Talk:Oxford High School shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

Additional information on the specifics of the gun used in the shooting:

The gun reportedly used in the shooting (according to Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard) was a 9mm Sig Sauer SP2022 handgun, a type of semi-automatic polymer frame pistol. The gun still contained 7 live rounds at the time it was taken from the suspect. 69.14.221.80 (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  melecie  t - 05:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

time zone

Please change EDT to EST. Here is a source. [1] 73.167.238.120 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed I agree, US went from EDT to EST on 1st Sunday in November (when the clocks went back). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

source or sources in introduction

Can a source or sources be included in the introduction? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources are not required in the lead. Content in the lead should be revisited (and sourced) in the body of the article. WWGB (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI, there are two sources in the first paragraph. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide the text of the lead, with citations formatted and in place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that there are two sources in the first paragraph, even though the first paragraph does not need them. Sorry if my comment came across as an edit request. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Why is the title italicized?

I'm not sure I've ever seen that before on Wikipedia, except of course for a title of a book, film, or the like. There are so many oddities with this article, and this is just one more. Moncrief (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I will say that there are a number of unusual circumstances involved, which has likely contributed to the oddities in the article. Regarding the title, I did see that earlier, but at this moment it looks like it is not italicized. (If no one has made an edit that changed this, maybe MediaWiki was briefly acting up?) Edit: Just noticed that Ionmars10 has made an edit to the title to remove the italicized text. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021 (2)

The sophmore in custody has been identified as Ethan Crumbley, so change the accused part in the box to the name https://nypost.com/2021/12/01/michigan-school-shooting-suspect-identified-as-ethan-crumbley/ PaienPaien (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The New York Post is not considered a reliable source, per WP:RSP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Not going to be the one to get into it now, but it's mainstream news at this point: [2] (Detroit News, large newspaper), [3] (Wall Street Journal), etc. Moncrief (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC) EDIT: I checked the talk page first; I see the name is in the article now. Never mind. Moncrief (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Article title

Oxford High School is ambiguous name, as there are many schools with that name. Should we add Michigan to the article title, to clarify that it's Oxford, Michigan (and not Oxford, England which is the primary topic for the name Oxford)? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

There haven't been notable shootings at any of the others. Jim Michael (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

True but just based on seeing that name, many people might assume it was in Oxford, England. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:PRECISE and you'll see we try to stay as broad as possible and not get too precise unless it is needed. Also, if you examine Category:School killings in the United States and Category:School massacres in the United States you'll see schools for Oakland and Santa Fe don't have states in the title, even though there are many places with those names. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Video of law enforcement knocking on door

I'm not entirely sure why this video of the officer knocking on a classroom door and the occupants of that room mistaking him for the shooter warrants mention in this article. They were simply (and quite inarguably) mistaken. It's a non-issue. Even the occupants of the classroom learned of their mistake mere seconds afterward. Why are we giving this video such undue weight? --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It was apparently a viral video according to sources and it was in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Additionally, I have not seen any proof that "the occupants of the classroom learned of their mistake" as sources describe them fleeing out the window where they encountered multiple sheriff deputies. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly as you said, the video literally shows them encountering law enforcement officers who tell them that the building is secure pretty immediately after leaving the room. I don't think the virality of the video makes it notable enough to mention in the article, especially not in such a misleading way as to suggest that there was a genuine question as to whether the shooter was impersonating a LEO. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If it was exactly as I said, they would have known prior to uploading the video. They did not know who was behind the door after they escaped and there was unintentional misinformation posted online that the Sheriff's office has cleared up. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't warrant inclusion, particularly not at paragraph length. A clear case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That paragraph also has an WP:OR flavor, with all the detail about the word "bro." I strongly encourage deleting. Moncrief (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose because:

• If removed, others might see an article about it without knowing it's debunked, and then add this content to the article, furthering misinformation
• Many normally credible news outlets (I can give you examples if you'd like) falsely described it as done by Crumbley, causing confusion
• That paragraph fits smoothly in with the rest of the section
• It's actually interesting

Dunutubble (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

1) Then we'll edit out the misinformation; 2) Lots of information in the wake of a shooting is incorrect. Not sure what the point is of this comment. 3) This is is your subjective option; I certainly don't agree. 4) See WP:PPOV and, even more specifically, WP:INTERESTING. Moncrief (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've shortened the paragraph to two sentences and eliminated all the unnecessary detail about why they suspected him of being the shooter, the statements made at the press conference, etc. It seems a fair compromise to me but I'm of course open to comment. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted that edit as I didn't see a consensus about the removal of the majority of the information and felt that the revision was lacking in information. Its a first hand account and shows the emotions that the students went through at the very least, as mentioned above it has become a talking point and there are many articles about it specifically and has been aired on live TV. It should be included and if it needs to be parred down in detail, then do so without generics. Leaky.Solar (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am currently opposed to the edit you made because it implies to me that the video made it clear that the officer was behind the door. It was the Sherriff's office who made that clear. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Denniscabrams, Moncrief, Dunutubble, and Leaky.Solar: I have made two edits to the section to attempt to resolve this. I doubt that they resolve all of the issues, but it does at least make clear that the students were under a mistaken impression and the Sheriff attempting to clear up the confusion. Feel free to edit this, revert this, or give your concerns here. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of too much problems with those edits. Dunutubble (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Article has inconsistencies

The last paragraph in “Immediate aftermath” states that “Sheriff Bouchard said the gunman had never knocked on a door based on video footage”, but later in the article you can read “Bouchard also said there were reports that Crumbley had attempted to pose as law enforcement in order to enter barricaded classrooms.”, which is contradictory. 2600:1007:B12F:668B:D575:306C:181E:47E3 (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph is a mess. The whole incident lasted less than five minutes, and I think all initial reports that Crumbley might have impersonated law enforcement have been debunked. Moncrief (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The Accused section still fails to recognize that the "bro" incident was a mistake. Dunutubble (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Updated so that it does mention it was a case of mistaken identity. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dunutubble (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Terrorism charge - explanation?

Some news articles have addressed why Crumbley has a "terrorism" charge despite the motive being unknown. example. Terrorism typically requires an ideological or political motive - something not known yet. Should we offer a brief explanation explaining that Michigan defines terrorism a bit differently, and why Crumbley was charged with it despite not having a known motive? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 22:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally agree with your definition of terrorism being either politically motivated, or some ideology that is well-documented. I think the state is just trying to throw everything they can at him (with good reason) and the state law about what constitutes 'terrorism' may be on the un-scholarly side of intellectual thought ... or well beyond what this encyclopedia considers terrorism to be. I looked around and could not find an RS supporting the reasoning for the DA's charge as of yet. Some sort of 'mayhem' would make clearer sense, but there is a lot of emotion in the air, and elections will be coming up. 50.111.58.135 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am in favor of a brief explanation. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Added to Legal proceedings section. WWGB (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Can wounded be used instead of injured?

Reading the text, stating that the victims of the assault were "injured" seems imprecise, as that word connotes accidentally harm. "Wounded" is better, as it better conveys that there were cuts in the flesh (literal) and the intentional nature of the harm suffered. 173.53.73.69 (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It is standard language for an “attack” article: killed and injured. The injured are not always the result of a weapon. Some may be injured during the course of fleeing the attack. WWGB (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Both share similar definitions, but sometimes differ depending on context. From a medical perspective, "wounded" would be preferred in instances involving an open wound in the form of cut, tear, or puncture. In a military incident, you typically use "wounded" to describe a non-fatal casualty. For civilian incidents, "injured" is more common. They are very interchangeable in most situations though. When in doubt, go with how the source describes it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Detroit?

Why is Detroit mentioned? There are several other big cities closer to Oxford than Detroit. Please revise. 2603:9009:704:9446:6899:7BE6:CD7A:9B1E (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No, Detroit is the closest large city. Jim Michael (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That is false. This is the logical way to describe the location of Oxford: it's part of the larger Detroit metropolitan area. All other "big cities" nearby are also suburbs of Detroit. Moncrief (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Oxford is part of Metro Detroit. It makes sense. A shooting in Peel would be considered a shooting in Toronto. Dunutubble (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

Change "Those killed were 14-year old Hana St. Juliana, 16-year old Tate Myre, and 17-year old Justin Shilling. On December 1, one of the critically injured, 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin, died, raising the death toll to four." to "Those killed were 14-year old Hana St. Juliana, 16-year old Tate Myre, and 17-year old Madisyn Baldwin. On December 1, one of the critically injured, 17-year-old Justin Shilling, died, raising the death toll to four." Joshuaalee59 (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Looks like this is taken care of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverted because we exclude victims' names unless there's consensus to make an exception. Jim Michael (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's actually not what we do, but some editors have decided to be the anti-victim brigade when it comes to school shootings and it really makes me question their motivations. 90+% of mass shooting articles list victims. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please consider Wikilinking Terrorism

in the article; Murder is Wiki-linked but not terrorism. I believe more people know what "murder" is; as it's more well-known than "terrorism". Thanks in advance for considering this. IrishLas (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

I would just like to add a photo of Ethan Crumbley, for people to get an impression of how he looks. Alphawolf13390 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. We would also need an image with a compatible license. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Including victims' names in the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is an ongoing discussion above, this RfC is purely disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the names of the victims in this shooting be included anywhere in the article? Love of Corey (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong support inclusion per the victims' inclusion in reliable sources. We should not hide information present in numerous reliable sources unless there is a strong reason to do so -- none has been presented here. Including their names makes the article prose less awkward and in some cases provides very helpful context (such as the proposal to rename the stadium after Tate Myre). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The editor closing this RfC should take account of the opinions expressed above at Talk:Oxford High School shooting#Names of victims, which were contributed in good faith before this RfC was begun. WWGB (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support We need to avoid falling into the media trap of over-focusing on accused murderers and downplaying the victims. There have been efforts described in detail and with links by other editors above, to correct this trap. Some have observed that most media outlets are just listing the four names. Most, perhaps, but not all. Here is an example of an excellent media outlet, National Public Radio, describing each of the students who were killed. A neutral Wikipedia article about a mass shooting ought to name those who were killed if the number is manageable. Four names is a reasonable number. Let me also add that I am concerned about the cynical and callous tone of some of the remarks by a few editors in the discussion above. Please be aware that friends and families of the dead may be reading this discussion, and conduct yourselves accordingly.

The five most important people to this event are the accused murderer and the four fellow students that he apparently shot to death. After that come his parents who have also been arrested. The article mentions many people by name: the sheriff, an undersheriff, a prosecutor, a philanthropist and an assortment of politicians. I do not see why all those peripheral people should be named but not the students who were shot to death. Devoting lots of attention to accused murderers and zero attention to the victims is a pernicious trend. We can do better than that.Cullen328 (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

With the exception of Undersheriff McCabe, all those "peripheral people" are blue links. Big difference. WWGB (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

People without blue links are mentioned in Wikipedia articles all the time, and nothing in policies or guidelines discourages that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

Gun Photo and Accused

The photo of the weapon is unnecessary. It doesn’t serve a legitimate purpose other than to visually promote the weapon itself. The information about the weapon used in the shooting is already listed in the article, which is enough.

The accused section also seems misplaced. This information should be relocated into the background or the court case proceedings so that the accused isn’t given as much personal attention. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's there because it helps the article. Readers understand the background of this event, and I also don't see how posting an image of a gun "promotes" it of any kind (it's also in an article about a mass murder of children-don't think that makes it appear too glamourous).

I have reverted the edits removing it because there is no consensus on the talk page to do so. I will accept its removal if the general consensus does not support the image. Dunutubble (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain how it helps the article? Bingobunnybaby (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't revert an edit while waiting for a response on an ongoing discussion, please. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain how it helps this article? Bingobunnybaby (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't see its usefulness, but at least wait until you hear from other users on this. You're not getting reverted for nothing, you know. Love of Corey (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks Bingobunnybaby (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have often wondered why shooting articles go into such detail and imagery of the weapon. Most readers would be satisfied to know that it was a handgun, long run, assault rifle etc. As an outsider, I cannot begin to understand the American gun culture, but I see no benefit in reporting that the weapon was a "SuperBanger XYZ123", or showing a photo. Readers will know what a handgun looks like, without requiring a photo. Personally, I find it rather ghoulish. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how an image of the gun helps. It's black, has bullets, looks like a handgun. Nothing unusual or special. I believe the gun model should be linked in text, not the image caption. I don't see how having an image helps, there isn't much it can contribute. It's a handgun. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 04:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

So can we agree to remove it? Bingobunnybaby (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. Probably should let this ride for a week or so. Bingobunnybaby (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a visual aid, but it seems like there isn't really an argument for keeping it when it could just be linked as WhoAteMyButter mentioned. As a suggestion to why from WWGB's comment, I believe the likeliest reason is that an uncommon weapon was used in a past shooting, causing it to be added to that article and leading to an unintentional pattern of including it on future articles by default. That is current the best reason I can think of at this time. Regardless, I believe that the image should be removable at this point and this discussion be closed early, given that there has been significant traffic to this talk page and there have been no replies in defense of including the image. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)