Talk:Collierville Kroger shooting

Name of article?

This article is currently named "Memphis Kroger shooting". The shooting took place in Collierville, which is a suburb of Memphis. Is there a preferable name for the article? KConWiki (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The title has been changed per WP:PRECISE and KConWiki's above concerns. Love of Corey (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Propose Collierville Kroger shooting as the title, because the news isn't saying "Collierville shooting" but "Kroger [Collierville] shooting". Some aren't even putting the town name. (Fox Memphis), (NY Times) (Using Grocery Store, no town name.), (Washington Post), (AP News) (Using Grocery Store), (CNN). Just based on the media, Kroger or Grocery store has to be in the name. (Pings: @Love of Corey:, @KConWiki:, @GoingBatty:, @Inter&anthro:, @NovumChase:.) Elijahandskip (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  Strong support as this is definitely the case. "Collierville Kroger shooting" is the best option here for consistency with media reports and public knowledge. NovumChase (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Rename Completed with WP:Bold and the support !vote. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Name of victim

There was one victim, a woman named Olivia King, sourced by CNN. It is one name, it won't take up too much space or whatever argument people seem to have against including victim names. HumanHistory1 (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We usually don't name non-notable victims of mass shootings, regardless of the number. Space taken up isn't one of the main reasons. Irrelevance to readers as well as privacy for the victims' families are more important reasons. Jim Michael (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a long-standing principle that the inclusion of victim names requires consensus. Her name means nothing to the average reader, and adds nothing to their understanding of the incident. WWGB (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevance is the one that comes up all the time, why? Why do we have to keep information at the bare minimum? Is adding her name necessary? No, but adding in details should not be forbidden. When you say things like that it makes it sound as if we don't care about victims and they're just numbers. Also, Olivia King's family came out and revealed her identity, not the police who (as usual) take forever to release information. HumanHistory1 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The names of non-notable victims of mass shootings, mass stabbings, bombings etc. are irrelevant to over 99% of readers, so they don't help them to understand what happened. Jim Michael (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BLPNAME, we take into account a privacy interest associated with the names of low-profile living (or recently deceased) people. For the time being I don't see a need to include her name, it doesn't add anything and we have no biographical material about her, so I think the privacy interest predominates. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Once again, her family came out and revealed that it was her who passed, there is no need to worry about family privacy when they're going on social media to talk about it. So what if it doesn't add anything, it's extra information. When people go to Wikipedia, they want information, actively hiding ONE name because "less details the better" is, simply put, stupid. "One of the sons of the deceased woman" this is so long and unnecessary when we could just say "King's son". HumanHistory1 (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We won't make an exception because only one victim was killed & her family have talked to the media. She was one of many shot at random & it was mere bad luck that she was killed & good luck that all the other victims survived.

It's extra, irrelevant info. Also, it's a slippery slope to adding biographical details such as occupation, residence, family, funeral etc. Jim Michael (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Injury count

Seems there was in total 14 injured, not including the death: [1][2] One of those was reported as an anxiety attack rather than a gunshot wound, which I don't know if we're meant to include or not. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 September 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Collierville Kroger shooting → Collierville shooting – Per WP:CONCISE. This is the only notable shooting in the history of Collierville, Tennessee. The "Kroger" part isn't really necessary in the title; I think people will know what this article is talking about when they search for the shooting here. Love of Corey (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds that media reports and public knowledge seem to consistently associate the shooting with the Kroger at which it took place. The name "Collierville Kroger shooting" is, in my view, sufficiently precise. Per @Elijahandskip's comments and examples in the earlier article name discussion, "Kroger" or "grocery store" should certainly be involved in the title for clarity. NovumChase (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Most sources I can find call it the "Kroger shooting" or "Collierville Kroger shooting", and I agree with NovumChase that this is concise enough. "Collierville shooting" is if anything not specific/precise enough, and I would prefer the old title ("2021 Collierville shooting") over that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per reasons above. If you can find multiple RS that do not use the word "Kroger" or "Grocery story" in the title or lead of the article, then I feel like this requested move would have ground to stand on. But based on general media that I have seen, if you ask someone about the "Collierville shooting" they will be like "What shooting?"...But if you say anything about the Kroger or Grocery store shooting, they will know exactly what shooting you are talking about. I did an experiment with some irl friends, and out of all 8 that I asked, they all knew it by the Kroger shooting. Unfortunately, Wiki policy needs to be overlooked just based on how people know the article. That WP:CONCISE is actually a positive reason to keep it as Collierville Kroger shooting since majority of people reference that particular shooting with the Kroger. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Chrisitan

The only source that states their parents' info is AP. The source states CLEARLY that they are "Christian refugees from Myanmar." It's not anyone's job to decide what's relevant or not. Follow the source. (In case you don't understand, "refugees from Myanmar" mean Karen or Burman refugees who came via Thailand. That's why they specify because his parents are Christian Chin refugees who came via India). JamesWQ (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It is irrelevant if his PARENTS were Christian, Rastafarian or flat-earthers. It says nothing about the shooter and even less about his motive. Raising his parents’ religion is bordering on WP:SYNTH by implying it is sonehow relevant to the attack. WWGB (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

That's YOUR OPINIONS. AND YOUR OPINIONS ARE IRRELEVANT. The source states they are "Christian refugees from Myanmar." I already told you why the distinction is needed (not to confuse with other refugees who are of a very different kind). It has nothing to do with the motives. I can also argue their parents' country and refugee status are irrelevant too. So, if you remove, remove all. If you add, add all. Don't edit the source. JamesWQ (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's say if the source says he's an "Asian American from Collierville." You edit it and say an "American from Collierville." It doesn't make sense, right? JamesWQ (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy to wait and see whether other established editors think that Thang’s parents religion is any way relevant to the attack. WWGB (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Even just going off the AP/SCMP source, worked in a sushi business at the store and was the son of refugees from Myanmar who had settled in Nashville was how they introduced the context of the perpetrator. Later on they mentioned the community his parents lived in, and I will note it doesn't even actually say that he or his parents are Christian: The shooter's parents live in Nashville and are part of a community of Christian refugees from Myanmar. I agree that I don't really see what relevance this has, we don't need to go into this level of detail about his parents when there's no reason to think it is related to the shooting. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No need to aggressive there. WP:AGF. Love of Corey (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)