Talk:2021 Oxford High School shooting

Motive

"Ethan Crumbley hoped that the shooting would “cause Biden to get impeached” according to an alleged diary entry."

Is this something that we should update on the right-side information bar? Im aware that its already in the Wikipedia page

False Terrorism Label

I understand that Wikipedia is just going by the definition used by the state of Michigan since that is where this happened, but it's very misleading to call this shooting a "terrorist attack". I live in Michigan, and I know we legally consider all mass causality incidents or plots to be "Terrorism" because our legal definition is different. This does not suit the international or dictionary definitions, and Wikipedia includes this incident alongside actual terrorist attacks without being able to explain why the Oxford High School shooting is somehow a terrorist attack.

And to further prove that Wikipedia has a double standard, Wikipedia has labelled the 2022 Buffalo shooting as a terrorist attack. Payton Gendron, the perpetrator of that shooting, was not charged with terrorism although his incident matches the international definition. Objectively speaking, Gendron carried out a terrorist attack while Crumbley did not. You can maybe argue that because Michigan defines terrorism as exactly what Crumbley did, that's why it's terrorism but if that's the case, don't call the Buffalo shooting terrorism, even if it fits all definitions besides the legal definition in New York where it was considered a "hate crime."

It's just factually incorrect to consider this terrorism according to literally every official definition of terrorism besides Michigan and probably a few other states. The Oxford High School shooting is referenced as a terrorist attacks on the Wikipedia page, "List of terrorist incidents in 2021" meanwhile it fails to even explain how it's actually "terrorism." Most of the attacks there were listed because they fit the UN definition, while this shooting was listed because it fit a very broad definition used in that region which contradicts most definitions. This was a 15-year-old kid who shot up his school because he was crazy and grew up in an unloving home. This is not some incident which deserves to be listed alongside terrorist attacks such as 9/11. Was the shootings in Georgia this month terrorism? Four dead, seven wounded with a very similar motive, just like this incident, yet no charges of terrorism.

I think we need to say that Crumbley's attack was labeled terrorism in Michigan, but to refrain from categorizing it alongside incidents that are actually terrorism. MountainJew6150 (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Post-Shooting Advocacy

There have been multiple groups born out of the tragedy, one of which is No Future Without Today. They have hosted annual rallies and marches in support of gun reform and were behind the push to implement a safe storage requirement in Michigan. 23.154.136.167 (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Advocacy and legislation in response

Please consider adding an updated summary paragraph to the "Responses" section, immediately following the mention of the Michigan Legislature's vows to pursue new firearm legislation (after citation 178), to document the specific student-led activism and local organizing that followed the event.

Proposed Addition: Following the tragedy, student survivors initiated grassroots advocacy campaigns focused on state-level firearm policy reform. In May 2022, shortly after the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, survivors Dylan Morris, Madeline Johnson, and Reina St. Juliana founded the advocacy organization No Future Without Today, with assistance from former Oxford educator Lauren Jasinski. The student-led organization coordinated community educational events, annual marches, and public demonstrations within Oxford to campaign for stricter firearm safety requirements.

During the 2023 legislative cycle, survivors from both the Oxford High School shooting and the Michigan State University shooting provided formal testimony before the Michigan Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee. Following this coordinated advocacy, the Michigan Legislature enacted a comprehensive four-part firearm safety legislative package. The package introduced universal background checks for all gun purchases, mandated secure firearm storage requirements when minors are in the home, established an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) framework, and instituted a firearm possession ban for individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. Brady.Halvorsen (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: according to the page's protection level, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Day Creature (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. While I do have the technical permissions to edit the page myself, I am submitting this as an edit request because I have conflict of interest regarding the material. Per Wikipedia guidelines, I am using the talk page to ensure the proposed text is reviewed and implemented by an independent editor. Brady.Halvorsen (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking closely at this post and the suggested text, I don't see where the requesting editor describes what the nature of the COI is. Most of the time, these things are easily described as "I am employed by such and such" or "I have a connection to the people that I'm wanting to mention in the article" or "I'm an author of the reference I want to include." It is a rare occurrence when the editor simply says "I have a conflict of interest." And when that does occur, it's more often than not that it ends up not being a conflict of interest. So I hope you'll forgive me for my skepticism. I'll ask the requesting editor to kindly give a bit more detail into why this should be a COI edit request. I don't need a whole lot of detail; as I said earlier, this is easily answered with a basic, simple explanation on the nature of what makes this A COI. As some time has passed since this was first posted, I'm going to set the answer parameter to Yes. The requestiong editor, should they desire to continue with this process, should switch the parameter to "no" along with their answer to my question. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  00:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I am in a relationship with a survivor of the shooting. Is this conflict of interest? Thank you for the response. Brady.Halvorsen (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Would you also be open to reviewing the proposed text so it doesn't have to sit through the large request backlog again? Thank you so much! Brady.Halvorsen (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I can review it. Where it says that the Michigan Legislature enacted a comprehensive four-part firearm safety legislative package, what was the outcome of enacting that package? Set the request template to 'not answered' when ready to proceed. Regards,  Spintendo  05:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The outcome of the legislative package was that the measures officially went into effect on February 13, 2024. You can add something like this:

These measures officially went into effect on February 13, 2024. ^(in reference [5])

Was this what you were seeking clarification on? Thank you for reviewing this. I have changed the answered parameter to 'no' as requested. Brady.Halvorsen (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Measures went into effect is vague. For lack of better phrasing, did this "become law"? I think stating it that way is more effective in communicating what the outcome was, as most laws and statutes—while "going into effect"—are usually described linguistically by laypersons as "becoming a law" rather then "going into effect". Regards,  Spintendo  04:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry I am a bit confused. Is "enacted" too specific of a term here? You can replace that with "passed into law" if you think that would be more understandable, no worries! The proposed bills that I listed officially became law in February 13, 2024. Brady.Halvorsen (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

References

 Partially approved   Spintendo  16:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2026

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: moved. There is a supermajority consensus in favour of moving the article per WP:NOYEAR and WP:NCWWW. (closed by non-admin page mover) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 21:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Oxford High School shooting → 2021 Oxford High School shooting – The article was moved to exclude the year through a move discussion two years ago, but in that discussion there was no editor who argued that the incident met the requirements of WP:NOYEAR. Per WP:NCWWW, the default is to say when, where, and what, and I don't believe there is evidence to suggest that this shooting is so well-known that it does not require a year for identifying purposes. There is also no requirement for there to be multiple shootings at the same school for the year to be included in the title, as was apparently believed in the previous requested move. Raskuly 🐰 07:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. ESB5415 13:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose no need to include the year unless there are other notable shootings. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Where does it say that in the naming guidelines? Raskuly 🐰 20:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why is it needed? Although the guideline does give 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami as an example NOYEAR does say about the event being described without it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Per that example, it says that There are no other "Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami" articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier, which applies here. The default is to include a year, and there must be evidence presented to indicate that it meets the requirements of WP:NOYEAR. So what evidence exists that makes this so immediately identifiable that it does not need a year? Raskuly 🐰 20:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Support per WP:NOYEAR; the year is included by default per the naming guidelines, and this is not so well known as to be described in "historical perspective". The year is included for identification; are we expecting people to have the years of all shootings memorized? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose as unnecessary WP:OVERPRECISION and per WP:CONCISE and previous RM discussion. There's no other Oxford High School shooting article so no need for disambiguation, and adding a year may imply there was a shooting in some other year. Station1 (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Sidenote: the fact these moves always face opposition suggests we might need to clarify the guideline. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Years are best added for events like this to avoid ambiguity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom and per PARAKANYAA. The year is a defining characteristic of events. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 19:44, 27 June 2026 (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.