Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Added a Map

I have added a cc-by-sa map of Fort Hood to the article. If anyone can find a pic of him in full uniform (everyone has at least on taken) it should be PD as a work of US govt, so go ahead and add it. - Drew Smith What I've done 06:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea for posting a map of main post, I tried Googling for another map to see if there was a better detailed one, but I was out of luck. Unknowntbeast (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I searched Flickr with the CC only option on, found the original here, and did some serious GIMP work to get it how it is now. - Drew Smith What I've done 06:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well when it comes to pictures the whole CC thing gets me. At first I thought it was Closed Captioning! Unknowntbeast (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol, no it's creative commons, it means we can use it on WP. You'd actually be surprised what is usable here, people just don't take the time to look for copyright info. - Drew Smith What I've done 07:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Fort Hood shooting"

We need the quotes, it's not a proper name, and it has been called many different things, including here on WP:

• 2009 Fort Hood shooting
• Fort Hood shootings
• Ft. Hood shooting
• Fort Hood massacre
• Fort Hood rampage

all redirect to this article. Without the quotes we need awkward language like "so-called" or "the phrase Fort Hood shooting refers to a specific (assault/group of murders)" etc.

There is a LOT of 'shooting' at Ft. Hood. User:Pedant (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If I learned anything a few months ago with the swine flu pandemic/swine flu epidemic/swine flu outbreak/h1n1 pandemic/hn1n epidemic/h1n1 outbreak its not to worry about the name until its over. You and me could sit down and hash it out for a few hours, come to an agreement, and someone else will come in while we're arguing and move it somewhere else. Just wait till everything dies down to discuss the name. - Drew Smith What I've done 06:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Second Drew's point on this. Also we don't really do quote marks on article titles, even if the title is something Wikipedia is basically inventing. The odds are are very good that within the next few days there will be a fairly standard phrase in the media to refer to this event, and that's what we'll use. Let's hold off on the discussion until that becomes a bit more clear (see also a couple of other sections on this topic above). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean the quotes in the lead paragraph. Until the name is settled. Which I don't care about but we need to not be the ones who invent the name which is what we are doing if we don't put the quotes in the lead: "Fort Hood shooting" because there is Fort Hood shooting every day I would be willing to bet. We need to show we are referring to a specific event for which there is no as-yet accepted terminology. I emphatically AM NOT suggesting that we put quotes in the title of the article. I never would suggest something like that. I'm referring to my most recent edit to the article, and discussing it on talk, as per WP custom. User:Pedant (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just a misunderstanding there then. I don't think what you propose is really necessary though, even while acknowledging that there is a Fort Hood "shooting" every day (in the sense of someone shooting a gun, I assume, though not in the sense of someone being shot). This might well end up being titled "massacre" or something similar in the future, in which case the point will be moot. We actually only use the phrase "Fort Hood shooting" once in the article text (the first sentence obviously), and I don't think we need to ensconce the phrase in quote marks since it's standard WP practice to repeat the title of the article in the first sentence (in bold font) yet not use quotations to alert the reader that the phrasing is perhaps unique to Wikipedia (there are countless examples, of course). Again, best thing is to wait on this issue and see where we end up with the title. Given your username though, I do appreciate your concern. :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Bigtimespace and others in that the particular title of the article should be decided in a day or two when the dust has settled. Until then, I don't think putting the title in "quote" marks would serve any real purpose. HJMitchell You rang? 06:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not suggesting putting the title in quotes. I'm well aware of the convention that we do not put punctuation in article titles.

It's just that the word The is the definite article and as a matter of style, we should never refer to a shooting as The shooting, especially since the term 'shooting' is extremely ambiguous (not to mention 'beige') in the context of one of the world's largest facilities, the day-to-day operation of which includes shooting. Precision of language, IMO, is highly appropriate in a project, the goals of which include accuracy. It is simply not accurate to refer to this event as "The" shooting. I would prefer something along the lines of November 5, 2009 Fort Hood attacks and redirects from every likely variant, as the title. However, I am fairly insistent that the quotes stay unless/until we have term for these (plural) shootings for which the definite article ('the') would be accurate. User:Pedant (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the only Fort Hood shooting in Wikipedia so it is unambiguous. It's also an accepted title in the media [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. WWGB (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, when discussing the name of the article itself, we should wait until the dust settles, this page has been moved back and forth enough times. Let's make the next move the last. As for the term used in the lead, how about something along the lines of "The shootings of November 5, 2009..." without the quotes which, frankly, serve no purpose where they are. For the record, I've reverted their reinsertion since I feel consensus should be reached here before changes like that are made. HJMitchell You rang? 07:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed title

I agree about waiting for the dust to settle, and not moving this page repeatedly. In furtherance of the discussion regarding naming, look at where the "911 attacks" ended up, and to use similar titling we could use something like User:HJ Mitchell suggested ("The shootings of November 5, 2009...") I propose, for discussion of consensus, this title: November 5, 2009 Fort Hood attacks which I have created as a redir to this article. This wording is accurate, neutral, and in parallel with other similar article titles. Whatever title we choose, we will need a whole slew of redirect pages. User:Pedant (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting consensus re quotation marks in lead sentence

I agree with User:HJ Mitchell's suggestion of using a similar term in the lead, ("The shootings of November 5, 2009..." without the quotes) but it is conventional here to repeat the article title in the lead sentence, bolded. To do so without the quotes, the title should be accurate, but until then, I really feel strongly about the quotes, or the use of the phrase 'so-called'. Otherwise we are accepting a fundamental inaccuracy. I'm reinstating the quotes until there is some expression of consensus to remove the quotation marks ('scare quotes'), which removal I oppose. With the prefix of the definite article ("The") to the present title, a fundamental inaccuracy is created. User:Pedant (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there was more than one incident of someone being attacked on September 11, 2001, but no one was ever pedantic enough to demand quotes. --Golbez (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

September 11 is not a date on which attacks customarily occur. Fort Hood is a place where shooting is intrinsic. I wish I had never chosen this username, every time I insist on precision, it is disparaged as being pedantry. I'm sure someone will now dredge up my (accurate and neutral) version of the lead on the 911 attacks article as an argument against my position. Read the present lead of that article and you will see that consensus has led to the use of several AKAs in the lead sentence, an awkward way of avoiding quotes. ("The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11)" Note that this page was moved from September 11, 2001 attacks to September 11 attacks as if it were a yearly event, and ignoring all of the attacks that have ocurred on any other Sept. 11.

I'm not going to war over this, I just hate it when Wikipedia looks ignorant. I think the lead sentence does need the quotation marks, as it stands. If you agree or disagree, say so, that's what this is for. Looks like 2 to 1 against the sensible quotes so far... User:Pedant (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes are unnecessary, a shooting is universally seen as an act of shooting an individual while everything else like training is called something like a Training Exercise or Combat Training and the media is calling this a shooting and odds are it'll stick with that title, it's way too early now to start doing any changes to the title, in the leading sentence or otherwise.. Rgoodermote  08:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

My ten pence worth (again!). I am aware that it's customary to repeat the title in bold in the lead. That being so, that is a custom and, at most, a guideline by my interpretation. I see no reason why we can't depart from it, perhaps invoking WP:IAR and use a different term in the lead. Then, when the dust has settled, we can talk about moving the article to that or another title or altering the lead or, to push the boat out, both. That's the beauty of not being a paper encyclopaedia. HJMitchell You rang? 09:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:IAR is even needed in this case as I am sure that what you are referring to is merely a guideline and as a guideline can be deviated away from without any consequences. The issue has nothing to do with any customs or guidelines at all it is that you want to add quotes to the name in the lead sentence which I was against because the reasoning was that it would confuse people or that the title will change rapidly and at the time the title had been "shooting" in the media until I turned on the TV this morning and saw "Massacre" on CNN, so quotes until the dust settles and we have a definitive title isn't that bad an idea on retrospect. However that doesn't mean I agree with you, I still stand by my guns, quotes shouldn't be used in the title or lead instead an a.k.a. like what is done with 9/11 should be good enough and is usually all that has ever been done for these king of things. Rgoodermote  20:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

believed vs alleged

I replaced 'believed to be the shooter' with 'alleged to be the shooter'. WP:NOT a crystal ball -- we do not, cannot know what someone believes. "Believed to be the shooter" is weaselly because it either implies a universal belief, or it is equivalent to "believed by some" (or many) or whatever, if we state it is believed we need to have a clear reference as to whom this belief is attributed. User:Pedant (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but it could just be me. In this case I would say "believed" because, well with that many witnesses at the scene when he was shooting, it's kind of obvious that he did it. I know it kind of goes against the whole Innocent until proven guilty notion, but the police shot him because he was killing people, he did it. Unknowntbeast (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Pedant that alleged is a better phrasing, particularly if we are thinking in a legal terminology framework (e.g. see allegation) as we probably should. I hear what Unknowntbeast is saying and it's obviously the common sense view, but I think we have to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" standard here since that's inevitably what reliable sources will do as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When witnesses say "you did it", that's an allegation. Wikipedia does not make statements about what people believe, it's fairly common for someone to believe something without evidence, and also not uncommon for someone to make a statement which they don't believe. But an allegation is pretty straightforward, it either was or wasn't alleged, and one can reference an allegation. One cannot reference a belief, but only a statement of belief, which is, in a word, an allegation... Compare:

• "Joe is believed to be dishonest."
• "Bob and Sara allege that Joe lied."

Which of the above is more appropriate to an encyclopedia? We can't know what people believe, but we can know what they said. (WP:NOT) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or belief-o-meter. User:Pedant (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, follow Obama's advice and "exercise caution", especially with the number of corrections that have had to be made- victim numbers, injury numbers, fatality numbers, the fact that the guy is alive in the first place etc... HJMitchell You rang? 07:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Precedent and usage in the WikiCrime portal are exact on use of "alleged". Period. This is English Wikipedia, and at least in the nation of the incident all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. If this happened in a country where once charges are filed persons are guilty and must be proven innocent, then maybe a different matter. Things like "Police say" is better, but probably shouldn't be in the lead and still avoided as much as possible. See Lee Harvey Oswald and Chris Benoit for 2 large precedent cases on how open statement of guilt is still not acceptable even when a suspect dies without being convicted. "Believed" is subjective and open to conjecture. Bad. Alleged has a very specific definition as something pending official ruling. Good. Here's a pretty easy viewpoint if you want to ignore law or Wikipedia precedent: If respected news media goes with "alleged", is there some reason an encyclopedia article shouldn't? This is a large waste of time to keep going back to since every existing policy and precedent goes the same way, as well as all standards off of Wikipedia. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref fix

Reference 13 needs a fix, the proper URL is here. 72.224.127.117 (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fix it, but I think Bigtimepeace beat me to it. - Drew Smith What I've done 07:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, should be fixed now (sorry Drew for stealing your fire!). And thanks to all of the anonymous editors helping out with this page. It's much appreciated, and apologies that the article is temporarily "protected" so that only folks with login names can edit. Hopefully we'll be able to un-protect in the near future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome 'Big'. I'm glad it's protected, as I saw the early vandalism (I've been here pretty much from the start, 36 hours ago!) As I mentioned to User:HJ_Mitchell, it's been an education! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct rank for Francheska Velez

The below link has a picture of Velez with rank, PV2, not PTE as posted. I will make the change. Also the rank abriviations for 'privite' are posted in the "More Dead Named" topic above. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/another-ft-hood-shooting-victim-is-from-chicago.html Unknowntbeast (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who changed it back to PTE or even why, but they were incorrect in doing so. IT IS PV2 NOT PTE. I did however not change the link name from "private" to "Private Second Class". Last time I did it, there was no page for it and it displayed in red. (<---- Now I know that!) Unknowntbeast (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Independent references, for example, [5] refer to her as PFC. You are basing your assertion merely on an undated photograph. WWGB (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I made the last reversion, of which I informed you on your user talk page about 2 minutes ago. The best source we have, the same source that has been acceptable for the ranks of every other casualty, uses the rank PTE, which is why it was put there in the first place. If you can find a recent (preferably within the last 72 hours) article that says otherwise, then we can talk about changing it to PV2. HJMitchell You rang? 08:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't know how to message you back, I will say it here. Is it more wrong to have a completely wrong and non-existant rank or to have a more acturate rank, even if it came from an outdated? I would take the common sense stance here and say to use an actual rank instead of PTE, which in the US Army, is NOT a rank. I had very good reason to change it. So to do what's better of the two evils, go with something more realistic than some fake rank. Unknowntbeast (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, you click on "you rang" in my signature and click "new section" at the top of the page it loads. Anyway, the article currently reads PFC, which is backed up by this source. I strongly recommend you leave it at that to avoid a revert war and violating the WP:3RR. If you can find a source that uses the rank you insist on reverting to, then bring it here so everybody can comment. If not, I'd advise leaving it as it is. HJMitchell You rang? 09:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK Thanks for that info. I have also found other sources which stat PFC. It was never my intention to "demote", but rather post a real rank since the PTE is completely incorrect. My intention was to give more acurate info, not to incite a edit war. Unknowntbeast (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume anything else, don't worry- I didn't think you were trying to start an edit war, I just feared we might stumble into one, hence my note. Apologies for the misunderstanding. HJMitchell You rang? 09:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Words again

• We do not need to say alleged. We are passing on information from third parties:- it is immediately apparent by our citations that we are using information from AP, BBC, and in most cases that they are reporting witness statements, army statements, politicians, relatives etc..
  • Specifically: we are not putting ourselves at legal risk by not inserting "allegedly" nor are we protecting ourselves by inserting it.
  • Specifically: we are not saying anyone is guilty of a crime.
  • Specifically: we are not taking sides (WP:NPOV), synthesising (WP:SYN) or drawing our own conclusions WP:OR.
• We should not say murder at this stage. It will take, I believe, at least an inquest to establish that, and likely a trial.
• We shoudl avoid the word victim. While this is used in many ways nowadays, it is on the face of it NPOV.

Rich Farmbrough, 10:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Same goes for other loaded words like culprit. Rich Farmbrough, 10:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

It is a fundamental cannon of American Jurisprudence than one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Neuromancer (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rich that there is no need to keep using "alleged", but it pains me to make some of the statements as if they certain fact, not least since, just 24 hours ago (roughly), it was certain fact that the Hasan was dead, however, the points you make are correct and, as a law student, I'd say the chances that there's anything tortuous or defamatory in saying he shot those people is, at worst, slim. HJMitchell You rang? 10:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As a law student, you should know better. This is the basis of our criminal justice system, and allowing "slim" chances of culpability to slide through the cracks is one of the reasons our society is finding out that imprisoned, and executed people, were actually innocent to begin with. Run this one past your criminal law professor and see what he says. Neuromancer (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

First, the use of "we" and "our" is mistaken, since I'm an Englishman. As for your point, I'm not saying he's guilty of murder. He is alleged to have committed murder, however, there is no doubt that he pointed a weapon at 40 odd people and pulled the trigger. There's no allegation there. He is a killer/ gunman/ whichever term we're using now which makes him an alleged murderer. We don't need to keep using the word though! HJMitchell You rang? 10:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer, you misread HJM. He is not referring to criminal law. As far as the record of the American justice system is concerned, I suggest Bayes theorem will shed some light. Rich Farmbrough, 10:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

We do need to say "alleged." The WP:BLP policy applies regardless of potential legal risk to ourselves. The policy exists to protect the living subjects of articles first, and to protect Wikipedia only secondarily. Furthermore, we have to pay special attention not only to language that might imply legal guilt by Hasan, but also anything that might affect his public reputation: "Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends." That doesn't mean we can't cover the allegations, of course, but BLP has a special note on how to do so:

• 'potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.'

And that's it. We have to say "alleged" because we have to take care for legal implications and his public reputation. Saying that he shot people—regardless of the legal act of murder—is going to affect his reputation. Therefore we have to say certain sources allege that he shot people, and he is suspected by police to have shot people, etc. I just read the current (or fifteen minutes ago) state of the article and I thought it flowed well without any seriously clumsy language. If there are particular passages that need streamlining, we should discuss them here. ~YellowFives 12:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. We need to say "accused" or words to that effect in referring to Hasan, until he is found guilty. That's how the American jurisprudence system works. It's not a question of legal liability. Obviously he is not going to sue. It was the same situation at the Colorado balloon incident article, and whether we would call it a hoax. Sure, it was evident to everyone that it was a hoax. But the way things work in the United States, we don't say that a person committed a crime until he is convicted. That is S-O-P. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not the American jurisprudence system. Many news outlets with huge legal budgets find it unnecessary to to call him "alleged". Hasan is also not a "private person". But I agree the article is not actually disfigured, simply a little - weak. Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

Treatment

I was expecting that the other places that casualties were treated would have emerged by now. I make it 33 would have needed treatment, we only report 18. Rich Farmbrough, 10:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Not to be all "sofxit", but if you see what you are looking for, plug it into the article. I'm not sure the information you refer to is available as yet, which is hardly surprising for a number of reasons. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage

At some point there should be a section on media coverage. Possibly not yet, but the confused reporting of the first few hours, while not atypical is noteworthy. Rich Farmbrough, 10:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Agreed. But we should probably wait until the media coverage of this event is described intelligibly and in a fashion worthy of encyclopedic coverage. The facts of the shooting itself are still up in the air, so it'll be a minute before we can speak intelligently about the coverage of it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

This sentence bothers me: "The garment is a traditional South Asian outfit worn in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not in Jordan or Palestine where Hasan had ancestral ties." The shalwar kameez is worn by people in many South Asian countries other than Pakistan and Afghanistan - India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc etc. By identifying solely Pakistan and Afghanistan, the wirter is clearly trying to insinuate a connection with the two countries that are the hotbed of terrorism at the moment. As yet, we know nothing of his connections or the reasons for his attack. It also smacks of original research. It should be removed.86.152.241.34 (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. 64.122.70.121 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Motive (LATimes): 'I'm a Muslim first and an American second,'

"He told students, 'I'm a Muslim first and an American second,' " Dr. Val Finnell, now a lieutenant colonel at the Los Angeles Air Force Base, said in a telephone interview. "I really questioned his loyalty."

Finnell said he first became suspicious of Hasan shortly after the program began when Hasan gave a provocative presentation in an environmental health class.

Other students focused on topics including mold and water contamination. Hasan's project asked "whether the war on terror is a war against Islam," Finnell said.

"It was very off-topic," Finnell said. "I raised my hand and said, 'What does this have to do with environmental health?' "

Finnell said Hasan became agitated when he was challenged and became "sweaty and nervous and emotional."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fort-hood-hasan7-2009nov07,0,3477020,print.story

At4eo6 (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think the relevance of this is speculative and more than a passing mention of his religious/national-loyalty conflict would violate WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. How many American Christians and Jews could firmly state that they are American before they are Christian/Jewish? --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I would favor inclusion, as it is published in a reliable source, quoting a person quoted by name, and is seems relevant to the article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear on what should be included: the statements of fact made by this senior Air Force officer, not his analysis or opinion. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep it on ice for possible later use as a reference. The purpose of that article is to generate opinion and not state fact. Even if it were to speak fact, do you know how many people could say those sorts of things right now? Anyone that's ever met him. It's ridiculously easy to say "oh yea I knew he was weird" after being accused of something like this. It's conjecture, sensationalism and rather WP:POV-tilted. There's also a POV push as the implication is that that would be a specific reason that might drive him to do somthing like this. Not cool.Just because the new source is considered reliable doesn't mean the pieces that add up to articles are all reliable-- a daily newspaper is not peer-reviewed. If, after conviction or if used as evidence in a trial it could certainly be added to put extra weight on a section regarding motive? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a factual article in the Los Angeles Times, not an opinion piece, reported by two reporters of that newspaper. The source of that statement is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, quoted by name. If it was an anonymous statement I could see your point, but not a direct quote from a senior military officer who directly witnessed the suspect making that statement. It's totally relevant to the article and as far as I'm concerned, removing it would be significant NPOV issue.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. But still, where in the article would this go right now and what purpose would it serve? Just because it's true doesn't automatically mean it's directly related. The POV push would be a passive suggestion to readers to WP:SYNTH the pieces together into ... what plenty of people already assume without evidence. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already added text from the article to the "recent events" section, just the colonel's factual observations and not his opinions or analysis. We can't exclude indisputably relevant facts from an article because we are concerned that readers may draw conclusions. But excluding an entire aspect of the subject matter presents a problem.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh? Ha, shows how much I was paying attention. I'm certainly not going to contest it, since you were kind enough to explain yourself I've no reason to doubt good faith with it :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent events section

I added some text from the LA Times article quoted above. The "recent events" section is a bit of a grab-bag. We really need to add a section on the motives of the suspect. This is ample reliably sourced material on this throughout the media, as this is the No. 1 story nationwide. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely uncomfortable with what is presented in the article thus far (as a grab bag). However, no one anywhere has reported what the motive(s) was. There has been much speculation, but no motive has yet been determined. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously motive won't be determined definitively until conviction. But I don't think that in a case such as this, a mass murder, that we can avoid a section on the possible motive of the suspect. We can't just be silent on the issue until conviction when it is Topic A in the media, not just tabloids but numerous reliable sources. Neutrality requires us to report that, for otherwise we're omitting a substantial part of the subject matter of this article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Years of service

In the info box for Hasan it says Years of service is from 1988-2009, while I believe it should be reverted back to 1988-Present. He is still in the military and still does recieve pay. Saying "2009" shows he is no longer in the service. Trust me, he will still in the military throughout the court martial. I believe the best possible way to say it is "1988-Present (In custody)" If anyone feels this should be changed, please post here first. Unknowntbeast (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, saying "2009" infers guilt. It's like saying "Well, we think he did it, so we are going to kick him out." Unknowntbeast (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right about "present" but I don't think "in custody" is necessary. The article says that, it's rather obvious as he's the suspect, and since he has not been convicted it doesn't change his military status, does it? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Until he's discharged, he's still a member of the Army, so you're correct it should read 1988–present.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur. It would be speculative to use anything other than "present". Possibly change it as events unfold but, for now, present is correct. HJMitchell You rang? 18:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nidal Malik Hasan: further biographic data

Nidal Malik Hasan is self-identified as a Palestinian. The second sentence should identify the gunman by name: Nidal Malik Hasan.

Also, the first paragraph of this article should identify Nidal Malik Hasan as Palestinian.

Hasan attended Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia, for one year before moving to southwestern Virginia.

see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110601978.html?sub=AR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.183.125 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hasan also has a connection to George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

see http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Local-psychiatrist-ID_d-as-Fort-Hood-gunman-worked-at-Walter-Reed-8492041-69339237.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.183.125 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Uniformity in victims section

If the 'Fatalaties' section is in a box, than the 'Injured' must be as well - at least according to my personal aesthetics. Unfortunately I don't have the skills to do so... Supertouch (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have the names of the injured? There is no listing of the names of everyone injured in the 9/11 attacks, or in the various wars, for that matter. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that happens. Edison (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The list is there, that is, unless you remove it, and while it's there I think it should match the fatalities; just a minor suggestion. Casualties of the September 11 attacks does have a numerical breakdown of the surivors and fatalities of 9/11 - the large number obviously prevents all of the names from being listed... Supertouch (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

media org mention?

Is a blog (John Charlton (2009-11-07). "MSM attempt to brainwash American public on Ft. Hood shooting". The Post & Email) a media organization? Шизомби (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. Ahaha, oh my, no. Go post it over in the "Criticisms of Wikipedia" special essay. OH, um, well it seems to be an unmediated blog without any references to anything used and is basically... well. Our list of unmediated or reviewed open forum website political blogs we source from is quite low. Zero? In the off chance the author ever bothers to find out what Wikipedia is, I'll stay polite. Really, it's a great read, here[6] ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and removed that mention stating it is not part of the media and is not notable. Rgoodermote  21:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding! I have no idea why this author was under the impression that we had spy satellites and editors positioned every 50 feet around the world to make it a raw news feed. Actually, we openly say we're not a reliable source for anything, to say nothing of current events! Actually, I'm kind of concerned that people are actually coming by to take note of our "news coverage", but it's one reason I was incredibly picky about "alleged" 2 nights ago. We needn't be ashamed for doing what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, but being careless and drawing extra attention should be avoided. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually actually, maybe he might have legitimately confused us for news? The article page had a ridiculous 166.9k hits on Friday which has to be more than pretty local or regional media outlets in the US (or internationally), so clearly a large number of people actually come here for news. Do we need more disclaimers? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent)It's a sad day when you have to tell some one that an encyclopedia doesn't count as news, but it would be nice if there was a new recent events tag that had some thing like "If you want the news we have Wikinews!" or something along that lines linking to the news article of the event. Rgoodermote  23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

hasan's juridical status

the question rises , why is there no mention at all for this man's status for the law, what will and would they charge him? It is extra fascinating, because there is a lot of specualtion he might not come out alive on this talks page, (like starting to include him in deathcounts), and also because i do not know what would be the official reaction. on the field it might be court marshal for high treason, but i think in the homeland we see here a very unwanted prisoner (a symbol even perhaps), and a potentially painfull case relating death penalty and war once again. So if anyone hears anything about his juridical status before his death, i think it would be worth adding.24.132.171.225 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Speculating much, sir. A question might rise, but not here. We're encyclopedic, remember. Nothing about "would" charges, "might" dies. Juridical status "before his death" is bad writing. Why not ask his "juridical status" tout court? Something is strange in your post. -DePiep (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional article protection available?

Apologies in advance if such is not available, but is there a level of article protection available to prohibit moves such as the one that was just reverted? If so, can it be applied? Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I just fully move-protected the article and indefinitely blocked the vandal. MuZemike 01:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with both) Just to update, page is now move-protected. I had though Unionhawk had already done so, but I was mistaken. Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

I move protected the talk page too. Rich Farmbrough, 01:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

(ec)Don't know, don't mind. Some 9 editors (plus me) were reverting it within seconds. It's volatile, this Wiki, all the net. Let's not block too much. -DePiep (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. I was going to suggest that perhaps Fort Hood needs some similar protection (at least for now), as it was similarly vandalised, but I defer to consensus. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Refs

Archive please. Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Gunman shot by civilian law enforcement

"The shooter was killed by civilian law enforcement and one police officer died in the shootout, Cone said. " http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/Story?id=9007938&page=1

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the lead says "before the gunman killed himself." but the sources all say otherwise. 66.61.81.136 (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just to keep the story staight "Major Hasan was wounded but remains alive" and “his death is not imminent.” Here [7] --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Has anyone seen any information as to why civilian cops were the first to respond to an incident on a military base? I would've thought the MPs would be the first on scene. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Most bases I've been on (7 or 8 in the last 5 years) have civilian cops, with a handful of uniformed MPs working with them.206.174.0.85 (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is correct. Fort Lewis, at least, uses a mix of civilian police officers and MPs. Molon Labe (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Maj. Hassan's religous affiliation

What was Maj. Hassan's religous afiliation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.114 (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't know yet, so let's not put anything in about that until we get confirmation from a verifiable source. MuZemike 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

According to [8], he had no religious preference. MuZemike 00:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think comments (or assumptions) re. religion were put in, but were removed as they weren't relevant and probably not verified. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Several blogs and other low quality sources have been saying he converted to Islam, but there doesn't seem to be any high quality confirmation of that at the moment. Dragons flight (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

FoxNews had his cousin, who said Hasan was Muslim all his life.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 01:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

His cousin said he became a devout Muslim after his parents death in 1998 and 2001. --Johnnyb3677 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fox News just had a phone interview with Hassan's cousin. He stated the family is shocked and their thoughts go out to the other families. He stated Hassan was a muslim before joining the military. He said that Hassan was harassed for by other in the military and was trying to leave. He also said his family was shocked because Hassan "didn't even like going to the shooting range". Jeff Carr (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we giving to much wieght to this? It seems like were suggesting the reason Major Hasan crried this out is because he is a muslim with misgivings about the war on terror. This doesn't mean that's why hes comited this act which is what seems the article suggests. Just got this from bbc.

Asked whether the shootings were a terrorist act, Lt Gen Cone said: "I couldn't rule that out but I'm telling you that right now, the evidence does not suggest that."

Stupidstudent (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, since Islam and jihad don't apparently go together, thus sayeth the PC West...

Besides the obvious, one of his former coworkers on the base (Col. Terry Lee, ret.), who is quoted from a major news broadcast (above), did make mention that Hasan had leanings towards Islamic jihadi thought in regard to U.S. involvement in the Middle East. One such comment (I'm paraphrasing here) "(Hasan) said that maybe Muslims should strap explosives to themselves and go to Times Square.... There were some comments made (about the Little Rock shooting) that he (Hasan) was kind of happy (about it)... He made his views well known (on the base) about the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Col. Lee did differentiate between what he himself heard, and what were second/third hand accounts - but even then, given character witnesses, Hasan's own conduct and record, and the maybe not-so-obvious-fact (to some at least) of the act itself, I think the motivation on Hasan's part is pretty clear. Kh123 Nov.6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.234.40 (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying Islam and jihad don't "go together". But every time a muslim murders somebody it isn't always part of a Jihad. Pretty clear It happened about 15 hours ago I doubt even the law enforcement types investigating it would say they were pretty clear on his motivations. Am not saying what you say is untrue but that we should be cautious and not get a head of ourselves. Stupidstudent (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I seen in a local paper that military records show he had no religious affiliation. But it should not matter anyways. If he was catholic, no one would even be discussing religion, ohh but since he was of Palestinian decent, we all jump to conclusion, anyways, what i am saying is that much attention should not be paid to religion at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.31.197 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IN this story his religious affiliation is significant. If it were an abortion clinic shooting, and he were a Catholic, it would be significant. Because the attack raises the possibility of terrorism, and the man was reported to have sympathies with Muslim Insurgents and suicide bombers, I don't see how you can just take it if the table like it isn't there. If he were a protestant it would not be significant because there wouldn't be any plausible connections in terms of motive (at least not right away without more details). If, on the other hand, he were part of the Christian Identity movement, his religion would be important because Christian Identity has a history of anti government activity. Obviously being a Muslim doesn't make you a terrorist. But if someone who committs an act of extraordinary violence, happens to be muslim and has made radical statements, that needs to be discussed as part of the story. Let's not pretend it doesn't matter here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 9 November 2009

Move "massacre"/"shooting"

massacre is a very POV term. We must adher to a neutral point of view, thus it is my opinion that the page be moved BACK to Fort Hood shooting. HJMitchell You rang? 02:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - it is at Fort Hood shooting... perhaps move protection?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - as it should be. Move protection is fine. hydnjo (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea if you ask me, it was at "massacre" when I left that but hey! It's back now. HJMitchell You rang? 02:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It started off at massacre because in my experience that's where these articles tend to end up. But see above, it is not wise to worry about which name it is now. Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

Whereas Nidal Malik Hasan has survived, what should be done with his virgins? hydnjo (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll borrow a page from, well, your page - "Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out. Sydney Smith (1771 - 1845)". Let's try to avoid bigoted remarks while the bodies are still warm, shall we? 67.79.207.142 (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Shooting - the reliable sources are predominantly using the term 'Fort Hoot shooting'. I would stick with that for now. Ronnotel (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said and my bad. I'll try to keep my emotions out of my edits and thanks for the reminder. hydnjo (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Move: I agree with the user that proposed the move. The correct article's name is massacre. For the ones that oppose, maybe to you guys is just a shooting, for the families of the victims this was a massacre. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What the article should be titled has nothing to do with what the incident "is" to Wikipedia editors or to the families of the victims, it is what it is commonly referred to as by reliable sources. It may well become appropriate to be moved to that name in the future, even near future, depending on how it gets named publicly. In the meantime, assume good faith, avoid ad hominem, etc. Шизомби (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Move I believe this qualifies as a massacre. FIFTY-ONE people were shot (13 dead, 38 wounded). That qualifies as a massacre. Skiendog (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Too soon. Article is fine where it is right now. Eventually will there likely be a common terminology for this event, but right now we don't know what that is. At the moment a Google search on "fort hood shooting" reveals 192,000 hits while one on "fort hood massacre" shows 108,000 (for Google News it's nearly 2,500 for the former and nearly 300 for the latter). So the current title seems to be the most commonly used term right now and as such it's fine to stick with it for the time being. Like most questions being debated here on the talk page right now, the best bet is simply to wait and see. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Just for some perspective, article names for similar events include Virginia Tech massacre and Luby's massacre. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Move I keep asking them to move this article to Fort Hood massacre, there is a uniformity in Wikipedia, all articles related to those kind of deaths are massacre..Virginia tech massacre - Covina massacre...my god, some people here are so stubborn. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It could perhaps go back to the original title now. Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Let's get it done Rich.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to add in my opinion: I would claim that the main reason why other sources don't use "Massacre" is only because it's at a military institution. Maybe because other news sources are a little more sensitive when the military is involved. Indirectly, this would be a form of bias on the part of news sources, and we're transmitting this bias as well.203.116.243.1 (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Article name change to "2009 Fort Hood Shooting"

Support- I suggest that the article be changed to "2009 Fort Hood shooting" because, even though you may disagree that this will ever happen again, it's more concise to indicate the date. Thanks, Letter ⁷ _{it's the best letter :)} 13:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Support --4wajzkd02 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Object per use common names and crystal balling. The First World War was also the World War, until a second one broke out. gidonb (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Response to above concern This is not a war, this is a single event (e.g. 2007 Shatoy Mi-8 crash). I don't think that WP:NCCN applies here, there really is no reason why the prefix "2009" can't be specified. The prefix "2009" does not obscure the essence of the article. If, however, this event becomes well-known as "Fort Hood shooting" then there is reason to rename. I still support the name change. Letter ⁷ _{it's the best letter :)} 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Answer Use common names applies here. It applies everywhere in name space, without any relationship to the length of an event. "Fort Hood shooting" is commonly used in the press and thus the common name. Now, in addition to use common names, there are additional factors to take into consideration when naming an article. Neutrality for example. In this case there is no such concern. Crystal balling cannot take precedence over use common names, unless -theoretically- one is applying that policy to prevent crystal balling (WP:NOTCRYSTAL). gidonb (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question:::Somehere in the 17 hours or so I've been following this sad event, I think, I read that the was another shooting at Ft Hood in 1999, does anyone recall anything like that? (Can't recall where I may have read this) Unless I'm just going a bit bonkers from wiki-overdose, it would then be very appropriate to seperate the two events --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Response to above question No articles that I've searched for have mentioned anything about a 1999 shooting. Although, that doesn't mean that there's no reason for a rename Letter ⁷ _{it's the best letter :)} 14:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Generally guidelines discourage us from adding dates and other modifiers to the title unless they are necessary to distinguish it from some other event. The first sentence gives the year anyway. I'd change my mind if there were evidence of some other notable shooting at Fort Hood, as someone suggests there may have been above. Dragons flight (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'd heard it reported that there were at least two earlier shootings at Fort Hood, although with not as many victims. It being a large base, and perhaps an old one, there could easily have been more than that. Here's one from 2003 http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2003/02/25/FrontPage/Army-Investigates.Rifle.Range.Shooting-514833.shtml Here's an incident from 2005 where a Fort Hood soldier shot a Muslim woman, accidentally apparently, albeit not at the Fort http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5DC1030F932A05751C1A9639C8B63 Шизомби (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is an example of a "accidental shooting". Unless there is a discussion about the definition of "shooting", then this article should stay the same. I currently oppose my previous suggestion of an article name change. However, I'd appreciate more opinions, and I apologize that I didn't realize the ignorance in my hasty suggestion. Letter ⁷ _{it's the best letter :)} 01:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The 2003 one may have been accidental, that article said it was being investigated. As I said, I heard earlier ones mentioned, but would have to poke around online more to try to find anything written about them. It's not a big deal at the moment, there seemingly not being WP articles about the others that would most necessitate the distinction. Шизомби (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Such shootings would need to be notable enough for an article. gidonb (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Just for some perspective, article names for similar events include Virginia Tech massacre and Luby's massacre. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Without the year. And a proposal to change to Fort Hood massacre would have had much more merit. gidonb (talk) 04:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't heard any common "name" for the situation - the only thing that is used in common is 'Fort Hood.' Oppose the addition of a date, and Support keeping it at Fort Hood shooting until we can pin down a common name.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 05:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And if there was a Fort Hood shooting in 1999, then that one should be 1999 Fort Hood shooting, with a hatnote on here that this article refers to the one in 2009.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 05:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there was a previous shooting, 2009 would be appropriate. There are other articles with the year such as 2009 Richmond High School gang rape, 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia, July 2009 cyber attacks, etc. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing information about Hasan's military career

I suggest that the following be added (I've done my share, so I'm going to pass the baton):

• Much more detailed information about his career. I don't think it's at all clear from the article that Hasan had been in the military continuously since about 1988 (he joined after graduating from high school; my calculation is that was 21 years ago, when he was 18). He started out as enlisted, then apparently got into a program where he went to college and became an officer (after graduating) in exchange for a further commitment (some number of years) of service; then he did the same thing to become a psychiatrist.
  • (For those facts, I'm reading between the lines, but military careers and service obligations are areas that I'm familiar with, so I think there will be sources out there that support the above. If not, that may be relevant too.)
    • [The above is important information, if it's not obvious, because Hasan never had a job outside of the military, never worked in anything other than Army facilities: The Army was his life (career), and so it's a big deal (and stressful) to resign (something he probably would have difficulties doing for a number of years yet to go, because of his military obligation as a result of the Army paying for his medical degree) and a big deal to be forced out if he refused to deploy (for example, he might have to pay back some of the money the Army spent on his education, and, of course, he'd have to find different civilian work, at a hospital or private practice). We obviously don't want to say any of this inferential stuff that isn't explicitly supported by sources, but I mention this stuff here the facts are quite relevant.] -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So I just found this: who had been in the service since 1995. That would be two years before he graduated from college. So what happened between 1988 and 1995? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we saying he enrolled into the "Green to Gold Program"? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It would seem critically important to learn whether Dr. Hasan's career in the U.S. Army included training and service in the combat arms. Such might help to explain expertise in firearms use in an individual who does not appear to be a "gun culture" type of any kind whatsoever. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The assumption is that he has expertise. If he fired 100 shots in a densely packed area and killed 13, does that indicate expertise? That's pretty much all the information we have, that and hat he reloaded and carried spare clips. Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

We can not verify a negative, but we can verify a positive. I would say if he had qualified with a pistol, or rated at expert on a pistol, both of which could be verified via his army record, then we can verify the positive, and thus consider him an expert. However, if just having fired any firearm, then using a pistol, makes one an expert, then it would dilute the term, IMHO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have published information to the effect that Major Hasan had been issued a Virginia concealed weapons (CCW) permit in 1996.[9] Virginia state statute law on this matter stipulates that "The court shall require proof that the applicant has demonstrated competence with a handgun,"[10] and offers eight possible ways in which the applicant might provide that proof.
Beyond the years of handgun experience implied by the issue of that permit, there is the fact that in the course of firing those 100 shots Major Hasan is alleged to have discharged, not only were 13 people killed but 30 others were wounded and survived. Is it reasonable to assume that none of those 43 people struck in the course of this incident had been hit by the "friendly fire" of the police responding to the event? In addition, though the number of victims sustaining multiple impacts is not fully reported, it is known that several were so injured. Sgt. Kimberley Munley (for example) suffered four such wounds. On the whole, it seems that the alleged operator of that FN Five-seveN had demonstrated in a "live-fire" situation expertise superior to that required to qualify with the Army's issue M9 pistol, probably putting more than half his shots into one or another human body, most of them doing everything they could to spoil his aim. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This dude has been in the United States Army for his entire adult life, more than 20 years. Why is anyone surprised he had a CCW permit or that he bought handguns, just like almost every other career soldier in America? --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ROTC or not?

I am on faculty here at Virginia Tech. I didn't make the connection between this story and the University until I visited our homepage this morning. While Fox News (the currently cited source) indicates that the shooter completed ROTC here at Virginia Tech, the University website currently denies this:

"Hasan was not a member of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets, nor was he a member of any ROTC program at Virginia Tech."

To be in ROTC here, you have to be in the Corps of Cadets.

The University is pushing this as a "Media Advisory" - http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2009&itemno=848 198.82.24.156 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

His being part of ROTC, is supported by a verifiable reliably sourced reference. That being said, Virginia tech's press release should be included but with attribution, for Press Releases generally aren't seen as reliable sources.

Furthermore, is it possible that because he was prior service, his membership in the Corps was handled differently, like it is done at Texas A&M? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In this edit by Chestertheclown the verifiable reliably sourced referenced statement regarding Hasan being a member of ROTC at the school was removed. I shall re-add it. It's removal, IMHO, because it is referenced from a reliable source should be done via consensus. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person. Dubious information is to be removed unless sufficiently sourced. People may disagree about what is needed to support the information, but consensus needs to be sought to add it, not to remove it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, let me repeat that the statement that he was in the ROTC program at VTech, is referenced from a reliable source, Fox News. Furthermore, another dozen news articles, pulled from google support this statement, including articles from the WSJ, AP, and The Washington Examiner. These are the reasons why I say that the statement should not have been removed.

If other sources say different, an additional statement should be added like "however this has been contridicted in other reports", with those references attributed to that statement. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And again, let me say that it's on you to do better. What are the sources of those news stories? Fox News didn't follow this guy through college, so where are they getting their info? I don't have any stake in the argument - I'm neither removing content nor saying it needs to be removed - but if there is some doubt as to the validity of sources, the immediate remedy is to remove the information pending discussion. There's absolutely no urgent need to include it, and if there's a possibility that it's wrong then there's no harm in waiting a bit. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2009&itemno=848 straight from the horse's mouth, he was not in ROTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.106.137 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop reverting my edits, I do not want to get into an edit war. The bench mark of addition to the article has been met, from four separate sources. If the bench mark of including information meant that the source had to "follow this guy through college" for every subject that ever attended a college/university/academy/school then zero information would ever be added regarding any individual. Furthermore, it is like an organization to disavow any previous relationship with an individual who maybe, or is, considered infamous.

As for where those Verifiable Reliable Third Party Sources got their information, an earlier news article stated that an army official was the one who linked Major Hasan to the ROTC program at his alma mater. Here is the earliest source that I can find of this statement:

WASHINGTON (AP)- Military officials say the suspected shooter at Fort Hood was a psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for six years before being transferred to the Texas base in July. The officials had access to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's military record. They said he received a poor performance evaluation while at Walter Reed. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because military records are confidential. The Virginia-born soldier was single with no children. He was 39 years old. He is a graduate of Virginia Tech University, where he was a member of the ROTC and earned a bachelor's degree in biochemistry in 1997. He received his medical degree from the military's Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001. At Walter Reed, he did his internship, residency and a fellowship.

— AP, "ARMY OFFICIALS: Suspect in shooting is not dead, but in stable condition". Associated Press. 5 November 2009.

This is further supported by an AP article, posted only 2 hours ago.:

• BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE (6 November 2009). "Details emerge about Fort Hood suspect's history". Associated Press. He served eight years as an enlisted soldier. Military records show he also served in the ROTC as an undergraduate at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg and received a bachelor's degree in biochemistry there in 1997.
  But college officials said Friday that Hasan graduated with honors in biochemistry in 1995 and there was no record of him serving in any ROTC program.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That last quote says it all: His ROTC service is uncertain and/or disputed. If that's the case, we don't add a statement to the article that says it's disputed; we leave it out completely until it is positively confirmed one way or the other. End of story. Repeated removal of poorly sourced BLP info (by any good faith editor's standards) is not subject to 3RR limitations, and whatever theory you may have about the college's reasons for disavowing him are original research. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Had Dr. Hasan been engaged in reserve officer training as an undergraduate at Virginia Tech, his course of study would have qualified him for a commission as a second lieutenant immediately upon graduation in 1995. Best information presently available, however,[11] indicates that Dr. Hasan had first been commissioned instead in June 1997. Between this datum and the media advisory released by Virginia Tech[12] explicitly denying the subject's membership in the university's Corps of Cadets or participation in any ROTC program at that institution, it is almost certainly safe to conclude that he was not a ROTC student during his time in Blacksburg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.151.88 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't have to decide when there is conflicting information, all from reliable sources. The article can include the uncertainty. Something like "While a number of news sources reported that Hasan was xxxx [cite][cite][cite], the college said yyyy [cite][cite]." That's better than arguing over which is right, and showing readers only one side. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When "Verifiable Reliable Third Party Sources" earlier cited are journalists meeting deadlines at The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and The Washington Examiner (see above) and other third-party authorities of markedly greater reliability (such as the Virginia Board of Medicine in its Practitioner Information Web page on Dr. Hasan[13]) yield information demonstrating definite errors of fact in those journalistic sources (see Mr. Blackledge's cited Associated Press article[14] in which Dr. Hasan's year of graduation from medical school is given as 2001 instead of 2003), the contention that the journalists' data are equal or superior in accuracy is not supportable.
Moreover, inasmuch as the journalists serving as these "Verifiable Reliable Third Party Sources" tend commonly not to explicitly attribute their information (making verification difficult at best, and rendering it impossible to determine whether the journalist's own source on a particular datum is anything other than hearsay) and these journalists often draw upon other journalists' stories without citation (thereby compounding their colleagues' errors), the refusal to consider the relative levels of evidence[15] in the evaluation of sources is not defensible.
Thus a fixated acceptance of the earlier journalists' reports of Dr. Hasan's participation in the ROTC program at Virginia Tech when the university administration - the officers of which have immediate access to Dr. Hasan's records at the institution - has uttered an explicit denial of the subject's membership in the school's Corps of Cadets or in any Reserve Officer Training Corps program[16] is not a practice that any Wikipedia editor can or should defend. 71.125.151.88 (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Assumptions are original research. Although, I am on the side that the Army Record supersedes any statement by VTech, I understand due to the conflicting data available, why it is not included. However, like John Broughton I would much rather have both versions of the information in the article, with all the references available supporting which ever data they present. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

RCLC, what you've got here is the suppression of what appears to be objectively correct information in favor of what is alleged to be "Army Record" data second-handed by mainstram media journalists, who bring to their work all the training and trustworthiness of a Jayson Blair.
Let me put it this way: courtesy of Wikipedia autocrats, you've got the harried and time-pressured writings of former J-school types being received as gospel, and the readers of Wikipedia being deprived of "conflicting data available" even when that data is drawn from sources which the journalists themselves must acknowledge as more reliable than what their on-the-spot interviews could provide.
This kind of thing - an obstinate reliance upon the MSM à outrance - seems go be found among the majority of the Wikipedia apparatchiki, and it's more than just a little bit sickening, damnit. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you not like the compromise provided by JB? That way both versions of history reported can be included in the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jordanian or Palestinian

Is MAJ Hasan of Palestinian or Jordanian ethnicity? Initial reports that was Jordanian, however I have seen that it has been changed, and referenced that he is Palestinian. Further complicating the matter is that what is now known as the West Bank was previously de jure Jordan, yet de facto Israel until the Israel–Jordan peace treaty.

I have found several sources saying that the Major is Jordanian:

• "Retired General Barry McCaffrey talks to News 10NBC about Ft. Hood massacre". WHEC-TV. A Hubbard Broadcasting Company. 6 November 2009.
• "Store's Video May Show Ft. Hood Suspect". CBS. 6 November 2009.
• "Fort Hood Suspect of Jordanian Descent Still Alive". IsraelNN. 6 November 2009.
• PTI (6 November 2009). "US Army major goes on shooting spree, kills 13 at military base". dnaindia.com.
• April Castro and Devlin Barrett (6 November 2009). "http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_13726723". Denver Post. {{cite news}}: External link in |title= (help)

But, as we have seen there are others saying that he is Palestinian:

• BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE (6 November 2009). "Details emerge about Fort Hood suspect background". Associated Press.
• AP AND JPOST.COM STAFF (6 November 2009). "Texas shooter reportedly a Palestinian". Jerusalem Post.
• JAMES DAO (5 November 2009). "Suspect Was 'Mortified' About Deployment". New York Times.
• EMILY FRIEDMAN, RICHARD ESPOSITO, ETHAN NELSON, DESIREE ADIB and AMMU KANNAMPILLY (6 November 2009). "Army Doctor Nidal Malik Hasan Allegedly Kills 13 at Fort Hood". ABC.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• NBC News and news services (5 November 2009). "Troubling portrait emerges of shooting suspect". MSNBC.

All this information, and much more that I didn't post, doesn't provide a solid question. Another possibility is that he could be a multiracial american. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering most Jordanians are of Palestinian descent, there isn't much of a contradiction. Granted, I know he's Palestinian, but that's original research, so just ignore that... -- tariqabjotu 17:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, one of the articles presently used on the article page, refer to him as both Jordanian, and Palestinian:

• BEN CASSELMAN, ANN ZIMMERMAN and MIGUEL BUSTILLO (6 November 2009). "A Helper With Worries of His Own". Wall Street Journal. He is a Virginia native of Jordanian descent, military sources said."
  "He also described himself as of Palestinian descent. His mother's 2001 obituary in the Roanoke Times said she was born in Palestine in 1952. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. He's of Palestinian descent, and it's also possible that his mother was a Jordanian citizen. When Jordan had control of the West Bank, they offered all Palestinian refugees living in the West Bank and Jordan itself citizenship. So, even though it's the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the country is heavily or -- by some accounts -- mostly Palestinian. There's no contradiction. -- tariqabjotu 17:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If what you are arguing is true, then shouldn't both Palestinian Americans and Jordanian American categories be appropriate for this article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"shouldn't both Palestinian Americans and Jordanian American categories be appropriate for this article?". I second the question. It seems straightforward to me that it should contain both, if he is both of Palestinian and Jordanian descent. But perhaps there is a subtle issue that User:Tariqabjotu or someone else could explain. For example, perhaps Palestinians who were given Jordanian citizenship are conventionally referred to only as "Palestinians" and not as "Jordanians" in Jordan? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not straightforward. There are many Palestinians who live in Arab countries who would refer to themselves as simply Palestinian, even if they lived in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., all their lives. And, in fact, that's the way most Arab countries treat Palestinians -- as if they're Palestinians, not Egyptians, Saudis, etc. The thing is that Jordan has done a better job of integrating its Palestinian population into the rest of population, and it used to, unlike all the other Arab countries, freely give Palestinian refugees -- including those living in the West Bank -- citizenship. Whether that granting of citizenship to a parent (and it's not entirely clear that his mother was actually a Jordanian citizen at any point) is enough to make the son, who lived in the U.S. his whole life, a Jordanian-American is a matter of opinion. I imagine you'll find most sources simply refer to him as Palestinian, and I think that's sufficient. It also appears Hasan's relationship to Jordan, compared to Palestine, is more tenuous than that of the other people in Category:Jordanian Americans. -- tariqabjotu 00:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither category is appropriate, because the article is about the event, and the proposed categories are about the suspect. At such time that Hasan may warrant his own article, perhaps by that time his ancestry will have been worked out better, and the cats can be added to his article. Шизомби (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Did he have dual citizenship? Did his parents even apply for dual citizenship? If here were born in Canada to a mother born in the United States and a father born in Mexico, would he British (since that country once controlled the 13 colonies and Canada), Canadian-American, Canadian- Mexican-American or simply, if no papers were filed, Canadian?

Great Britain ended the occupation of what was then called Palestine long before he was born he was born. HASAN has a right to self-identify as he chooses, but at this point it might be simpler to simply label him as an American with Jordanian (or, for PC purposes, Jordanian/Palestinian) roots.

Although it is not applicable in this case, his place of birth does not preclude his being Christian; after all, President Obama is not (usually) labelled by his father's religion or place of birth ... no digs intended. Hasan is, whatever his roots, apparently Muslim, and just as being Catholic does not automatically make a person pro or anti (you know what), likewise his clothing in the Newsweek (and other) photos does not make him automatically what he this article and associated talk page is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.10 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Better example. If a woman who was born in East Germany and a man who was born in West Germany married in France some time in 1992 and had a child a year later, would the child be (if no dual/triple citizenship papers were filed) French-West-German, French-East-German, French-East-West-German, French-German or simple French, with German ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.10 (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Less is more: An article headlined "U.S. had Islamist intelligence on Fort Hood shooter" http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5A85DK20091110 says: "Thirteen people were killed in the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post by the suspected Hasan, a Muslim born in the United States of immigrant parents." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.10 (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead may be incorrect

According to the definition of spree killing the shootings would have to have occurred in more than a one place. The article implies that all victims were in the same location. Leaky Caldron 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken it out for now since that is what the other article says. I'm sure someone will find a better term. HJMitchell You rang? 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Any reason not to refer to this episode as an "amok shooting" as the term of greatest accuracy? If Dr. Hasan's actions as alleged were the product of careful planning and preparation (and such certainly seems to be the case, including his selection of the Soldier Readiness Center, busily partitioned so as to inhibit either response or escape, and full of personnel effectively guaranteed to be without personal arms, as the venue of the battue), his purpose seems to have been the killing and wounding of a great many people not known to him, but "qualified" for attack by virtue of their membership in the same U.S. Army which Dr. Hasan appears to have conceived of as the enemy of his religion. Plainly, he did not expect to survive, but instead to be "martyred" by the unbelievers.
One very good note already incorporated on this page makes mention of German police tactics related to such "running amok" incidents and how they justify responses quite different from those which have proven best for hostage-taking situations. The response of the civilian DoD police officers to the incident (particularly that of Sgt. Kimberley Munley) was apparently guided by such an "amok shooting" policy.
This understood, "amok shooting" rather than "shooting spree" is almost certainly proper way to describe this event. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Kimberly Munley

Officer Kimberly Munley so far just has a redirect to this article. The AP says she was on traffic patrol, responded promptly, within 3 minutes after the shooting started and shot the suspect four times despite being shot herself, ending the event. She did not just wait outside for a SWAT team to arrive. This seems as good a basis for a stand-alone article as Chesley Sullenberger landing an airplane when the engines failed. Munley was not just a victim who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, heroically ended the massacre, and preventing the escape of the suspect. See [17] Google News results for "Kimberly Munley". Other significaant coverage of Munley from news sources:CNN profileGuardian articleCBS News articleNY Daily News article Washington Post articleEdison (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. If you can avoid needless repetition of this article and you have enough sources for WP:V and WP:N and maintain an WP:NPOV. HJMitchell You rang? 20:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, bad idea. We don't do biographies of individuals for are famous for a single event. WP:ONEEVENT Sullenberger is an entirely different matter; he personally did something extremely rare (landing a plane on water well enough to get everyone off), and he was the center of news coverage for months thereafter, with talk shows, etc. Not to take anything away from officer Munley, but police kill criminals every day while in the line of fire. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Who was the l;ast traffic cop in the U.S. to charge in and shoot it out with a spree killer of 13 like this? Any names come to mind? More often it is a number of cops emptying their guns into an armed or unarmed suspect Edison (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What she did was extraordinary and lots of people want to find at least some background information on her. It will not take long before the media makes her famous anyway so why not let wikipedia get a head start and make at least a subarticle. She and the shooter were both major players in this event, he started it and she ended it. So there should also be some material on her as well to balance the article. 93.161.107.107 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

She absolutely should have her own page! 'We don't do biographies for people of single events' < So why does the shooter have one then? That arguement holds zero water. She courageously sut this hypocritical coward down and she desreves recognition!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.130.8 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The ONEEVENT rule exists to protect people from inadvertent fame who might not want it. Writing her biography, including exploring her family and educational history, etc., is not necessary to understanding what she did. Her motives are clear. She'll always be known for stopping the shooter, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she would want her life exposed on the internet. By contrast, the shooter's motivation can benefit from exploring his past and his motivations, and few people would argue that he is deserving of any privacy. Dragons flight (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Has she been wrongly identified as the hero? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/us/12hood.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp 66.134.170.155 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Motivation

Norwegian news-sources have reported his motivation as being that he originally thought he was going to be working on base, then he was told he would be shipped to Iraq during the next troop-wave. 83.108.107.36 (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely. Insofar as I've gleaned from reports online, Major Hasan had been detached from duty at Walter Reed in July to Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood for such preparation as was deemed necessary for duty with a Medical Corps psychiatric unit in Afghanistan. It seems certain that when he left Walter Reed in the summer, he knew where his coming assignment would be. The Army today tends reliably not to just grab people and fling them hither and yon without considerable specific training in conditions, operations, and expectations pertinent to the duties to which they're being assigned. Such professional work as might've engaged Dr. Hasan's attention as a medical officer at Darnall would've been incidental to his preparation for service in Afghanistan. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mujahid (Jihadist)?

If he did in fact shout "Allahu Akbar!" as reported (and as Muslims have in the past before murdering 'infidels') then why is there no mention that he could have just been performing his 'Islamic duty' of jihad and that his actions were just an extension of his religious beliefs? Invmog (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Because that would take the information into the level of speculation or at least conclusion. If a reliable source takes it there then we can include it, but not before then, I don't think. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because that would be original research. Right now I don't think it's completely confirmed that he did shout Allahu Akbar (though it seems likely he did), and as far as I know there has been no reliable source claiming that he was "performing his 'Islamic duty' of jihad and that his actions were just an extension of his religious beliefs." Without a bullet-proof source we simply cannot put that kind of speculation into our article. It could be days or even weeks before we get a firm handle on Hasan's motivations, and until we know more there's really not much for us to say about that aspect of this tragedy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point I have read and hear from a number of reliable sources, including the NYT and CNN, that he expressed sympathies with the Jihadist movement and said Muslims should fight against the "aggressors" (i.e. the US). He also expressed admiration for suicide bombers and it has been reported that he shouted Allahu Akbar during the shooting. We know he was a Muslim, and we know that most of his misgivings about the war arose from his Muslim faith. I think it is fair to call this guy a Jihadi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to keep a NPOV I would suggest. This was 25 hours ago. The 'facts' are still changing by the minute! His level of religous zeal is still not entirely clear IMHO --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but by actively avoiding even mentioning this very strong possibility, we are in effect not being objective. It seems like many are straining to avoid using terms like Jihadi, when they clearly apply in this case going on what information is available. I understand the desire to avoid a backlash against the muslim community, but we also need to be truthful and honest about what happened. It is very, very clear this was not a simple case of a man snapping and going on a shooting spree. There are multiple reliable accounts of him expressing a desire to participate in the global Jihad. I just feel like there are a lot of mental and linguistic gymnastics going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL gymnastics is the right word :) This is Olympic whitewashing. The editors are straining HARD to avoid the Jihadi connection even though there is nothing that makes this case different from other Jihadi acts. What I don't understand is why they try to whitewash it, dhimmitude perhaps? It can't be that hard to treat this article in a neutral way, like any other religious/political killing. 93.161.107.208 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming it's religious/political. The fact is we don't know. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

we don't know, but we should talk about it, since the evidence appears to be there. With hate crimes you can never truly either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Category: Terrorism?

The categories Terrorist incidents in the United States and Terrorist incidents in 2009 have been removed at least twice and added back at least 3 times. The user adding the categories is citing this article: Ft. Hood: The Largest 'Terror Act' Since 9/11?. I don't think that one opinion piece (and it is explicitly an opinion piece) warrants the inclusion of this article in terrorism-related categories yet; at least one other editor agrees, but I thought it was worth bringing here to seek consensus. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

An absolutely unacceptable source. Grsz¹¹ 21:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Right now there is no evidence whatsoever that this was a terrorist incident, and one Fox News piece certainly does not change that. The categories, or indeed any categories describing the nature of the shooting in terms of motivation, are completely inappropriate at this time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely Agree, hardly a NPOV source --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the absence of those categories doesn't mean Wikipedia has determined it was not terrorism, just that there's not the sources to support that (but there may be later). The presence of those categories would mean that Wikipedia is saying it was terrorism. A degree of patience is needed. Шизомби (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Walid Phares is an unacceptable source? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue, I believe, is that the piece he wrote for Fox News is explicitly an opinion piece, and there is no evidence that he has any more facts about Hasan's state of mind than does the general public. And, in the article you cited, he doesn't entirely commit to calling this incident terrorism. He comes out strong in the first paragraph, but at the end, he writes, "In the meantime, if we do find that the suspect was motivated, at least in part, by ideology the attack on Ft. Hood must be recognized as the single largest terror attack on America (regardless of its homegrown origin or not, or the psychological reason or not) since 9/11." That is a qualified statement; note the "if." As Шизомби said above, if we do find that this was a terror attack, the cats can be added back at any point. Dawn Bard (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict and Dawn Bard wrote pretty much what I wrote, so I'll just add Phares' opinion could perhaps be included in the article, if identified as his opinion. Шизомби (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many sources that imply the incident is terrorist in nature, [18], regardless of the motive. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The motivation for the attack is not known- whether terrorism or otherwise- thus, placing the article in categories regarding such motivation is inappropriate, as seems to be the consensus here. When, and only when we have information on motives, such categories may become appropriate. HJMitchell You rang? 22:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Motive doesn't make a difference. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Motive makes every difference. Read the terrorism artile. Pretty much the only thing agreed upon as far as a defintion goes is "intended to create fear", "perpetrated for an ideological goal". We known none of that about this event. Grsz¹¹ 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. We don't know if this guy was a terrorist or crazy or just suffering from PTSD. Until we do, it is improper, POV and unencyclopaedic to call this an act of terrorism. HJMitchell You rang? 22:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Something can inadvertently be an act of terrorism? I'm not sure I follow what William S. Saturn is saying. Maybe if he fleshed out his argument there would be agreement. Anyhow, his link above has unnamed experts and officials being paraphrased as saying it's "too early to draw conclusions about the Fort Hood investigation." Again, in time, perhaps soon, the categories might be appropriate. At the moment, a statement of opinion by a named expert might be an appropriate addition to the article, as I stated above. Шизомби (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

William, in the article in WaPo you cited, it says "Several U.S. counterterrorism officials contacted Thursday said it was too early to draw conclusions about the Fort Hood investigation." How about we take their word on that for now? Clearly there is no consensus to add these categories at this time. In a day or two maybe people will feel differently, but we all need to give this a little time to develop. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"General Cone said that terrorism was not being ruled out, but that preliminary evidence did not suggest that the rampage had been an act of terrorism."[19] That is our information from the military. We should go no further than that at this time. ~YellowFives 22:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he was crazy. It's the magnitude of the act and location. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

William you are the only one arguing for including this, and I count 7 editors opposed to it. You do not have consensus at this time. Furthermore you are not responding to the valid points above about counterterror experts and military officials who say we cannot say anything definitive at this time about this being a "terrorist" incident. Please drop this for now and wait until more info comes out. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Make that 8 opposed. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) IMHO, if there are sources that call it a Terrorist attack, an attributed (and well referenced) statement, that is not given undue weight should be at least somewhere in the article, to state that it is an opinion held regarding the event. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone important in the military or FBI holds that opinion, then it might be relevant to include. "Somebody wrote an opinion piece" does not rise to that level, and it would be a mistake at this time to start filling up the article with everyone's opinions on whether or not that was his motive. If the persons holding these opinions are not important and close to the event, then any weight at all is undue weight. ~YellowFives 11:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if it turns out the guy was a card carrying member of Al'Qaeda, are we really going to call an attack on soldiers inside a military base terrorism ? That seems like stretching wikipedia's own definition quite a bit. --Helixdq (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The guy shot at unarmed soldiers. This was a terrorist attack. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You clearly are failing to understand everybody else's argument. Grsz¹¹ 19:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden Unit labeled the shooting as terrorist [20] this should at least be mentioned in the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the opposing view expressed in that same article? You're cherry-picking certain points. Grsz¹¹ 20:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm showing examples of notable individuals and experts calling the event a terrorist attack. I'm not sure if the other individuals are of the same notability. Your continued discussion of my actions is not constructive, comment on the content, not the editors. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second, what am I cherry picking? Did Michael Scheuer express a different opinion? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain you will need evidence that he had been radicalised before using that Category or claim. Leaky Caldron 20:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As the article itself now mentions, in the reaction section, that (at least two) experts are referring to the incident as terrorism, perhaps it is time to add the category? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Phares said both that it is, and that it is IF...; his "if" statement has been omitted from the WP article. McCaffrey said "it's starting to appear as if." Thus the statement in the WP article "A few terrorism experts [...] have labeled the event as a terrorist attack" is not strictly true. One said it is, one waffled, one said it could be. One of the articles cited is even titled "Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? Analysts Divided on Fort Hood Massacre"; Tobias, a Googling of whom shows is at least somewhat frequently used by various media outlets to comment on terrorism and who's written at least a couple law journal articles addressing terrorism is omitted from the WP article. I don't have a problem with the possibility of terrorism being addressed in the article, and it certainly is possible that it was that; we still need to exercise some patience here and it needs to be accurate to what people have said, not what editors would like people to have said. One would also suppose people involved in investigating the case are going to have better info in time than talking heads opining. Шизомби (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cherry-picked citations have popped up in the article again. None of them are relevant. Barry McCaffrey is a retired general and has no special information that the actual investigators are not privy to. Walid Phares is being quoted from what is described as "an opinion piece published in FoxNews.com's Fox Forum." Not a source subject to editorial oversight, and Phares is a lawyer with no terrorism expertise who works for a think tank.[21] Michael Scheuer is also retired as of 2004 and has no information that investigators are not privy to. The article they're cited from has been carefully cherry-picked to omit Carl Tobias, who says it is not terrorism, as well as the most important sentence of all, the actual views of the actual investigators on the case: "The authorities have not ruled out terrorism in the shooting, but they said the preliminary evidence suggests that it wasn't." Again, what we have so far that is actually relevant is: "General Cone said that terrorism was not being ruled out, but that preliminary evidence did not suggest that the rampage had been an act of terrorism."[22] But this section has been carefully cherry picked to present the very opposite of the actual investigators' views. ~YellowFives 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, high level individuals and experts have made these comments. Carl Tobias is not notable. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

None of these are relevant, and you have blatantly cherry picked the citations. WP:N does not apply to what can be cited, and you cannot use that for a reason to leave out Tobias while including the others. None of them are relevant to this issue, because none of them are involved in it like the investigators are, but if the others are going to be included then Tobias must be included as well. You need to read WP:NPOV carefully. You are pushing one POV very hard, and the other side needs to be represented. This is completely unacceptable, you do not have consensus for it, and it needs to be removed. The entire section needs to be removed, and you need to stop edit warring to push it in. ~YellowFives 05:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:N is very clear: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."

So you can not use WP:N to take out Carl Tobias. The policy is explicit. It doesn't matter whether he's notable. It only matters that this is verifiable, and we have to include him to keep it NPOV. You can not cherry-pick your source anymore. Now, this whole paragraph should still be deleted, because none of the opinions of any of these people is actually relevant to the article. Michael Scheuer is not relevant, Barry McCaffrey is not relevant, Walid Phares is not relevant, Carl Tobias is not relevant. None of them have any special information. The only people listed here so far who are relevant are General Cone because he is active duty on the base and speaking in his official capacity as an active duty military officer, and the actual law enforcement investigators who are assigned to the case. Everyone else needs to be removed. ~YellowFives 07:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

These statements contribute to the fact that this event is being seen by many as a terrorist act. The investigator is not the only opinion that matters, because not everything the investigators say is stone-cold truth. These sections must be open to describe the full spectrum of analysis.

Lieberman is apparently another waffler, calling it "the worst terrorist attack since 9/11" and also saying "It's premature to reach conclusions about what motivated him" and "If that is true [that he had turned to Islamist extremism], then this was a terrorist act." Or perhaps more probably, the journalists took his comments out of context to have a juicier opening to their story. Again, I'm not opposed to something about the possibility of it being terrorism being in there and believe it could be myself, nor am I opposed to there being comments from people who said it was or could be. But we should not be taking their comments out of context by eliminating their conditional statements, I think. Шизомби (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Terrorism is pretty flawed on inspection, it begins by saying "Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." By that standard, Oklahoma City was not a Terrorist act, because it wasn't systematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 9 November 2009

First of all, the Oklahoma City bombings were systematic, and were a terrorist attack. Once when I was threatened to not report a crime, the police described the event as a 'terroristic threat'. Of course there will be debate about what is or is not a terrorist attack. Many in the world would describe 9/11 as an act of war, not a terrorist attack. Frankly, I wonder why so many people are so against labeling this as a terrorist event when it completely is. A Muslim extremist acted out on his religious/ideological beliefs by killing innocent, unarmed people in order to install fear and make a statement. What more do you people want? Do you want him to actually hijack a vehicle or use explosives? One of the first calls after the incident reported that "we are getting attacked by a terrorist". If major news networks, congressmen and senators, intellectuals and political analysts, common folk, and even the victims themselves are calling this a terrorist attack, what right do you arrogant people have to say it's not? Obviously, you aren't terrorized by this event. That the FBI tries to rule out terrorism as motivation, and that you people are so vindictive towards removing that label leads me to believe that you people have some kind of ulterior political motivation to frame this incident through your own opinion.

• Because you made more than a few assumptions which are not proven: 1) Define extremist. Being against Muslim participation in the Iraq War is not proof of such. 2) You assume it's due to religious ideological beliefs. A person who had a mental breakdown could have done everything the shooter has done thus far. 3) You assume his intention is to install fear and make a statement. For all you know, it may simply be to prevent himself from being sent to Iraq, which thus far IS apparently one of his likely motivations, since we know little else. In addition, because this is a military, not civilian institution, IF he was affiliated to any external organizations associated with the war in Iraq, it could be closer defined as an act of war as opposed to an act of terror. (The following requirement: "defense of an ally under a mutual defense pact" could be justified) 203.116.243.1 (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1) I think this guy qualifies as an extremist, because he praised suicide bombers, believed Muslims should side with the insurgents, repeated JIhadi phrases during slide presentations like "we love death more than you love life (something a non-extreme muslims wouldn't say). 2) And a religious extremist could have done everything the shooter has done up until now. The goal is to determine which it was. And all information available leans on Religious Extremist. They still need to investigate to determine it. But based on the things this guy has said for at least a year, it seems like a case of religious extrremism to me. 3) For the last time, re-read the major definitions of terrorism, offered by men such as John White, Bruce Hoffman, and other leading experts. It can still be a terrorist act when the targets are military or police. 4) Can people please stop politicizing this issue. This is a tragic event, and it is no time for the appologists on the left, or the militants on the right to sieze the political footbal. Let's call a spade a spade, but without going crazy over it. What this man did was wrong. The fact that soldiers were his targets, doesn't change the depth of the crime, or the tragedy of the situation. Nor does it make it less likely to be terrorism (in fact, in this case, it makes a stronger case for it to be so). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, since the FBI is the US agency in charge of investigating Terrorism, we should be using their definition. Here it is: There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions: 1-Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives. 2-International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

CNN states addition 38 wounded

CNN story (5:54pm EST) now states 38 wounded in addition to the fatalities. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/texas.fort.hood.shootings/index.html I will update the aticle, and cite accordingly. Skiendog (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cross check carefully. These figures have been all over the place. Usually around 28-31. 38 could be a typo. These sources may even be using Wikipedia as a source.

Same CNN story (Updated 2312 GMT) also states "Two law enforcement sources told CNN that one of the weapons used is an FN 5.7-millimeter pistol, a semiautomatic purchased legally at a Killeen gunshop. Details on the other gun, identified only as a type of revolver, were not immediately available." May be worthy of addition to article.

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologise. I've reverted the addition of 38 to the article before I saw this. However, can we wait until this has been confirmed by other news sources that are not just citing each other and WP. If the figure is 38, AP, the BBC, Yahoo!, Reuters etc etc etc should be quoting it soon. Until then... HJMitchell You rang? 23:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology not necessary but appreciated anyway. I noted you were onto this very quick. Need to go back to the primary sources police, military as much as possible

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I say, if it's confirmed somewhere else, I'll add it in. Perhaps General Cone'll be on telly later, perhaps he already has been and I've missed it, but I'll keep an eye out. HJMitchell You rang? 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

this article suggests that 30 became 38 because the 8 people were hospitalized for reasons such as stress and not directly due to wounds from getting shot. --Vishnu2011 (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How would you have that phrased? Write it here if you want and I'll copy it into the article HJMitchell You rang? 01:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed back to 30 wounded per this AP story, which seems to be the best info we have now. We could add that 8 others were hospitalized for stress but that might not be particularly important in the grand scheme of things. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to this, sorry for formatting. The figure is incorrect. 29 were injured, as per AP and pentagon figures now. Eight were sent to the hospital for stress-trauma reasons, and the shooter himself was injured. That's what brings the total count to 38. So the article can read 38 hospitalized, 29 wounded by the gunman. 208.240.43.2 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.240.43.2 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION To weapons mentioned above: FN FiveSeven or FN 57 NOT 5.7-millimeter. That would make it a .22 caliber. ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=9012995 "Hasan used an FN Herstal 5.7 tactical pistol."."A second gun found with him was a 357 Magnum Smith and Wesson revolver, but it is not yet clear if Hasan used the weapon during the shooting." --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION ++ "The weapon's name refers to its 5.7 mm caliber"."The 5.7x28mm cartridge was originally created by FN"
Refer Wikipeadia article FN Five-seven and 5.7x28mm
APOLOGIES, I had never heard of this cartridge. (NEVER ASSUME)--220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Five Seven is a very specialized calibre. it was designed for ballistic vest penetration, and was the cause of major concern for governments around the world over the last 20 years. the USA has banned the sale of most loads of Five Seven to civilians because of the danger it poses to police and tactical teams. Skiendog (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, not "most loads" of 5.7x28mm cartridges, but some. Of currently manufactured ammunition in this caliber, the 28-grain SS198LF version is restricted to purchases made by law enforcement and military customers, but the the 28-grain SS195LF and the 40-grain SS197SR cartridges are commercially available.
It would be well to determine the precise type of 5.7mm cartridges obtained by Dr. Hasan and allegedly employed in the shootings at Fort Hood, as we are already getting rumbles from the victim disarmament types about how the Five-SeveN should be forbidden to the private citizen when, in fact, the available ammunition for this firearm is no more (or less) capable of penetrating ballistic vests than is the widely-employed 9x19mm Parabellum round.
Given that Dr. Hasan's purchase of this handgun (which seems a clear indication of premeditation on the subject's part) was very recent, it is not likely that the 5.7mm ammunition employed was of the types developed initially for use in the FN P90 personal defense weapon (and designed to defeat ballistic protection in combat). 71.251.131.163 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Map

That map is almost certainly not of Fort Hood. It doesn't match any of the other maps available online. From the caption from Flickr, my guess is that it's the map of the Fort Hood *cemetery*. --Golbez (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You may very well be right. Do we know of any other maps of Fort Hood to compare to? - Drew Smith What I've done 07:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good call on removing that Golbez. Let's be sure before we put up a "map of the base." Such a thing would presumably be public domain, though it's quite possible this is information which the U.S. military does not routinely release (for rather obvious reasons). Editors with more familiarity with the U.S. armed forces could probably shed some light on the issue. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a cemetery to me too, glad you caught that! MOST inappropriate.
Many HOURS ago there was a, perhaps only partial, labelled satellite photo (Google Earth?) of Ft.Hood in the article.
Maybe that can be put in again or make your own up, if possible? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Anybody know where the original map went? If all else fails I could try and grab something off mapquest or google maps and darken the lines... - Drew Smith What I've done 07:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Victims and casualties

Victims implies a value judgement. It is a POV word we should avoid. Casualties does not mean dead. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/casualty Hasan is an alleged murderer, but not really an alleged gunman - no one is disputing that he was the gunman. He will not be tried for being a gunman, he will be tried most likely for murder. Rich Farmbrough, 09:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Oh and you mean "duplicated" not "duplicitous" - the latter means deceiving. Rich Farmbrough, 09:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

No, I know what duplicitous means, but it's late, and I was trying to be humorous. Apparently I failed. Neuromancer (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Webster's defines victime as: one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a victim of cancer> <a victim of the auto crash> <a murder victim>

casualties is defined as: serious or fatal accident

wiktionary is user editable, and not considered a RS. Neuromancer (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not using it as an RS. I would be if I was citing it in the article but I'm not.

• None of Webster's definitions of "casualty" are exclusively applied to fatalities. (Webster's New World College Dictionary)
• A victim has to be a victim of something - usually an agent with real, imputed or anthropomorphised intent to cause them to be "injured, destroyed, or sacrificed". So by using the phrase we impute intent. Secondly we don't describe (nor should we) Hasan as a "victim" of the police officer that shot him, although his injury was prima face a sacrifice to save the lives of others. Rich Farmbrough, 09:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

• Nor do we refer to Hasan as a casualty. The alleged shooter definitely had to have an intent behind pointing a loaded firearm at a human, and pulling the trigger, then doing the same to 33 more people. Ipso Facto, the shooter had the real intent to cause them to be injured, or destroyed, thereby "victimizing" them. Some of those victims became casualties of the shooting. To categorize the injured as "casualties" is confusing to say the least. Neuromancer (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are presumably being funny again? Concise means short. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Hood_shooting&action=historysubmit&diff=324439059&oldid=324438944 uses three times as many syllables to say the same thing in an POV and inaccurate way. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Dead means dead. You can argue about casualties and we can avoid that word but it widely includes injured - we should not use it to mean dead. Rich Farmbrough, 10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Nor indeed should we use "casualties" to mean "injured" as another editor has done. Rich Farmbrough, 10:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Most of the wounded and killed were military. A military individual who is injured or killed is refered to in military jargon as a casualites AR 600-8-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinRJoneZ (talk • contribs) 04:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The word "only" should be removed from the last line of the "Victims" section of the article which said (something like) "As of November 9, only xx victims remained hospitalized." The word "only" implies a degree of surprise, which needless to say is hardly objective. The number, whatever it is, is objective, and does not require any adulteration. It's not a lot, it's not a few, it is what it is. People can count. Get rid of the subjective word, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.107.28 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Change in Lead -- "Allahu Akbar!" -- NPOV, POV push

I'm going to have to change it back to the old version and what people seem to have been content with for quite some time. Although there are sources for that's there now doesn't mean it's the most informational or appropriate thing to include that far up. That's what people see on search engines as top result if they search for this. There's certainly a place in the article for it, but you don't sensationalize a lead. If someone could only tell you 2 lines about this story, is that part of what you'd want to know?

Though the attempt to make it sound balanced afterward is a nice gesture, that's literally admitting it's a POV push and encouraging readers to jump to conclusions. You really want to suggest that readers will get through that section and put the "use caution" part with equal weight? Explain what was wrong with the original version. It's meant to be short, precise, informative. Yelling that is not a key moment of the entire incident that it gets into the lead, sorry. Think of the entire scope of the article. The only thing anyone could possibly conclude by reading "Allahu Akbar!" in the lead would be an extremist link which is not an assumed. That's it. A few might recognize it as being something deliberately calling attention to itself, but that speak poorly of the quality of high-volume articles at Wikipedia. Even if that is what comes up in the investigation, it still have no place up there. ...Actual explanations in discussion, please. How is it not POV pushing and encouraging readers to jump to conclusion while at the same time removing some key details of the immediate situation of a current topic? What about the editor who added it-- why is that so incredibly important to stand up there? Even if what the text suggests is believed by readers, there's no text or sources in the article that would explain why that was so important. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I struggle to determine what point you're trying to make there besides that it should not be in the lead, with which I agree. However, he said it, thus it's worth inclusion somewhere in the article. HJMitchell You rang? 18:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"There's certainly a place in the article for it, but you don't sensationalize a lead." Right. Good edit, daTheisen. Yelling this is not a defining aspect of the story for the lead. ~YellowFives 19:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't put it in the lead, but it was me who looked up and added two sources to verify it's notability. Removing it from the lead expresses a sort of politically correct POV. As currently written, the lede holds a much safer political view, but nevertheless it is certainly a POV. There's no easy solution. ( Unfortunately, WP:NPOV is an unrealizable and ultimately authoritarian policy.) --Firefly322 (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's no "right" way to do it, so why not go with what's been there for 2 days? There was never any actual talk of an agreement to change. ... And yea, I apologize for actually explaining an edit instead of just blindly doing it so no one looks on the talk page for something. Great observation. And for where it goes? How about at the start of the "story" part after the setup of the day up to that point? It would fit into a narrative-timeline. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what you said about the sentence after the Takbeer statement is correct. Having it there is just poor editing. However, a bold Takbeer statement in the lede might be acceptable (if there are enough sources to justify it and the 3 that we have might enough). Two days is not anywhere near enough time to see how this story unfolds in truly encyclopedic terms. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it again, it belongs in the article. But if it turns out this was Islam-oriented we will say that in the lede when it is confirmed. Until then, innuendo is not useful. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If somebody shot 13 people after shouting "this is for you, Jodie Foster" or "death to zucchini", we would put that in the lead, because it would be an important fact, more important than miscellaneous data like where the shooter was born. This should be no different. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead is a brief summary, so no, I'm not sure you would. It's also not known to be a fact, it's just an allegation at this point, but it probably warrants inclusion in the article somewhere, and indeed it is included. Шизомби (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

First, the "Allahu Akbar!" leitmotif has been reported repeatedly in the mainstream media sources upon which the Wikipedia apparatchiki dote so slavishly. (Seems that's why they haven't suppressed it altogether.)
Second, it should be noted that the Wikipedia article on the Luby's massacre (1991) reports - in the second paragraph - George Jo Hennard shouting: "This is what Central Texas did to me!" as he opened fire.
Certainly looks as if the only reason that "Allahu Akbar!" is pushed 'way down the page and buffered with a delicate "reportedly" in the Fort Hood shooting article is pure, full-bore, flop-sweat political correctness on the part of our lock-that-page-down editors, don't it? 71.251.131.163 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The event you cite is from eighteen years ago (and only has four paragraphs anyway), and this is a matter of a few days old. In time, if what he said is confirmed, the "reportedly" will be gone. It actually is in the same place as in the Luby's article: the first paragraph after the lede. What is so hard about Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Шизомби (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The squirming of the politically correct in the address of this episode is simply too entertaining that one should forgo the harmless pleasure of "stirring up the animals," particularly as the development of further information on Major Hasan adds inexorably to the understanding that political correctness was the real reason why the various red flags in his behavior had been studiedly ignored by his colleagues, his subordinates, his fellow officers, and his superiors. The mechanisms of internal scrutiny which are supposed to operate in an institution like the U.S. Army were induced to fail as the responsible individuals each strove to reduce his personal risk of falling afoul of the "PC police." Wonderful demonstration of how pervasive is the CYA proclivity among career military officers, and how hazardous is the Army's effort to simulate conformity with the velvet fascism of America's leftists.
Shows how political correctness led, step by step, to a situation in which dozens of active-duty soldiers found themselves in Condition White when one alleged perpetrator percolated all the way to going juramentado. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Could someone please give a third opinion on a related dispute? An IP above presented a citation for an account of the event that differed from what is currently in the article. My last edit including this citation is here. Another editor is repeatedly removing the citation, as here. As I understand WP:NPOV, both of these accounts ought to be included, and it is not our job to decide which is best: "all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." But I do not want to edit-war over this, and at this time only the other editor and myself have addressed the issue. If someone else would please take a look and give their opinion, that would be appreciated. ~YellowFives 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What he was yelling while shooting is certaintly one of the most integral parts of the story and clearly should be included in the lede, per WP:LEAD.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It definitely belongs in the article; however, IMHO, it doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This does not belong in the lead paragraph. What we have are unconfirmed reports. Remember that eyewitnesses sometimes claim things out of shock that never actually happened. Perhaps he did, in which case we will have reliable sources later... but it still doesn't belong in the lead. For a good example of what this article should look like, take a look at Murder of Marwa El-Sherbini. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

name in Arabic

If needed for searching accounts in Arabic media, his name in Arabic is نضال مالك حسن. —Stephen (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you can confirm that with a source it could be worth putting in the article next to his name at the start of "→ Suspect" ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What use would that be? Neither is he born anywhere in Arabia, nor is this wiki Arabian. --Toter Alter Mann (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don’t know how you do sourcing, but in Aljazeera it says: "نضال مالك حسن منفذ هجوم قاعدة تكساس يؤيد الهجمات الإستشهادية". —Stephen (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The terrorist's name in Arabic is irrelevant. The terrorist is a U.S. citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.183.125 (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The only possible reason to have the shooter's - excuse me, alleged shooter's - name in Arabic would be as a foreign language link. However, I just searched the Arabic Wikipedia and found no mention of the assailant of even Fort Hood. Supertouch (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The only reason for having it, as I said at the start, is if anyone (able to read Arabic) would like to search the Arabic media to see what they are saying about it. —Stephen (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure someone who could read Arabic would know how his name -- which includes three common names in Arabic -- is spelled in Arabic. And, I'm not sure why we would need to be searching Arabic sources for this; there's plenty of coverage on English-language sources and this story has nothing to do with the Arab world. But, if we were to put his name in Arabic, we don't need to source it; as I said, that's just how it's spelled. -- tariqabjotu 10:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He was born and raised in Virginia. His name is spelled in the Latin alphabet. The name on his birth certificate is "Nidal Malik Hasan." There is no more reason to include the Arabic spelling than to include the Cyrillic spelling or the Japanese spelling. ~YellowFives 14:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pregnancy

I removed the sentence dealing with the fact one soldier was alleged to be six weeks pregnant. If she were 9 months pregnant one could argue the shooter could see she was pregnant - and it might be relevant to the shooting. But the fact she was two weeks late menstruating belongs in the encyclopaedia? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We need a consensus here. Revert wars aren't product. In many states fetal homicide is an independent criminal charge (the comment "criminal if not aimed?" doesn't solve the issue -- since the act of shooting provides a basis for the charge, and a judge and/or jury will decide whether the act fits the statutory definition of the crime, including motivation). Due to the fact that many media sources mention the pregnancy, many people in the general public must consider the fact somewhat relevant (of course that alone is not enough to justify placing it on Wikipedia, I concede). --Dpr (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify the juridical talk "fetal homicide" (btw I editsummaried "criminal if not aimed?"). And also: is it law in Texas? If not: end of topic. Still the question is: did he aim (intended, wanted) to kill a pregnant woman, or is the pregnancy not involved? -DePiep (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

From Feticide:

...the Unborn Victims of Violence Act...recognizes the "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of 68 existing federal crimes of violence. These crimes include some acts that are federal crimes no matter where they occur (e.g., certain acts of terrorism), crimes in federal jurisdictions, crimes within the military system, crimes involving certain federal officials, and other special cases. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

From www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx

Texas Penal Code Ann. § 1.07 relates to the death of or injury to an unborn child and provides penalties. The law defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

--Dpr (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The woman was pregnant. This has been reported as relevant and important by reliable sources in the news media. It is original search for some Wikipedia editor to quibble about whether she "showed." Papers also said she had completed a tour of duty in a war zone and was to go on leave due to the pregnancy. No valid basis was presented for removing that referenced fact from the article. Edison (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] For the record, as may be relevant to this discussion, because this crime involves a member of the military as a suspect and occurred on a military base, the legal jurisdiction fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is significantly different than U.S. civilian law. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the late PFC was pregnant is relevant, and should be added to the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For consistency (with the Wikipedia entry on Charles Whitman - 1966 University of Texas shooter) unborn child of Francheska Velez should be listed separately as among those killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.187.228 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Major Nidal Malik Hasan

There's no link to an article about Nidal Malik Hasan , Islamic responsable for this shooting. This site: [Nidal Malik Hasan] shows that Hasan was 39 years old, Islamic, born in Virgina and single. Hasan was a graduate of Virginia Tech University, where he was a member of the ROTC and earned a bachelor's degree in biochemistry in 1997. Hasan received his medical degree from the military's Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001. At Walter Reed, Hasan did his internship, residency and a fellowship.Agre22 (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

You will see above there was doubt about his membership of the ROTC. Hasan is only notable in respect of this incident,therefore for the moment, his information, such as it is belongs here. Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

In addition to the "was he ROTC?" brouhaha, from what the administrators of Virginia Tech have published online, Hasan had graduated from Blacksburg in 1995, not 1997. There's also good reason to doubt the year of graduation from the F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine at USUHS given presently by Wikipedia (courtesy of the chuckleheads in the mainstream media). The Virgina Board of Medicine gives 2003 as the year in which Dr. Hasan's M.D. was awarded, and 2007 as the year in which his residency in psychiatry was completed.
In 2009, he'd completed a postgraduate course of study (but apparently not a fellowship) leading to the award of a Master of Public Health (M.P.H.) degree.
An interesting fact that really should be included in the biographical material on Dr. Hasan is found in the program of the 162nd Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association[23], of which he is a member. On Tuesday, 19 May 2009, Dr. Hasan (M.D., M.P.H.) was co-chair of a Component Workshop titled "Medical Issues for Psychiatrists in Disasters."
You'd think that somebody in the MSM would've picked up this little tidbit, wouldn't you? 71.251.131.163 (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The shooter attended religious services with two of the 9-11 terrorists.

I added this to the article, but someone else removed it. I'd like to see what the consensus is for including or not including this in the article:

Hasan had attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001, at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists.

Grundle2600 (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be included. It's part of a series of "coincidental" events tied to Hasan's radicalization and shows a connection between the two terrorist attacks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is intriguing, but don't overstate it. Note the article says "Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists." Also, it's not clear what the paper's source is? Шизомби (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction: "Hasan had attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia..." that's Falls Church, Virginia. Supertouch (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source for him having attended the DaH mosque in Falls Church? The Telegraph article that is being used as the citation still states Great Falls. It could be that the Telegraph goofed and have not corrected it, or it could be their informant was wrong (perhaps throwing suspicion on the whole claim), or it could be there's also a DaH mosque in Great Falls, or any number of other things. At the moment using the Telegraph article to state he attended a mosque in Falls Church is slightly problematic, since it's a correction by way of original research, and because the article doesn't state what the WP article says it does. Шизомби (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link from a US source placing Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church and not Great Falls (silly Brits!): [24] Supertouch (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference from The New York Times to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is clearly a ploy at guilt by association by William, who has been trying to push his terrorism POV for days. It isn't relevant here. "At about the same time" ... are you kidding? Being reported in the media does not make everything fair game to include here. Grsz¹¹ 15:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it's a clearly established fact that he did attend that Mosque at the same time as the 9/11 hijackers, and states it neutrally, it should be included as is.

Happy Trails! Dr. Entropy (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Military background and USUHS

Maj Nidal attended USUHS from 1997 until he graduated in 2003 - i.e. he was "rolled back" two years. His psychiatry residency lasted from 2003-2007. This was followed by his fellowship - a two year program that constitutes one year receiving a Masters in Public Health and the other year doing clinical work. This would mean that he graduated his training in 2009, and then got sent to his first duty station - in Texas. The USUHS payback obligation is 7 years after training - i.e. he would have to serve now until 2016.
His stated promotion date in 2009 is identical (plus or minus a few months depending on seniority) to the remainder of the Army physicians who graduated in 2003.

You've got an information source on that? Dr. Hasan's curriculum vitae not being online as yet (though I've no doubt that it'll get there), it seems more likely that the subject (who graduated from Virginia Tech in 1995, not 1997) did not go to medical school until 1999, and there appears to be no support for any contention that he'd been "rolled back" at all while matriculating as a medical student.
Like almost every other medical college in these United States, the F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine in Bethesda runs a four-year course of instruction, and if Hasan had been "rolled back" more than one year for academic or disciplinary reasons, I suspect that the Army would've dumped him out of med school altogether.
The one report I've been able to find online (courtesy of CNN) indicates that Hasan had been first commissioned in June 1997. This means that he was already an officer before entering USUHS (where the Army matriculant, enlisted man or line officer, is automatically commissioned at an O-1 grade in the Medical Corps), leaving a number of questions about what he'd been doing in the Army from the date of his Virginia Tech graduation (1995) until beginning his first year at Bethesda.
As either an enlisted man or an officer, was this guy ever in one of the combat arms? 71.251.131.163 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I graduated USUHS a year following him. While I do not know the exact percentages, approximately 5-10% of students roll back one year. If this happens in the first or second year of medical school (typically after they don't pass the USMLE Step 1 in the summer following 2nd year), then they have some sort of problems during third or fourth year, it is not at all unheard of to be rolled back again - at this point, they already have invested significant resources, and do, occasionally, on a person by person basis, roll them back again. This is less prevalent now than in the 90's, as I understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.134.193 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. The Virginia tech media advisory[25] informs that Hasan had graduated with honors in biochemistry when he'd completed coursework in 1995. It seems unlikely that someone who comes into med school with good grades in a "hard science" undergraduate program would bilge badly in the didactic years and screw up during his clinical clerkships, winding up six years in med school instead of the canonical four. The med school that suffered me as a student wouldn't have tolerated such putzelry, and our "roll back" rate was a helluva lot lower than 5-10%. As best I recall, they allowed one guy in my 150+ class to repeat first year; the rest of the flunk-outs flunked out.
Being a recent USUHS grad, can you get any information through the school or fellow alumni on Hasan's history there? Moreover, is there any way to discover his curriculum vitae online? I've tried, but I keep getting firehosed by "Fort Hood shooting" stories. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when are press releases considered self published sources, and when are they not. I have seen on the RS noticeboard, that they are often discounted as reliable sources, however at the same time, this isn't some company, but a major educational institution. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could. Currently, there is just shock and outrage from our classes - keep in mind several of my classmates, statistically, must have worked with him very closely. I haven't heard anything from anyone who did more than spend a short amount of time with him. I will be interested to see what comes out of all this - I do not personally recall meeting him.
I think my numbers are a bit high - I think 4-6 people rolled out of my year, and we picked up about the same from the preceding year. I think one or two rolled back 1st year, then the balance after failing the USMLE, then maybe one or two during clinical years - due to some sort of malfunction. That's the only kind of scenario that I can figure would allow him to take 6 years - he had to have two very separate years with big-time problems. Those that know all the details aren't saying much just yet - sure would be a good time to be an investigative journalist - has the makings for a very intriguing story - unfortunately with such a horrific outcome.

Come to think of it, illness could also knock one back. I had myself a wonderful case of infectious mononucleosis during PGY 1, and I suspect that only by hammering my licensing board examinations did I escape an obligation to repeat the year.
The chronology of Dr. Hasan's service in the Army has yet to be definitively elucidated, and that vexes me more than I can say. Unless Dr. Hasan had been involved in some sort of "black" activities, there should be no reason why this information would be withheld from the public, even in light of an ongoing criminal investigation.
The MSM clowns seem to have failed to perceive the value of digging out the suspect's full service record in analyzing his motives and capabilities, and in that failure they have stumbled into some obvious errors on matters like the years of Dr. Hasan's graduation from Virginia Tech and from USUHS, leading to our Wikipedia arbiters' present fixation on 1997 instead of 1995 for the former, and on 2001 instead of 2003 for the latter, confronting corrections drawn from unimpeachable sources with squalls about "original research" as they vest a kind of religious faith in the hastily-written and poorly fact-checked promulgations of the MSM journalists.
If the journalists have gotten such simple data as the years of Dr. Hasan's college and medical school graduation wrong, what else of theirs is being taken as verified fact when it's nothing but moonshine? Did Dr. Hasan take six years to graduate from medical school, or have the drive-by media simply sent the public barking up yet another wrong tree? 71.251.131.163 (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

'Scribd' website 'comment' still up re "MARTYRDOM IN ISLAM VERSUS SUICIDE BOMBING"

This is a bit off topic for a talk page but may become relevant as this site HAS been mentioned as the reason Hasan came to the authorities attention previously. This document sharing website, which has a comment alledgedly by one 'NidalHasan', is still up. Surprising! [26]
His comment is also on this talk page, item 25 I think, under 'suicide note'

The document itself was available about 12 hours ago here [27]

Or try a google search on "Martyrdom-in-Islam-Versus-Suicide-Bombing" --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gun politics section

I fail to see the relevance of the vast majority of information in this section. This could just be me being ignorant since it's early in the morning, but it seems to me that some of the information belongs in the "reaction" section and the rest in other articles. It certainly seems to have little relevance to the attacks themselves. HJMitchell You rang? 08:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree. I particularly don't like the pic. Ammo scattered about? Is there a less 'emotive' or NPOV picture available? Anti-gunners will love the one there now. Not the place/time for Pro/Anti issue. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken it out. The quote from the Brady Campaign is in the reaction section. Much as it loathes me that this idiot is playing politics with the deaths of 13(?) people, it has some relevance here unlike (back to being objective!) the rest of the information that was in that section. Please discuss it here before adding it back. HJMitchell You rang? 10:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the slaying of unarmed soldiers in the so-called “Soldier Readiness Center” is too ironic—let’s leave it out… ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 11:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the statement by the president of the Brady Campaign, while excluding the fact that

the soldiers attacked were not in possession of any guns at the time, and were unable to return fire.[28] One soldier working at the Readiness Center expressed the opinion that the Army's policy of disarming soldiers on domestic military installations had left them unnecessarily vulnerable to violent assaults: "Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can't even defend yourself."[29]

gives undue weight to advocates of gun control, through the suppression of the corresponding gun rights position. That one of the guns used in the attack was purchased at a civilian gun store is necessary to place the comment by the Brady Campaign president in context (advocates of gun control often seek to eliminate or highly restrict lawful channels of civilian firearms distribution.) The image Five-seveN USG.jpg is a simple illustration of one of the models of handguns used and its (rather unique) ammunition, and does not seek to convey any particular political position. I suggest restoration of the "gun politics" section, in its entirety. Andrea105 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The wholly partisan victim disarmament propaganda statement of Mr. Helmke should, in fact, be removed from the article.
First and foremost, we have in Mr. Helmke's characterization of Fort Hood as "a heavily fortified army base" more than sufficient evidence that he's not a reliable authority on anything about this case. Fort Hood, like most Army bases in the continental United States, is not fortified to any significant extent at all, and is merely policed rather lightly at the entrance points and by patrol cars. Civilians (including non-resident dependents, veterans, government employees, contractors, and so forth) regularly come into the Fort Hood reservation, and the installation is for the most part about as "heavily fortified" as a shopping mall.
It would be far more appropriate to re-incorporate the comment of Spc. Jerry Richard, the solder interviewed by Stars and Stripes[30] on the subject of the U.S. Army's "disarming soldiers on domestic military installations" to leave them in Condition White, unable to defend themselves. The temporizing of Lt. Gen. Cone in defending this policy of reducing active-duty soldiers to the status of sheep in a slaughter pen is in need of the balancing perspective of Specialist Richard, who is representative of the enlisted men General Cone wishes to keep disarmed and helpless. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree and, if it were up to me alone, it would be removed. However, it is worthy of note that he has come out with this statement, whatever we think of it. It is my opinion that it belongs in the response section (which is where I put it). If the quote needs to be expanded to put it in context, that can be done following discussion here. However, as I stated in the original post to this section, the "gun politics" section had no relevance to this article- it simply repeated information that was already included in the article, along with a whole load of irrelevant, partisan, POV stuff about anti gun campaigners which had no lace here, which is why I removed it. HJMitchell You rang? 20:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said before. I'd rather the entire issue was left out. Relatives/friends/acquaintances of the injured and dead may be coming here to get updates. They're not interested in the endless debate. Or photos of one of the 'nasty' guns that was used. There are links to the relevant information for those who want it. As always, the antis have a say when a shooting occurs, standard practice. Don't want to be accused of being partisan, as per Wiki policy. However, both sides basically have had a point put, as per that suggested by 71.251.131.163. And the quote Andrea105 wanted for balance is in again. Lets leave it at that. NO Gun Politics section. At present.
 :--220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The way it is now seems to work- there's no undue significance (except that that which the media has attributed) and it looks like a neutral statement of fact which is how it should be- covering all angles, but allowing the reader to come to their own decisions. HJMitchell You rang? 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"alleged gunman"

Ok guys, he was caught in the act and shot in a gun battle. Can we at least call him the "accused gunman"?

216.153.214.89 (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't been "accused" of anything yet. That is a matter for police. WWGB (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with WWGB. Considering we were certain he was dead not all that long ago, I think we need to be careul. However, I'd suggest replacing the term "gunman" rather than "alleged". HJMitchell You rang? 08:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course he's been accused, in the media and by the witnesses. He's not been "charged" but he certainly has been "accused". 216.153.214.89 (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In law, an accusation is "a formal criminal charge against a person alleged to have committed an offense punishable by law, which is presented before a court or a magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged crime". [31] WWGB (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You presume that he will at some point be charged. I do not. I do not look past today. At current he has not been charged, but he has been accused. You can't apply the narrow legal-context usage of the word "accuse" without making the POV assumption that he will at some point be charged. Your grammar would be "Accused Gunman", a proper noun, mine is "accused gunman", an adjective followed by a noun. [32] [33] 216.153.214.89 (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case, what's wrong with alleged? I still think we should find a more appropriate term than "gunman" but one thing at a time. HJMitchell You rang? 11:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording should be "domestic terrorist" Reliefappearance (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What about Running Amok ?? --Polentario (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither of which are exactly NPOV. We've been over the terrorist thing and the consensus on WP and in the media is against calling it that. HJMitchell You rang? 13:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The initial news reports used "shooter" - but I am inclined to "gunman", it is specific and has little on the way of overtones. Possibly it implies a facility with weapons, possibly it evokes "lone gunman", but these are relatively small flaws. "Shooter" is vague out of context, although pretty un-ambigous in context. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

I have to agree with the OP here..he was shot and arrested, and has been confirmed as the shooter. the word "alleged" can be a bit ambiguous, as he actually committed shootings, but it implies that he has not been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't matter if he has been legally charged or not; you cannot change the fact that he was the shooter.

Maladroitmortal (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reuters is reporting that he will be charged http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5A85DK20091110. Maladroitmortal (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

FN Five-seveN Pistol Info

Just got this off the FN USA website [34]

"All Five-seveN pistols come with three magazines, a locking device and a lockable fitted hard case" - Mags are 20 round

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, where would you put it in the article, assuming it's relevant? HJMitchell You rang? 11:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is most certainly relevant. Major Hasan's purchase of this firearm in August 2009, shortly after he'd arrived to take up his duties at Fort Hood in July, and his attending purchases of extra magazines and a large amount of ammunition of the unique caliber chambered by the FN Five-Seven, give additional support to the contention that this incident had been preceded by extensive planning and preparation.
Note that the subject is on record as having been granted a Virginia concealed carry (CCW) permit in 1996,[35] which may account for his possession of a .357 Magnum revolver as well as the semiautomatic pistol allegedly employed in the shooting.
Published information about Major Hasan's long familiarity with firearms appears to have been studiedly ignored in these Wikipedia articles. This is remarkable because the same Wikipedia editors have taken pains to prominently incorporate Major Hasan's family's claims that he is a peaceful person and a "good American."[36]
71.251.131.163 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not put it in, seeing as 'that' section is now gone, but I thought it was interesting. And it is/was mentioned in the article that "the pockets of his combat fatigues were full of pistol magazines". Make me wonder how accurate that statement is.
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reports state that the shooter emptied six magazines, totalling 100 bullets. If people, like me, assume that most pistol magazines contain 10-15 bullets, they may be wondering about the discrepancy in the numbers. If, however, the article explains that the FN pistol holds 20-round magazines, then the reports make sense. Cla68 (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is is unclear whether he used both guns? If he had 6 mags for the FN then where did the other three come from? Rich Farmbrough, 13:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Six magazines of 5.7mm ammunition had been emptied. The magazines discovered in Major Hasan's fatigue pockets by the medic who initiated medical treatment of the subject at the scene of the incident (number of magazines thus far not specified) were fully loaded. Obviously, additional magazines had been obtained, either at "Guns Galore" (where the weapon itself had been sought) or elsewhere. The magazines for the FN Five-SeveN come in two sizes, the standard 20-round version and a 10-round item to comply with laws criminalizing magazines of adequate capacity. It appears that Major Hasan's purchases had not included any of the 10-round types. Note that "Extension kits are available to increase the [20-round] magazine's capacity to 30 rounds."[37] 71.251.131.163 (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Reactions section

"President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke claimed that "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places."

Should it be noted that the army base is no gun zone? 88.91.109.250 (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worthy of a note somewhere in the article- I'll see if I can slip it in somewhere, but that particular sentence is just a quote. HJMitchell You rang? 12:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Right NOW this is noted right after the Brady quote. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the President's statements today are notable enough to be included:

"No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor,” Obama told the crowd on a steamy Texas afternoon. “And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice — in this world and the next.”

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6713791.html --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusing error in text

"Thirteen people (eleven soldiers and two civilians) were killed, of whom, eleven died at the scene, two later in hospital.[12][13] and thirty others were wounded before Hasan was shot at least four times by a local police officers, including Sergeant Kimberly Munley, who was herself shot by Hasan.[4]"

This doesn't make much sense! Who shot him? Also, will there be given any medals/decorations? 93.161.107.107 (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The text is pretty clear: "Hasan was shot at least four times by a local police officers, including Sergeant Kimberly Munley" ...though on second thought, it does seem that the presence of a after police officers is erroneous, as media reports state that more than one police officer fired on Hassan. --71.111.194.50 (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove "David Cook" as a link

"David Cook" has a link to a disambiguation on wiki that does not apply to the David Cook cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadark (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done HJMitchell You rang? 15:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

NPR: He was disciplined for proselytizing about Islam (medical school put him on probation)

A source tells NPR's Joseph Shapiro that Hasan was put on probation early in his postgraduate work at the Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md. He was disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues, according to the source, who worked with him at the time. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120138496 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.75.55 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've given it a sentence in the "early life and education" section. HJMitchell You rang? 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Silent or not?

I placed this sentence: "Sgt. Mark Todd, a civilian police officer said "He was firing at people as they were trying to run and hide. Then he turned and fired a couple of rounds at me. I didn't hear him say a word, he just turned and fired." after the segment referring to the attacker saying "Allahu Akbar" using the word "however" because it in contrast to that claim - "I didn't hear him say a word..." Supertouch (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues with Sgt. Todd's statement, not 100% sure that's the best place for it. I definitely wouldn't use the term "however" to counter the Allahu Akbar reports, as those words occurred prior to the commencement of this mass killing. ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Motivation Part 2

I think having a section for motivation is important even if only based upon speculation - so long as that speculation is from expert. There are clearly enough indications in the assailants pre-attack life to provide some clues in this matter. Supertouch (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say not yet. We still don't know enough and anything we'd put in it would be purely speculative. Expert speculation it may be, but it is speculation nonetheless. If you've ever watched a rolling news channel, they have "experts" on all the time to speculate on things like this. It's what the media does- it makes people feel informed and it kills time. HJMitchell You rang? 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The redirect at Nidal Malik Hasan.

This is just a simple request, but can this be redirected to Fort Hood shooting#suspect rather than Fort Hood? It would make more sense. 207.255.35.246 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this request and would do it myself but only an administrator can edit that particular page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, hence this section. 207.255.35.246 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It redirects to Fort Hood shooting currently, which would seem sufficient. Шизомби (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It would make much more sense to redirect to Fort Hood shooting#Suspect. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that, but he's mentioned in the lede, so there's not going to be any confusion about why it redirects here. If it redirected to Fort Hood as the OP stated, that would not make much sense. Шизомби (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A mention is not sufficient. Click the link, it goes directly to his image and description. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have requested that an administrator change it here.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 01:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it were redirected to the *Suspect* section, the reader would not get important information establishing why he is "notable". The first sentence would simply be: "Major Nidal Malik Hasan was a 39-year-old U.S. Army psychiatrist at the time of the shooting." What shooting? Who is he really? And why do I care? The present redirect is better, IMO. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) It's been  Done--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 01:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There's about 10 redirects I've changed most if not all the others. However it raises the question why call the section "Suspect" instead of "Hasan" - the latter seems more straightforward. Rich Farmbrough, 04:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

The Mosque in Northern Virginia attended by Hasan

The Associated Press reported on November 8, 2009 (wire report being updated), that the family of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who killed 13 and wounded 29 at the Texas military base, held his mother's funeral at the Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va., on May 31, 2001, according to her obituary in the Roanoke Times newspaper. At the time, Anwar Aulaqi was an imam, or spiritual leader, at the Washington-area mosque. Aulaqi told the FBI in 2001 that, before he moved to Virginia in early 2001, he met with 9/11 hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi several times in San Diego. Al-Hazmi was at the time living with Khalid al-Mihdhar, another hijacker. Al-Hazmi and another hijacker, Hani Hanjour, attended the Dar al Hijrah mosque in Virginia in early April 2001. The AP reports that the FBI 'will investigate' without further details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.17.245 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, but there is a short reference to the mosque and 9/11 in the article under the 'Suspect' heading. Last sentence in the section, at present. Suggest trying to put a link to the in article your entry, makes getting to it much easier.
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Talk:Fort_Hood_shooting [38] The_shooter_attended_religious_services_with_two_of_the_9-11_terrorists

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article protected?

Wikipedia never used to protect articles listed on the frontpage so rashly. 66.31.202.119 (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is why, see [39] --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, earlier on the article saw a LOT of vandalism in a very short space of time. That, combined with the sheer number of edits (up to 4 a minute) being made could have been disastrous. It'll probably be unprotected in a few days when the dust has settled, in the meantime, you're more than welcome to assist from here, as several IPs and others have been. HJMitchell You rang? 02:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

With information still being developed and refined on this "hot button" topic, maintaining the protection on this Wikipedia article is a damned good idea. The breadth and depth of discussion on this "Talk" page is a good indication of the controversy swirling around this episode, and even though I'm a cranky old bastard and do not agree with all of what they've been doing, the Wikipedia apparatchiki handling the work on the article page have been approaching the subject with commendable restraint and thoroughness. My opinion is that protection really ought be extended for some weeks, not just a few days. I think it best that the contentions continue to be hammered out in this forum, where the exchanges have been lively, mostly well-informed, and productive in the collection of information on the various aspects of this event. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The downside is that hundreds of new potential contributors have been locked out. Years ago Wikipedia never would have done this, and it is symptomatic of why new participation is starting to level off. 66.31.202.119 (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

not only the article, many comments pages are habitually scanned for unwanted informations... indeed it is not very encouraging to contribute, most probably the moment you don't pay attention essential informations can be deleted again the wish to contribute encyclopedically that way only becomes symbolic. there is still no mention of what kind of charges could be made against him,(indeed in one similar case, but that was at a way more significant point in time, fetched the deathpenalty.) although i see the many suggestive comments he wont come out alive from hospital have also been negated a bit now.24.132.171.225 (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a 'registered' user but I have, and you can, contribute. Read the article thoroughly, look for errors and report them here or directly to a 'named' editor. Keep an eye out for breaking news and updates. Post links to relevant websites and news articles.
Your opinion here is a useful contribution. If you need advice on anything I mentioned, just ask. Click on my IP below where it says talk and leave a message.

The protection was needed. It was an 'editing frenzy' even with protection. There were still 'vigorous exchanges of opinion', and some edit warring. Who knows what would have happened if anyone (world-wide!) was allowed to put their POV in? Server crashes? 71.251.131.163 makes good sense. I'm not talking through my hat. This started ~83 hours ago & I've been here for a large portion of that time. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Years ago, Wikipedia wasn't as popular and didn't have as far-reaching as effect at it does now. Times change in the technology realm, and they do so extremely quickly. MuZemike 08:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Sanity Clause? Santa would say that putting "Hasan" in the lead paragraph and only later on identifying "Hasan" is . . . (censored? senseless?) The NBC headline "U.S. had Islamist intelligence on Fort Hood shooter" shows some sense. Not overseeing the editing process shows lack thereof - a LOWERING OF STANDARDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.10 (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Fort Hood Shooter Frequented Local Strip Club (FOX NEWS)

Killeen, Texas — The Army psychiatrist authorities say killed 13 people and wounded 29 others at the Fort Hood Army Base Thursday was a recent and frequent customer at a local strip club, employees of the club told FoxNews.com exclusively.

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan came into the Starz strip club not far from the base at least three times in the past month, the club's general manager, Matthew Jones, told FoxNews.com... "The last time he was here, I remember checking his military ID at the door, and he paid his $15 cover and stayed for six or seven hours," ....

Jennifer Jenner, who works at Starz using the stage name Paige, said Hasan bought a lap dance from her two nights in a row. She said he paid $50 for a dance lasting three songs in one of the club's private rooms on Oct. 29 and Oct. 30... "He preferred the blondes," said Jenner..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,573052,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.101.145 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably better to leave that out. Probably just the club owner trying to get some publicity. Even if it is true, it really has no bearing on the article, or his actions. - Drew Smith What I've done 05:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

At the moment it IS in. Has been for maybe an hour? It is a bit doubtful. But it is published. Wonder if they have any security footage of Hasan at the club?. Remember the 9/11 hijackers did something similar, though that seemed to be more a deliberate 'fit in' deception action. Perhaps best ts say 'it is reported'? not a blank statement as it isn't verified ie. undisputable video/pictures.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'is it reported' is a step up from the current wording. That said, I still don't like it since it doesn't add anything for me as a reader. As for the 9/11 connection, we're still waiting to determine the motivation and whether or not it's terrorism (see above on this talk page), so I don't consider that a valid argument for inclusion _at this time_. I don't think all available information must be included- (e.g. why mention the sedan was a Toyota in the previous link?). If the shooting is deemed to be Islamic terrorism, and it turns out in the investigation that he wasn't just having a good time or being curious about the lives of strippers I'm fine with it appearing, though I'd really like to see some cited expert reasoning explaining why it's relevant. MJKazin (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The section has been broken up at this time by User:William_S._Saturn. But the wording is the same(?). I wasn't suggesting it was definitively terrorism per se. Just that verifiable variations from normal behaviour, for a ' devout' person, may be relevant. Also that the Atta and cohorts apparently deliberately did this. Depends on how matters pan out. The salwar kameez sentence seems irrelevant, especially as it is NOT even confirmed it was Hasan. "Store's Video May Show Ft. Hood Suspect". [40] --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed- seems abnormal based on my understanding of Islam too, but I'd rather WP not make the gross generalizations hysterical news media do in search of scoops. Fueling speculation is not encyclopedic, and it's perfectly alright in the meantime to tell WP readers we simply don't know why this happened. MJKazin (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Possible Motive"

I don't feel this is the right heading for the section. Reading through, there is a lot of information in there such as him handing his items away, wearing salwar kameez at the shop, which I don't see any relation to a motive. If anything I feel it is too early for us to be writing about possible motives when there hasn't been any formal releases about it. I think this should be reverted back to its old title. --Vishnu2011 (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's time we apply the same standard to islam as we do to other potential violent movements, instead of constantly whitewashing it. If the man had shouted "heil hitler" instead, the whole nation would have been enraged and there would have been no end to the judgment and condemnation. Now he shouted "allahu akbar" instead and everyone try to make excuses for it. Shouldn't the same standards apply to both? 93.161.107.118 (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Worst. Paragraph. Ever.

Under the "possible motive" header, the 7th paragraph:

"A convenience store security video reportedly showed Hasan wearing a salwar kameez, a traditional South Asian outfit.[57][58] Additionally, Hasan gave away furniture from his home on the morning of the shooting, saying he was going to be deployed on Friday. He also handed out copies of the Quran.[59] In the month prior to the shooting, Hasan frequented a nearby strip club.[60]"

This is probably the worst paragraph I've ever read on Wikipedia. I have no idea how to fix it. Maybe someone with a closer relationship to this article could rephrase/reorder/rework that?

It seems to just be a random collection of sentences and has no relevance to the surrounding paragraphs. Maybe it should just be removed? 71.238.254.92 (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The name of that section has been changed and parts moved to a seperate 'Recent events' section. Constant re-editing/deleting/ moving causes the sort of problems you see here. His dress is irrelevant unless unusual for him to do so. Giving stuff away may be normal for a deployment. Food especially, which I recall was reported. The strip club reference has also been questioned in the previous talk entry. Needs re-writing and probably moving to the 'Recent events' section further down. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to reorganize the information in this particular, so that it makes better sense. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more worse paragraphs ever, or even worse article ever, than this. MuZemike 08:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Map Revisited

File:Forthoodmap2.png

The red dot indicates the location of the Soldier Readiness Processing Center where the shootings took place

I have scoured the internet, probably devoting way too much of my time, but I finally came up with an acceptable map of the base. The original is here, which is PD as a work of US Gov. and, after another considerable amount of my life wasted, put the two maps together to come up with the version at the right.

This version is likely a little old, as google maps shows some streets that aren't in my version, and one that apparently moved a little. Of course, it could always be google that is outdated, as I know personally that googles map of Hickam AFB is about 10 years old.

I'm willing to do the work to get our map to match googles, but only if others really think it's neccessary. Meanwhile I'm putting the version I have in the article. - Drew Smith What I've done 06:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, knowing Fort Hood personally, I don't think much has changed there perhaps besides names of streets. All the layout should have stayed pretty much the same between then and now. MuZemike 08:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Injured List

In a recent edit] made by Ronnotel, the list of injured was removed. The edit summary reads:

Rm section, list of injured is not notable and an unnecessary violation of privacy

Given that some might find this edit contreversal, I was wondering if anyone opposes this deletion? If they do, they can post that they oppose it, and given, and discuss the reason why here. Rather then starting an edit war on the article itself. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My edit is in line with the consensus that formed at Virginia Tech massacre. After extensive discussion, the consensus was that listing the names of the injured provides little of encyclopedic value while violating the medical privacy rights of the injured. While the list of the fatalities is a matter of public record, the list of injured is much less likely to be reported. This information will become part of the permanent record and could be used inappropriately by, for instance, insurance companies, prospective employers, litigants, etc. As such, it is a violation of WP:BLP. Ronnotel (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am uneasy either way. Suppression of casualty lists is used in certain partisan disagreements. Also I think notability is not a requirement for content in an article, that is significance. I don't think it's an invasion of privacy since we only report on verifiable names. Having said that it does smack of a desire to find content. There isn't a great deal to say even after 1500+ edits - if I were reading this article I would skip both lists, unless I thought I might know someone. Rich Farmbrough, 13:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

I was in the middle of posting an Update (see next section below) when this happened. I dissagree that it is not notable. Their names are all over the internet, so I don't think we are invading their privacy anymore than it has been. What about the 'frell' who shot them? THAT is an invasion of privacy!!

• I felt it was bit rude to remove it unilaterally, considering the number of editors who have worked tirelssly for several DAYS to keep this article up to date. Like HJ_Mitchell who made up that table after others entered the names. That said,
• Is it in keeping with Wikipedia policy to publish this sort of information? BLP etc?
• Is it encyclopedic?
• Personally I OPPOSE DELETION --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, sincerely, to everyone who has been working on this article and I sympathize with their efforts. However, I do believe it is a violation of WP:BLP to include this particular information in the article. For otherwise non-notable people, we should err on the side of caution when revealing personal details. Ronnotel (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with removing the list of injured. Cla68 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that the injured list was gathered from various news outlets. Therefore, Wikipedia would not be the sole source of this information.In light of this, issues regarding disclosure should not be taken into consideration in this discussion. The question then remains, is this list appropriate or significant enough for this article or not. Supertouch (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The latest source, the San Antonio Express Website, had their injuries listed. Injuries should definitely NOT be listed in Wikipedia. Otherwise consensus rules--220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. (deletion of the names of the injured.) The names of the injured and details of their injuries are a detail which does not improve the quality of this article. (WP:NOT) However, I reject the reasoning that the list should be deleted on solely on privacy grounds. The names of the injured have appeared in so many places that privacy for these names is moot as far as the Wikipedia is concerned. Also, WP:BLP does not apply here, all the BLP tests are satisfied for the incidental inclusion of their names. I would think this would not need to stated but when I read that bizarre insurance companies preemption given above I guess it needs to be stated that this is not a WP:BLP issue. patsw (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  I don't consider it so bizarre that an unscrupulous claims adjuster might deny an insurance claim based on a "pre-existing condition" related to an injury discovered on this site. This is why we have laws like HIPAA. Ronnotel (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your anticipation of the behavior of an unscrupulous claims adjuster is not part of the policy, nor is it a reasonable inference to make. patsw (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive - let's please use common sense. The downside is a massive invasion of privacy and the very real potential for negative consequences to the injured. There can be very good reasons why someone might not want their medical history captured for posterity and all to see. The upside for maintaining the list? Not sure I see one. Ronnotel (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The identity and nature of the injuries in the Fort Hood shooting are already available to anyone interested. It has already been "captured for posterity and all to see." There is no ethical issue around identifying a shooting victim and the nature of their injury. This is simply not considered a privacy matter by any publication I am aware of. Sexual crimes and crimes involving minors are another matter. As I wrote above, it's a matter of whether it improves the article from the reader's point of view that makes me conclude that the list doesn't belong. patsw (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• My thanks to 220.101.28.25. I have no strong opinion on the material either way- I created the table, but only to keep it in line with the format used for fatalities (Yes, I created that one, too, but it went 24 hours without being reverted). However, I object in the strongest possible terms to removing this kind of thing without consultation. The purpose of this page is to discuss exactly that sort of thing and not doing so defeats its purpose and is likely, given the article's history, to start a revert war. Thankfully, I don't believe that people are that petty here and I, frankly, have better ways to spend my time. In a nutshell- use the bloody talk page next time. HJMitchell You rang? 14:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• I can understand the reasons for not having the list, however, as a compromise, should there not be a summery of those injured? As in how many were soldiers, civilians, treated only for shock, and what not? Those would be relevant to the article, and encyclopedic. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No particular aversion to including summary information on injuries so long as personal privacy of the injured is maintained. I'll leave it to others to determine whether the information would be encyclopedic. Ronnotel (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wounded NOT in current Injured table

At the time of posting this update the ENTIRE table has been removed!

1. Sgt. Patrick Blue III__23__of Belcourt N.D.--hit in the side by bullet fragments

2. Pvt. Najee Hull______21_____of Chicago ---was shot three times once in the leg and twice in the back.

3. Sgt. John Pagel_____28______of North Freedom Wis.--who was shot in the arm and chest.

4. Staff Sgt. Eric Williams Jackson____39__of Beaumont - pwas shot in the forearm.

Source: San Antonio Express-News.[41] "The names of those injured are compiled from various news reports across the country."

Web Posted: 11/08/2009 12:00 CST Retrieved 9 November 2009 12:45 UTC
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"...remains unclear whether he was the author of the posts"

“ However, it remains unclear whether he was the author of the posts ”

The above text is incorrect. The cited AP post does not use the word "unclear" or claim that there is uncertainty regarding Hasan's authorship of the posts.

Jakes, Lara (November 5, 2009). "Authorities had concerns about suspect". Associated Press. Retrieved November 5, 2009.(AP 4)

“ The officials say the postings appeared to have been made by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who was killed during the shooting incident that left least 11 others dead and 31 wounded. The officials say they are still trying to confirm that he was the author. ”

I have changed the summary in the article to correspond to the cited AP account. patsw (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous double standards

If it had been a white man shooting at people of middle eastern descent while shouting "heil hitler", it would have been treated as both domestic terrorism and racism by wikipedia. The article would have been RADICALLY different in terms of discussing motive etc. :) 93.161.107.118 (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a point that could be made better in a blog. This Wikipedia article is summarizing media accounts derived from official sources. The official sources are now avoiding a discussion of motives. There is abundant speculation regarding why this happened but that's not the goal of this article. In any case, an article on Speculation regarding the Fort Hood shooting would not be a good article. Likewise, the analysis of the political correctness, double standards, etc. is the domain of the editorial pages, politcal/media commentary web sites, and blogs. patsw (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That is utterly absurd. You are twisting the rules so as to suppress ideas related to the article. I'm saying that you should consider rewriting the article because it's unbalanced. You don't like that so you try to suppress the criticism. It's a typical wikipedia attack. Instead of trying to censor me and post warnings to my talk page, why not discuss the subject ie. the article instead? This is exactly why I and other people give up on wikipedia... 93.161.107.118 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The PC police are in the house. That is why most people take with a grain of salt the info that is on Wikipedia. Imagine 10 years ago somebody telling you that people and even media outlets would rely on a website that ANYBODY could edit as a source for accurate information and you would of laughed in their face.

It is obvious this was a one man act of terrosim. A terrorist who wanted to kill Americans who were about to head to the war zone. Good luck trying to get people to understand that. Look, there are nutjobs that think 9/11 was an inside job.--Panzertank (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, he IS white, as are most people from the Middle East. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be labeled what it is. Anti-abortion violence is clearly labeled as terrorism. That's the standard that's been accepted.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

“ did not suggest the shooting was terrorism ”

- that's from Lt Gen Cone and, I daresay, he is very slightly more qualified than us to judge. We just don't know! His motives could be terrorist, it could be the result of a dispute, it could be that he was suffering PTSD, it could be anything. To put in anything would be pure speculation which has no place in an encyclopaedia. HJMitchell You rang? 15:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this section is about double-standards. Nobody took the military's word on Abu Ghraib or its opposition to "torture" -- and they were far more open and honest about it than their critics.

I think the possibility of PTSD went out the window when it was revealed he never went to combat.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

PTSD does not solely result from combat. It also need not be the sole cause, it could be merely a factor, or it may not have been involved at all. Anyhow, the news says he's awake and talking now. 169.226.85.204 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a section on possible motives for the shooting, but there wasn't much traction for it. In order for there to be a section, there would have to be a substantial amount of reliably sourced content to draw on. At this point there's no consensus for such a section, and there would have to be a clear consensus.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and this article is about the most miraculous of things, solid fact. We do not put anything other than solid verifiable fact in Wikipedia articles and the only fact we have so far is that we just don't know what his motives are. Besides, one does not have to have been in combat to suffer PTSD. There is no place in this article for your opinion, that of the IP or speculation. If or when we know what motivated him, that can go in, until then, we don't speculate. HJMitchell You rang? 16:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two parallel issues here:

1. Some editors posting in this section of the talk page seem to be making an assumption that lacks good faith, namely that other editors are trying (for reasons that are unclear) to prevent the article from stating what they believe to be obviously true, that the shooting incident at Fort Hood should be described (and categorized) as Terrorism. I suggest that starting from a position of assuming good faith and being civil is a better way to frame one's arguments.
2. A number of sources of information (some reliable, some not) have made conflicting claims about the motivations of the shooter, with a range of statements ranging from "not terrorism" to "absolutely terrorism".

• My own inclination is to wait until there is a clearer consensus from reliable sources.
• If the consensus of editors is that there must be something in this article now, then I would suggest that a fair description of the controversy (i.e., some say it is Terrorism (include a citation), and some say it is not (include a citation)]].

What do others think? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the article already contains a lot of speculation that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, even if some might think it's "notable" speculation. E.g., the *Possible prevention* section is is merely Monday-morning quarterbacking. There's been a lot of political grandstanding included. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we do have enough facts to warrant a terrorism label, but I'm in no hurry. We'll know more tomorrow, and more next week.

As for "this article," yes, I agree that we do have to take articles one at a time. Still, we do need some degree of standardization across WP.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism not ruled out, Terrorism not ruled in

General Cone's remarks less than three hours after the incident have been incorrectly interpreted to mean that terrorism had already been ruled out by quoting only part of his statement. Cone explicitly said that terrorism was not ruled out:

While he said he could not rule out the incident as an act of terrorism, evidence does not support that theory."Fort Hood Gunman Who Killed 12, Wounded 30 Survived Gun Battle". ABC News. Nov 5, 2009.

Shortly thereafter, a misleading statement was prepared by Hasan's family which started the dubious claim that Hasan was a victim of traumatic stress which has not been backed up by any official record or source. patsw (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In reading the blogs, I saw discussions there that either the FBI or the Army (or both) stated on 11/5 or 11/6 that terrorism had been ruled out, but found no account which could be verified against an official source. An official "terrorism is ruled out" statement may be out there, I just haven't found it. This commentary may have been an extrapolation of the fact known immediately after the attack that Hasan's scream of Allahu Akbar was not in itself satisfying the FBI's criteria for terrorism as the FBI was not ready on 11/5 to characterize the shooting as terrorism. patsw (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

i unfortunately agree with this other victim of censoring, this topic apparently invited a lot of warnings etc. against individuals who not that much agree with usian imperialist practice. however i think a fascist shooting and a muslim soldier out of his mind are two different things. i got warnings .. but must say my most important point that it is not helpfull if amongst all the attacks and nonsense (about terrorism eg.) there are no juridical reference's is been incorporated in the article now (albeit seperated through deletion from my contributions). so as to proof my commitment was wholly with the informational aspects. ofcourse i am aware that militairy casualty's in any sense are underestimated systematically in official publications, wich indeed raises the point how much less unique this event is then it may seem, and why exactly this one did get through. however there are so many incidents that i cannot deduce unidirectionally, (so that i don't really know what is described is true in how far), one of my lines of thought is to even assume none of what i hear need be true. it may be unencyclopedic, we are talking about an event people will want to keep talking about as an event, rigthfully so or not, it is an essential and fundamental aproach however to collect as many viewpoints possible wich is usually the only way to acces the majority of facts. congrats on not killing him. i think the case is extra interesting because the man as a psychiatrist will be better able then most people to analyse and vocalise what took him this far. personally (i don't know if that is in the article yet), i think it is very relevant he treated so many (100s? more?) victims with amputations, after finding that i stopped searching for the basics behind his stress. not understanding them but being able to place them at least. knowing the mangling with numbers and the many and farreaching consequences of secret services interference, the repeated claims he was in the picture of said services, made up enough of a story for me, to understand what outraged this man so much to no end. thx for your attention, and i disagree this would be a discussion, since both the amputations and the interference are acknowledged.24.132.171.225 (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

??? Well what IS the editors/articles definition of terrorism then? :)

Which one do you use? And if you instead let authorities decide when its terrorism, what authorities do you use then?

• I don't understand how the editors can even start writing this article before having a working definition of terrorism. If this isn't terrorism, what would it take to make it so? Should he have made a solemn declaration, gun in hand, "I hereby commit an act of terrorism"?
• What makes this islamic act of terrorism different from any other act of terrorism commited in the US?
• Why not let the article treat this as any other ideologically motivated killing? He has clearly stated his ideology time and again, finally by shouting 'allahu akbar'. Why the need to whitewash the islamic aspect of this? Why not just be neutral to all ideologies and religions rather than treating one extremely sensitivility?

And please, do not resort to warnings, threats or censorship. It doesn't make WikiPedia look good... If you don't like what other people say, ignore it instead. 93.161.107.208 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing is we cannot be definition define something as terrorism that the references/facts do not support. As of right now the facts/references do not support calling this a terrorist action and if the facts do come out in the future that this was a terrorist action, then we can call it that. Looking at the facts as they stand now, if you remove the fact that he is a Muslim out of the equation, then it looks the same as the various other (including recent) office shootings. Brothejr (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not for Wikipedia editors to say whether or not this is terrorism. That has to be the conclusion reached in multiple reliable sources. Editors are not permitted to publish their own analyses. See WP:SYN.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Separate article on Maj. Hasan?

Certainly seems notable. Please see Seung-Hui Cho. Is there a strong consensus not to create a separate article? Ronnotel (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we're mostly agreed to wait until he wakes up from the coma and see if anything develops. As others have said, for the first 12 hours we were still being told he was dead - if a week later it turns out that he was one of three shooters, or not a shooter at all - it would not be the first time (eyes Richard Jewell). So in the interests of BLP, I think we're better to concentrate our information and attention on this article, and then we can fork out later when things have settled down. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sherurcij and at the moment the article is not so long as to necessitate it. See WP:SINGLEEVENT. 169.226.85.204 (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. (separate article for Hasan) The test in WP:ONEEVENT for a breakout article has not been met by a mile. patsw (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Maj. Hasan is now the focus of a Senate inquiry as to how the intelligence agencies handled (or mis-handled) the matter. There's a lot coming out today, links to Al-Qaeda, surveillance by inteligence agencies. That seems fairly notable. Ronnotel (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"There's a lot coming out today". There's no reason to rush. Let's wait for the facts from WP:RS to arise. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the above. He's only notable for this event and there's no need to rush this. As Sherurcij says, let's concentrate on this article for now, then we can create one on him if or when we have enough material. HJMitchell You rang? 17:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Seung-Hui Cho precedent is persuasive, and tends to outweigh BLP1E because of the nature of this crime. But I agree that there is no rush, and that there just isn't a lot of biographical material out there on him.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that Hasan is alive, such an article would have all of the WP:BLP constraints on it that the Seung-Hui Cho article does not. Please bear that in mind as more of Hasan's bio enters the picture. patsw (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But this is a notability issue, not really a BLP issue. Obviously you're right that the Hasan article (now created), is subject to BLP. See discussion below.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Circumstances change. I Support the creation of a standalone Hasan article. A great amount biographical information on him is being disclosed now without an immediate connection to the shooting. He will be known not only as the shooter, but as the poster boy for political correctness that gets innocent people killed. patsw (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - The coverage warrants it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article already exists, and is up for deletion. See the discussion there.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. Just what we need. Another clusterfuck BLP AFD. Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This Article Needs All References To Terrorism As Involved REMOVED

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is devolving into a lot of heat. Let's cut that off right here. We're only going to cite reliable sources for what's stated on the terrorism/not terrorism subject. Even if it's determined that it was not terrorism, it would still be relevant to cite sources which speculated that it was. For the moment, let's all just take a deep breath, have a cup of tea and wait for reliable sources to give us an answer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Military personnel shooting military personnel on a military instillation is NOT terrorism.

A member of the United States military shooting military personnel of the United States military on a United States military instillation is NOT terrorism.

Motivation, beliefs, what he allegedly cried out during the attacks?

All COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to terrorism.

This act, while perhaps traitorous and/or treasonous, was not, by any definition, terrorism.

I suggest all good Wikipedia editors do their best, use their best efforts, to keep all POV and bias editing attempting, and in fact including, to include terrorism as definition for this attack OUT of this article. 202.124.88.19 (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

No. It is relevant.

If he sympathized with terrorists, then that is indeed his motive, and it doesn't matter that he wore a uniform.

It sounds like you're confusing this with whether or not it's a war crime.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Official statements and published media accounts mention terrorism. It's not our job to second-guess why they reference terrorism, anonymous 202.124.88.19. patsw (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no it is not relevant. Leave commentary about his motivations to sections about his motivations, the rest of the article where it attempts to define his ACTIONS (not his motivation) as terrorism MUST be removed. Regardless of official counts in published media, no statement of terrorism has merit. It is not a matter of sourcing in this, as any source stating this is "terrorism" while using original research (in case you hadn't notice, media sources do not define titles here on Wikipedia, they can only be sourced for their personal beliefs/statements, which is why we are not allowed to include titles) is not allowed to be included.

If a media source does include a source or citation that DEFINES terrorism as this instance, rather than a matter of opinion (and thus not allowed to title, as it is original research), then it may be added.

But seeing as such a thing not only does not exist (I would ask any POV and bias pushing editor here to define terrorism then, hmm?) but would be shut down in seconds with an enormous load of refuting sources, it will be a long time before we need to worry about such.

Until that non-existing time, abide by Wikipedias rules and remove any attempt to define the action, not the motivation, as terrorism. We have dealt enough of these articles ignoring the set guidelines in relation to this from long archives of discussion on the "terrorism" article boards. 202.124.88.19 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Where exactly in the article are Hasan's actions being described as terrorism? --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Senator Joseph Lieberman and the Senate Homeland Security Committee are to investigate the massacre as terrorism. Media reports indicate that Nidal Malik Hasan has connections to Arab terrorists. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110901647.html?hpid=topnews.158.59.27.249 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Post article actually contradicts the point being made, as it includes language such as possible links and "That said, many people attended that mosque who are not terrorist suspects". There's an important line between 'coincidence' and 'link', which must not be crossed prematurely. As for the comment about Lieberman's call for an investigation, I believe he would disagree, stating on Fox News: "...If that is true, the murder of these 13 people was a terrorist act and, in fact, it was the most destructive terrorist act..." - he never actually calls it terrorism, and pointedly avoids to so due to lack of information. I completely agree with HJ Mitchell and the many calls for patience- WP cannot, given what we currently know for fact, use language stating matter-of-factly that this was terrorism, or that Nidal has connections to terrorists. We'll continue to update as reliable information is released. MJKazin (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Politics an possible terrorist sympathies are not relevant. They are worthy of a mention, but are not enough to define this incident as a "terrorist attack". Until reliable, published sources refer to this as a terrorist attack, we cannot. We still do not know his motives. I note with interest that no mainstream newspapers are yet referring to it as such because it is still too early. HJMitchell You rang? 19:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between scrubbing the article of any reference to terrorism as the section heading urges us to do, and to accurately summarize what officials such as General Cone, Senator Lieberman, etc. have said. We don't define terrorism, we wait for verifiable reliable sources to rule it out (however they define it), or rule it in, and characterize it as terrorism. Currently, they don't rule it out and don't rule it in. patsw (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A person with the opposing POV engaged in this edit[42]. We have to strictly avoid original research, whether we agree with reliable sources or not.--JohnnyB256 ^Talk/_Contribs 00:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If this man performed the shooting to achieve a political goal, by creating a mood of fear through violence of symbolic targets of stability and authority, that is terrorism. We don't know his motives for sure yet. But people who keep saying this can't in any way be terrorism, because the target was a military base, simply don't know what they are talking about. People appear to be using this page for political purposes (both on the left and right). I suggest both sides review all relevant definitions of Terrorism (not just the one available on wikipedia). There are plenty of reasons why this would be considered a terrorist attack, and plenty of other reasons why it wouldn't be. But we shouldn't let politics cloud our judgement.--prof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the structure of this article, can anyone tell me what is the difference between this act and any other terrorist act commited in the US? What is the difference between this and any other ideologically motivated killing? . 93.161.107.208 (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The real question is was this an ideologically motivated killing? We cannot/should not assume anything nor should we just flat out assume this was a terrorist act before the facts support/disprove it come out. Brothejr (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"But people who keep saying this can't in any way be terrorism, because the target was a military base, simply don't know what they are talking about."

Actually YOU do not know what you're talking about. Seeing as an attack on military personnel, by military personnel, at a military instillation...is...unsurprisingly...the very thing terrorism is not. We deal with such ignorance at the terrorism article. However, seeing as laws already exist that clearly define what terrorism ISN'T, and THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS, it would seem repeating that "it isn't terrorism" has no merit in the face of facts. There is no "bias" in clearly explaining that the inclusion of terrorism as the definition of this shooting is POV and actual bias. If you, or any other POV editor, attempt to place terrorism as a definition for this attack with a source, or especially if unsourced, will be reverted by the sheer fact that we can overwhelm it with opposing factual sources. As, unless the magical occurs and it is defined for the first time in the history of the world, someone defines terrorism...it will be original research and clearly dismissable. God, we have an entire article dedicated to this subject and some randoms on another article think they can define it for the first time ever. I shouldn't even need to be explaining this. 203.171.196.26 (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Harlequin, I most certainly do, and I have researched terrorism long enough to know that attacks on military personell, can still be terrorism. I suggest you read the FBIs own definition of the term before accusing me of ignorance. There are multiple definitions of the word Terrorism, and most of the accepted definitions include attacks on symbolic targets of authority or the state as part of the criteria. Not saying this is terrorism, but to say an attack on military by a soldier means it isn't, is simply wrong. Especially if that soldier was seeking to coerce the government to change its policies. The wikipedia definition of Terrorism is incredibly flawed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2009 24.147.110.167 (talk • contribs) 15:20, November 11,

People need to relax. There is no universally accepted definition of Terrorism, and that is why this debate keeps raging. Some definitions say terrorism must involve the targeting of non combatants. Other definitions do not include this, but focus on the use of violence to coerce goverments and people. In a way, Terrorism is a highly subjective thing and relies more on precedent than a handy definition. If you look at past events labeled Terrorism, this even could qualify, if the aim was to inlfuence policy, incite other muslims to violence against the US, etc. One thing I will observe, both sides, the left and the right, appear unwilling to apply the word terrorism in many instances. This is a problem. The right is hesitant to label militias and christian identity groups terrorist. The left is overly cautious when a muslim is involved. I would also point out, Wikipedia isn't designed to comment or report on news stories. It is more of a filter where reliable sources are posted. Just because wikipedia is calling it terrorism, or is not calling it terrorism, that has no real bearing on whether it is or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkchair (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (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.