Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting: Difference between revisions
m →Casualties figures: Response |
→Casualties figures: response, please remain calm |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
:I don't believe it does, it is contradicted by more recent reliable sources. Given that not all reliable sources agree on the number wounded a word like "around" or "at least" is often used. As I said, given that the reliable sources contradict with each other we can give a range.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 03:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
:I don't believe it does, it is contradicted by more recent reliable sources. Given that not all reliable sources agree on the number wounded a word like "around" or "at least" is often used. As I said, given that the reliable sources contradict with each other we can give a range.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 03:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
::I've already explained several times now '''why''' it's contradicted by the other sources... they erroneously included people that were not actually shot but were just hospitalized for stress. [[User:ROG5728|ROG5728]] ([[User talk:ROG5728|talk]]) 05:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
::I've already explained several times now '''why''' it's contradicted by the other sources... they erroneously included people that were not actually shot but were just hospitalized for stress. [[User:ROG5728|ROG5728]] ([[User talk:ROG5728|talk]]) 05:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::I can understand sources that were close to the date of the event having contradictory information, given the rush to get information out in the hours and days immediately after the event (which the source that ROG5728 provides falls into); however, the sources that are far removed from the time of the event still appear to contradict each other, but are higher than 29. |
|||
:::Please, [[WP:CALM|our conversation can be calm]] and [[WP:CIVIL|civil]].--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 05:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:31, 6 March 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009 Fort Hood shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A news item involving 2009 Fort Hood shooting was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 November 2009. |
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 5, 2011. |
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This article has been mentioned by a media organization: |
Lead
Remove that he was on Palestinian descent; does not seem significant compared to other facts about him.Parkwells (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- The lead does need to be rewritten, to better summarize the content of the article.
- Given the size of the article, there should be 1 paragraph about the attack, 1 paragraph about the suspect (Major Hasan), 1 paragraph about reactions, and 1 paragraph about the investigation and ongoing trail proceedings. The first two have already largely been done; work on the other two should be forthcoming.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Use of Duane Reasoner comments
Keep focus on Hasan; he told Reasoner he did not want to deploy, as in LA Times cite. This is more important than a 19-yr-old's thoughts on the shootings.Parkwells (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Unborn Victims of Violence Act
I have reverted a good faith edit that removed the following content:
Such a charge is available to prosecutors under the [[Unborn Victims of Violence Act]] and Article 119a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.<ref name=Starsandstripes1 />
The content is verified to a reliable source, and goes well beyond copy editing which is indicated in the edit summary. The content gives context to the sentence that it followed.
Per BRD please do not remove the content without consensus to remove it on the talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
problem with the numbers
In the article it says "There were 44 casualties in the shooting. Among the 14 killed were 12 soldiers (one of whom was pregnant) and one Army civilian employee. Thirty others, including the shooter, were wounded and required hospitalization."
The math doesn't add up. 12 + 1 = 13, not 14, 30 + 13 = 43, not 44. (Uiuiui7 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
- Not sure, but maybe the unborn child is included in the count. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC))
Casualties figures
In a recent series of change, reversion, re-reversion edits there has been disputes regarding the casualty figures in the lead section of the article. Before an edit war begins let us reach a consensus as to what the figure actually is. For reference, this is not the first time the issue has been brought up in the talk page not once, but twice before. So the source that is presently used in the lead states the following:
- "Soldier Opens Fire at Ft. Hood; 13 Dead". CBS News. Associated Press. 5 November 2009. Retrieved 2 March 2013.
A military mental health doctor facing deployment overseas opened fire at the Fort Hood Army post on Thursday, setting off on a rampage that killed 13 people and left 30 wounded, Army officials said.
The question is whether the lead should state that there are 29, or 30 wounded. Now I began looking for other reliable sources to verify what the AP/CBS News source states. What I found were differing casualty figures:
- "Fort Hood shooting victims". San Antonio Express News. 7 November 2009. Retrieved 2 March 2013.
The following is a list of the victims in Thursday's Fort Hood shooting rampage that left 13 dead and 38 injured, of which 30 needed to be hospitalized.
- Ned Berkowitz (14 February 2013). "Congressman Reintroduces Bill to Help Ft. Hood Shooting Victims". ABC News. Retrieved 2 March 2013.
Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others wounded in the Nov. 5, 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, at the Army base in Killeen, Texas.
- Michelle Maskaly (6 November 2009). "Army: Fort Hood Gunman in Custody After 12 Killed, 31 Injured in Rampage". Fox News. Associated Press. Retrieved 2 March 2013.
An Army psychiatrist who reportedly feared an impending war deployment is in custody as the sole suspect in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas that left 12 dead and 31 wounded, an Army official said Thursday night.
- Chelsea J. Carter (1 March 2013). "Judge orders Fort Hood shooter to stand trial in 3 months". CNN. Retrieved 2 March 2013.
The November 5, 2009, attack left 13 dead and 32 people wounded in what has been described as the worst mass shooting on a U.S. military instillation.
- Matt Pearce (13 February 2013). "Fort Hood shooting victims accuse U.S. of neglect, betrayal". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2 March 2013.
Todd has been credited with shooting Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who still faces military trial on charges of killing 13 people and wounding 32 more.
- Julie Pace (11 January 2011). "In Arizona, Obama to honor memories, speak of hope". NBC News. Associated Press. Retrieved 2 March 2013.
He led the memorial at the Fort Hood Army post in November 2009, trying to help a shaken nation cope with a mass shooting there that left 13 people dead and 29 wounded.
From what I can see, even more than three years after the event occurred the reliable sources do not agree with each other. So let us discuss which sources should be given weight, and what the number in the lead should actually be.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- This was discussed awhile ago if you look in the archives, and the conclusion was that 30 were wounded (including the shooter), meaning 29 were wounded if you don't include the shooter. An additional 8 were hospitalized for stress but were not shot. See this reference. ROG5728 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- That is one of multiple reliable sources, perhaps we should take a census of the available reliable sources, and see what the majority state (excluding reprinted agency sources (counting AP such news agency articles only once)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- It explains the other sources, so there is no need to do that. As it points out, the other sources are incorrectly lumping 8 people who were not shot into the figure. Only 30 were shot, including the shooter. ROG5728 (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the ABC News, CNN, and Los Angeles Times, all show a consistency for 32 others being wounded, and it matches the charge against MAJ Hasan of 32 attempts of murder. Moreover, those numbers are far removed from the event, and thus IMHO more likely to be reliable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- It explains the other sources, so there is no need to do that. As it points out, the other sources are incorrectly lumping 8 people who were not shot into the figure. Only 30 were shot, including the shooter. ROG5728 (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- That is one of multiple reliable sources, perhaps we should take a census of the available reliable sources, and see what the majority state (excluding reprinted agency sources (counting AP such news agency articles only once)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- This was discussed awhile ago if you look in the archives, and the conclusion was that 30 were wounded (including the shooter), meaning 29 were wounded if you don't include the shooter. An additional 8 were hospitalized for stress but were not shot. See this reference. ROG5728 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Saying there were 32 attempted murders is not the same as saying there were 32 wounded. ROG5728 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, but what do the majority of reliable sources say? It appears that the most recent sources I listed here agree on 32 wounded.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would assume those are probably just going by the number of attempted murder charges he is facing. The most detailed source on the number of wounded seems to be the one I linked earlier because it explains how many were wounded by gunfire and why the 38 figure is incorrect. ROG5728 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- In any case, since this is a BLP, if in doubt we have to go with the lower number or explain to an extent the conflicting figures.TMCk (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are conflicting numbers, which is why I suggested doing a census of reliable sources, and see which sources say what.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can add a note giving the differing wounded figures, and keep the lower number in the lead. Would that be an acceptable compromise?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are conflicting numbers, which is why I suggested doing a census of reliable sources, and see which sources say what.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- In any case, since this is a BLP, if in doubt we have to go with the lower number or explain to an extent the conflicting figures.TMCk (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
There's no reason to do that. The reference I linked earlier clearly explains why some of the sources give larger figures, and that is because they are incorrectly including people who were treated for stress and were not shot. As for the most recent sources, they are just going by the number of counts of attempted murder for the shooter. ROG5728 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe it does, it is contradicted by more recent reliable sources. Given that not all reliable sources agree on the number wounded a word like "around" or "at least" is often used. As I said, given that the reliable sources contradict with each other we can give a range.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've already explained several times now why it's contradicted by the other sources... they erroneously included people that were not actually shot but were just hospitalized for stress. ROG5728 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I can understand sources that were close to the date of the event having contradictory information, given the rush to get information out in the hours and days immediately after the event (which the source that ROG5728 provides falls into); however, the sources that are far removed from the time of the event still appear to contradict each other, but are higher than 29.
- Please, our conversation can be calm and civil.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've already explained several times now why it's contradicted by the other sources... they erroneously included people that were not actually shot but were just hospitalized for stress. ROG5728 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- Start-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- High-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Texas articles
- Low-importance Texas articles
- WikiProject Texas articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- Unknown-importance Disaster management articles
- Unassessed Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- Unassessed Terrorism articles
- Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Selected anniversaries (November 2011)
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press