largest murderous acts. Many of these men became economically unsuccessful after the Velvet revolution: both murderers in Frenštát and Brod were long-term unemployed, blamed society for their failures and had frequent conflicts with their neighbors.

Kovář was probably further inspired by Charlie Hebdo attack and 2015 Copenhagen shootings in seeing how large worldwide publicity both of the attacks received, which apparently led Kovář to contact media during the act.

Before the murders, Kovář's family became worried about his mental state to the point that they contacted authorities in connection with his possession of gun license. Just four days before the murders, Kovář had received a police request to present a new health clearance, otherwise his license would be revoked. Before entering the Družba restaurant, Kovář visited at least two other venues. Those, however, had fewer customers, and Kovář left them immediately after entering.

Media further pointed out that in the atheist Czech society, pubs and restaurants play a very important societal function. Targeting a restaurant in the Czech Republic thus has the same symbolism as does targeting a church in other countries.

This is based on a series of articles from the most read weekly newspaper that deals with the fact that most Czech murderers - as well as people who commit suicide are 50 - 60 something year old long term unemployed men. Blažek was actually the largest mass murder since the 1993 dissolution of Czechoslovakia up until the shooting. For reasons that evade me, there seems to be consensus that pointing out to the fact that Czech media and experts put the shooting on the background of the fact that the man is actually from the part of population that is most likely to commit such an act - as well as suicide - is considered speculation and thus was removed. And here we are left with Blažek making introduction to the background without the other information.

Regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

REPLY (sorry, don't see how to post proper reply)

I do agree the article made more sense prior to the deletions. I also find the "social status" link between the two Czech incidents legitimate and based on facts. I've got reservations to the short one-sentence Hebdo and Copenhagen reference. I'd remove that as speculative if only for the use of the words "probably" and "apparently" in that statement.

Czech my native tongue btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.142.242 (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Uherský Brod shooting/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 23:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Third on my "to review" list. BenLinus1214^talk 23:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this on your list. Consider me ready to do my best to fix any possible issues. Regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cimmerian praetor: I'm very sorry, but I forgot that I would be out of town for a few days. I'm sure to review when I get back. Thanks, BenLinus1214^talk 14:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No need for apologies, @BenLinus1214:. It's been actually in the wait for review for so long I have forgotten about it and it was quite a pleasant surprise to see someone pick it up :) Many thanks, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cimmerian praetor: Ugh, I've been swamped with other stuff since I got back. But here I am! First review of round two…

@BenLinus1214: I will comment under the issues raised here first and then try to address them in the article.

General

• There's a lot of sources in Czech, accepted AGF.

Infobox

• Why is the image of the Czech Republic's placement in Europe necessary? Is there a relevant guideline that supports this?

I suppose many overseas readers may not be aware where exactly the country is. Many often think that it is a muslim country somewhere in Russian east (i.e. Chechnya)

That's kind of funny. Especially because it's on Commons, it's fine. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• Should probably be "two deadliest mass murders". Also, link to mass murder.

Done.

Background

• It's a bit odd if you start this section with "In the wake of the shooting"—maybe just "the shooting was eventually linked…"

Well, this part was completely different, but then some felt it is too much of a speculation. Please see the original content here and let me know what you think.

I agree with that user's revert--it was a bit speculative. However, I would still prefer if it started with my suggestion. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Also, how was it linked to the other shooting?

As per above, the deleted sentence was explaining that: "In the Czech Republic, pentagenarian and sextagenarian men are the group with the highest suicide rate, as well as the one that commits the largest murderous acts. Many of these men became economically unsuccessful after the Velvet revolution: both murderers in Frenštát and Brod were long-term unemployed, blamed society for their failures and had frequent conflicts with their neighbors."'

Just add that they were connected by similarities between perpetrators. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Done.

• "Just four days before the murders…" there's something fishy with this sentence at the end—maybe "to present a new health clearance under the threat of revoking his license."

Done. I don't like the word threat though. This is a legal process and he is bound to either be cleared or will lose the license. Please feel free to change it to something more appropriate.

• Before entering the Družba restaurant…" what other venues did he enter?

This has not been specified, but they were both close by (walking distance).

That's fine. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Next sentence—are there any more details in the source?

In the other venues, he only entered, looked around and immediately left. Otherwise no more details.

Also fine in that case. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Družba attack

• This section should probably be retitled "Attack" or "Shooting"—because the page is named Uhersky Brod shooting, a casual reader might not know the name of the restaurant and thus skip this over.

I renamed it to "murders". I would like to rename the whole article to 2015 Uherský Brod mass murder, what is your take on that?

I kind of like the current name, but you can change it if you want. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Where is "the restaurant's busiest time" thing in the source—also, why is this relevant? The next sentence kind of contradicts it as well—twenty people is the restaurant's busiest time?

Most restaurants have two peaks - around midday as they serve lunches and then in the evening and night when people come mostly to drink. It should mean most busy during day. As regards 20 - it is a small venue with just a few tables, so it was relatively busy. Should that be clarified?

Yes, that part should be clarified. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Done.

• It's a bit jarring to skip to just "While on stairs leading to the restaurant" without explaining Kovar's next actions. Also, what does "got ahead" mean? Had Kovar already opened fire?

At that moment, he entered the building where restaurant is, but not the restaurant itself. He was not yet shooting, and the other guy (only who later survived) was rushing to defecate in the bathroom. He ran first directly to the bathroom and when he sat down, the shooting started.

I would put some of that in the article. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Done.

• The infobox image in the Uhersky Brod article might be helpful just to give the reader a visual clue.

I am not sure what you mean.

File:MasarykSquareUherskyBrod. Unless it's not the area in which the shooting took place. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It is actually about 15 minutes walk from there. I could not find the street where it happened on commons.

• "In the Czech Republic, all policemen…" reformat this a bit—"the policemen were armed with the standard equipment for Czech police officers:…"

Done.

• "although all the people inside were most likely already dead." Were they? Also, are you speaking of all the people in the restaurant, including those who got away, or just the ones currently in the restaurant? Also, this kind of sounds like it's from the police's POV, so if that's the case, put a "the police believed" before this clause.

At that time, police believed that people inside are still alive. However, according to the autopsy everyone must have been dead by that time. Unofficially, the perpetrator shot each one of the victims in the head (apparently before the police arrived, since then he only shot on the first two officers and then on self at the end), this was however never officially confirmed, so I didn't include it into the article.

That's fine then. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The tactical team breached…" Was this the exact time he stopped communicating? If not, how long before was the last communication?

It took some time, I've edited that.

• Also, combine that paragraph with the previous one.

Done.

• Hiding in the toilet? Or behind the toilet?

It was bathroom originally and someone changed it to "in the toilet". Edited.

Perpetrator and victims

• Probably "the couple" instead of just "them"

Edited.

• Did the neighbors describe any specific incidents?

I didn't want to go into details on the murderer apart from what was necessary.

That's fine as well. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have any names of the victims?

It is illegal in the Czech Republic to report their names without their consent, so we have only Gabriel who survived "in the toilet". There may be some known names, but I don't think its appropriate to report some and leave others out.

Oh, okay. You don't have to change anything then. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Cool graph! Could you put a source in the caption?

Done.

• Is the first paragraph of this section necessary? It's just background, and other than Kovar's license getting renewed, there's no real direct connection to the article's subject. If you want to keep it, can you persuade me why?

Well, it is general introduction into the part which deals with legal guns ownership in the Czech Republic. The following two sections show that the authorities were supposed to take the license & guns away a long time before, but you can't get to that point without explaining how the system works.

Hm. Well, it's difficult for the reader to keep that in their head for the whole section, so would it be possible to split up the relevant portions of that paragraph to the beginning of the relevant sections? BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll think about it. I've added an introductory sentence to that part. Is that OK?

• What misdemeanors did they commit?

It's called "misdemeanors against general order. These include disturbing "night peace" (being loud from 22PM to 6AM), "public indignation" (i.e. shouting courses at people during daytime), littering on larger scale, small damage to property, etc. It is difficult to translate. No details on what particular they did were published, apart from the complaints of neighbors which I intentionally omitted. Apparently the wife was often shouting on people from window, the guy was threatening them. The sources on this however vary and contradict themselves.

Okay, you don't have to change anything. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Use transitional language at the beginning of the second para of that misdemeanors section—The renewal of his license was due to the fact that…"

I am not sure what you mean. Could you please rewrite it yourself?

done.

• 26 February 2015 is a meaningless date—"as of two days after the attack"

I deleted the whole part; it is obvious that he didn't even try to pass, however I could not locate a source that would deal with it.

• Does "Active shooter engagement" mean the conditions under which the police attack the shooter? Or not? Whatever it is, make it clear somewhere.

It is a manual how to engage active shooter. I am not sure how to make it clearer.

I think my criticism stems from the fact that the first two in the table do not have to do with the police. why are they in there?

I see, that is part of understanding the dynamics of active shooter scenario. So that the policemen at place realize that they need to act immediately and not stand around and wait, like it happened with Breivik in Norway.

• "Police said the first responders…" Something's grammatically wrong in this sentence; put a semicolon between "perpetrator" and "they" instead of a comma.

Done.

• "Since there are 8 tactical teams…" "Because" not "since"--I'm a stickler on that one

Done. Sorry for my poor English.

No, you're actually very good! Most native speakers don't get that one. :) BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Is almost all of that paragraph cited to one source?

Yes.

• I might split the paragraph beginning with "On 10 March 2015"--it's a bit difficult to navigate.

Please feel free to do so. I put it into one because it all leads to the final sentence that explains that passing of command is under criticism.

• If it's all cited to ref 39, you should pepper it throughout with ref names.

Done.

• "didn't get the whole picture" is a bit informal

Done.

• "the most popular Czech newspaper" is non-neutral—if you want to keep something like it, you need to source it and rephrase as "one of the most popular Czech newspapers". But I don't think that clause is relevant.

Done.

Reactions

• I might actually flip the "aftermath" and "reaction" sections in order to preserve a vague chronological order—reactions tended to come first.

This is quite irrelevant part, I'd prefer it to be lower.

Alright. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Instead of starting with "Terrorism was ruled out…" (because this is a passive claim) how about "Milan Chovanec ruled out terrorism as a motive for the murders"

I've deleted that sentence.

• Also, why is Chovanec hyperlinked here but not in the previous section? It should be flipped.

Hyperlinked above.

• A file of Chovanec might be nice in place of one of the quotes.

I think the quote has its place there. The fact that the president looks at it from the perspective from mental health and not firearms accessibility is important.

• "Mayor Patrik Kunčar…" Mayor of what? Uhersky Brod?

Done.

See also

• You should probably tell us why the linked page is related--I can't see a direct connection.

Well, it's another mass murder that happened in the Czech Republic and which has linked article. Link to the mass murder mentioned in intro would be welcome, however no such article exists in English. Since the murders were committed with gas and not a firearm it didn't get much of international attention (newspapers always focus on firearms).

I just made it clear how it is connected. BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @BenLinus1214:

@Cimmerian praetor: I'm done now! Very close to passing. :) BenLinus1214^talk 23:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Please look at my responses and let me know whether there is something more I should do.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cimmerian praetor: Just respond to my responses that need responding to and we should be good to go! BenLinus1214^talk 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@BenLinus1214: I think I've addressed all by now. Can we proceed, please? :) Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cimmerian praetor: I'm satisfied with everything now. Pass. By the way, I was wondering if we could do a quid pro quo arrangement at GAN--I have several articles nominated in the television section. However, if you are uncomfortable reviewing GA nominations because you are not a native speaker or are not familiar with the coverage of arts topics on WP, that's perfectly okay as well. No pressure! :) BenLinus1214^talk 22:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@BenLinus: let me take a look at one (please choose yourself) and I'll see whether that is something I can do. Truth to be told I don't have much time for wikipedia lately, my current project is way behind what it should have been by now.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe that "My Mother, the Fiend" is the oldest one, so that would probably be the best one to check out. Once again, no pressure! :) BenLinus1214^talk 08:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

References