Jump to content

Talk:Nidal Hasan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.125.136.27 (talk) at 07:41, 24 November 2009 (→‎College and medical school graduation dates: New York times confirms correct dates of graduation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Medication?

Is there any evidence to suggest he was taking any kind of medication, particularly SSRI-type antidepressants?Johnalexwood (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation, time will tell. It appears no mention of same so far. But if he was getting harassed etc and if he had access to drugs, which as a medical practitioner one could assume he had, it would be tempting. Many people (of many faiths) self medicate with alcohol (& other stuff) of course. It doesn't seem to have even been independently confirmed he was visiting a strip club, as was alleged. If he was doing that then, even devout, he may have been tempted to imbibe, as many Muslims apparently do when away from home in the 'decadent' west.
Lots of ifs, buts and maybes yes? That's my point. Far too much speculation already. Keep your 'Google' eyes open for breaking information. Example, I appear to have been the first to spot that Hasans' Powerpoint presentation was available through the Washington Post.[[1]] As I can't edit protected articels, it was a few HOURS after I put it on the Shooting talkpage before it was entered into the article.
It would be very interesting if Hasan was on any medication for stress/depression etc. But, maybe(speculation again) he's just a nut job?
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Combivir?
Here is something of interest.[2][3] This is a picture taken of some of the medications found in the apartment of Nidal Hasan. The only one that I can clearly make out is Combivir. It is a medication which is used in combination with others for HIV treatment. Unlike the other two bottles in the picture, whose names I cannot clearly make out, it does not seem to have been filled out at Walter Reed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlatseg (talk • contribs) 02:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually having just read the Time article, this discovery may not actually be that important after all. It seems to be an older bottle possibly used by healthcare workers who may be around fluid which may contain the HIV virus to help reduce the risk of infection.Tlatseg (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, it is not common practice to make use of NRTI drugs in prophylaxis among "healthcare workers who may be around fluid which may contain the HIV virus to help reduce the risk of infection." The "nukes" (Combivir[4] is a fixed-dose two-nuke combination product) are medicines with definite adverse effects, and unless an individual meets a set of criteria for exposure[5] much more rigorous than "may be around fluid," no treatment with any of the antiretroviral drugs (ARV's) is indicated.
If Major Hasan had met the exposure criteria and had been medicated as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), Combivir is a reasonable component of such a treatment program. But how does a psychiatrist get exposed to HIV? Interestingly the date on the bottle (02Mar01) indicates that the prescription had been filled either in 2002 or 2001, while he was in medical school. He may have suffered a "needle stick" or similar injury while in clinical training, and was placed on PEP at that time. The empty bottle - possibly with one or two tablets not taken - just got dragged along in his personal gear since that time. Even doctors commonly fail to finish out their antimicrobial prescriptions as they're directed, and just about everyone hesitates to throw out those unused doses. 71.125.158.230 (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other two appear to be Clarithromycin and Benzonatate. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this info on the 'Shooting' talk page @ 05:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC) One reason for NOT having seperate articles! I read the first as Azithromycin, the other I concur with. Be interesting (possible motive?) IF Hasan did have AIDs.
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please just stop the speculation. Go here: http://www.apd.army.mil/USAPA_PUB_pubrange_P.asp and look at Army Regulation 600-110, paragraph 1-15f and paragraph 4-2. Also, look at Army Regulation 220-1, Table D-1 Note 2. In summary, HIV-positive personnel will NOT be deployed or assigned overseas, and testing is completed prior to deployment or assignment to ensure this. Let's focus on making the article better and stop the speculation. Atlantabravz (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Post-exposure prophylactic (PEP) drug therapy is undertaken on individuals who have been exposed to HIV infection in some significant way (the classic "needle stick" case) but who are not HIV-positive. If Dr. Hasan had undergone PEP treatment in 2001 or 2002, and never seroconverted to show "HIV-positive," the regulations you cite don't limit his eligibility for deployment. 71.251.136.251 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my remarks about speculation were directed at the anon IP who started down the road with "IF Hasan did have AIDs." As far as the possible exposure angle, the articles that are linked within the discusssion page are saying basically the same thing you all are saying. Find a way to include it in the article and make it better using factual cites as already exist, or else it should just be dropped. Since many healthcare workers do it, I'm not sure it is even relevant right now. Atlantabravz (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nidal Hasan, was apparently an Obama transition task force member

Thinking Anew—Security Priorities for the Next Administration: PROCEEDINGS REPORT OF THE HSPI PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TASK FORCE, April 2008-January 2009, APPENDIX C: Task Force Event Participants

The Executive Summary of that document says that Presidential Transition Task Force members included representatives from past Administrations, State government, Fortune 500 companies, academia, research institutions and non-governmental organizations with global reach. Appendix C is a list of task force members.

Page 29 in the PDF page numbering is page 21 by the document page numbers, which is the beginnning of APPENDIX C: Task Force Event Participants (Participant titles as of the event date).

Page 32 in the PDF page numbering is page 29 by the document page numbers. That page lists the following individual as a Task Force Event Participant: 

Nidal Hasan
Uniformed Services University School of
Medicine

(Participant titles as of the event date)

I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to decide whether or not this information belongs in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional documents of interest may be found via a PDF-specific Google search for "Nidal Hasan" and "Nidal M Hasan". Here are a few examples:
Further research should be conducted before considering any of the aforementioned links for implementation. Because several documents spoke of a Nidal Hasan in California and a Dr. Nidal Hasan in Illinois, extra caution should be exercised in order to avoid presenting misinformation.   — C M B J   04:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding some information:

My guess is that an assertion supported by citation of either of these sources would be challenged. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently both of those articles missed the mark. Media Matters for America reports that "there is no evidence that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events."   — C M B J   15:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROTC

Back when information about Major Hassan was in the Fort Hood shooting, there was unclear information whether he was a member of ROTC while at VTech. Has there been any futher clarification on this point? Furthermore, as I had brought up there, do press releases (or media notifications) from VTech considered reliable sources, especially given that press releases have been shown in the past not to be reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College and medical school graduation dates

The article states that Hasan graduated from Virginia Tech in 1997 but the cited reference leaves it unclear as to whether he graduated in 1997 or 1995. Likewise there is a dispute about whether he was a member of Virginia Tech's ROTC program (see the preceding section of the talk page). Ketone16 (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that Hasan earned his MD in 2001 but the reference 15 shows a graduation year of 2003. Mo Enzyme (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Dr. Hasan had graduated USUHS in 2001, this means that his postgraduate education - a psychiatric residency and a one-year fellowship to gain his M.P.H. - took eight years to complete. No way. Psychiatric residency programs are set up for an average of four years' duration[6][7][8] leading to specialty board certification by the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology. This is yet another proof demonstrating that the stated date of Dr. Hasan's graduation from medical school (as 2001) is an error, and that he did, indeed, graduate in 2003 (as stipulated in his practitioner page on the Web site of the Virginia State Board of Medicine). 71.125.158.230 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information courtesy of The Roanoake Times confirms that Hasan had graduated from Virginia Tech in 1995 (not 1997) and from the USUHS F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine in 2003 (not 2001).[9] The New York Times confirms these as the correct years of graduation.[10] So when is this information going to be corrected in the pertinent Wikipedia articles? 71.125.136.27 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More data, Supposedly Hasan's "Official Military Record"

Maj. Nidal M. Hasan's Official Military Record
Mark Hosenball

The following version of Maj. Nidal M. Hasan's official military record was released to NEWSWEEK by U.S. Army headquarters at the Pentagon:

NAME: Nidal (AbduWali) M. Hasan

RANK: Major
DATE OF RANK:

  • Captain May 17, 2003;
  • Major May 17, 2009

PRESENT AND PAST DUTY ASSIGNMENTS:

  • Walter Reed Army Medical Center (Psychiatry Intern/Resident/Fellow) from June 2003 to 7 July 2009;
  • Darnall Army Medical Center (Fort Hood, Texas) from July 2009 to present

FUTURE DUTY ASSIGNMENTS THAT ARE OFFICIALLY ESTABLISHED: He was on orders to deploy to Afghanistan as an Individual Augmentee to an Army Reserve unit to provide behavioral health support.

AWARDS AND DECORATIONS:

  • National Defense Service Medal (two awards);
  • Global War On Terrorism Service Medal;
  • Army Service Ribbon

DIRECT COMMISSION: 22 June 1997

MILITARY AND CIVILIAN EDUCATION:

  • Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University at Blacksburg, Va., where he studied Biochemistry in 1997;
  • Uniformed Services University of Health Science in Bethesda, Md., where he studied General Medicine in 2001;
  • Combat Casualty CRS (AMEDD) in 1997 and
  • AMEDD Officer Basic in 1997 Basic Branch where he was commissioned as a Psychiatrist

DUTY STATUS AT ANY GIVEN TIME: He has never been deployed

Source: blog.newsweek.com [11]
Can't comment on the accuracy of this. Just FYI. The AbduWali has come up before though. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of Hasan's Officer Basic course in 1997 and his commission in that year, how could he have taken "AMEDD [Army Medical Department] Officer Basic" to be "commissioned as a Psychiatrist" if he hadn't yet even attended (much less graduated from) medical school in 1997? Something's screwy here.
If he entered medical school at USUHS in 1997 - to graduate in 2001 (which is probably inaccurate) - he would have received a Medical Corps commission as a second lieutenant even if he already had a line commission in another branch, but he would not have been commissioned "as a Psychiatrist." 71.125.158.230 (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traitor

Major Hasan has been refered to as a Traitor in multiple sources:

  • Ed Driscoll (11 November 2009). ""Major Nidal Malik Hasan: Traitor"". Pajamamedia.com. Retrieved 19 November 2009. Traitor is a tough word. It doesn't smudge and squish. "Traitor" draws a hard line, one that sharply divides essential life-determining values and marks a defining personal choice between the profound and the profane.
  • Jonathan Gurwitz (15 November 2009). "A changing story". San Antonio Express News. Hearst newspapers. Retrieved 19 November 2009. To lump a man charged with being a traitorous murderer in with those who have served three, four and more combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan is a monumental insult to their valor and devotion.
  • Austin Bay (10 November 2009). "Hasan's Treason". Strategypage.com. Retrieved 19 November 2009.
  • Noah Essenmacher (16 November 2009). "Facts, not bias suggest Islamic influence in Fort Hood shooting". The Valley Vanguard. Saginaw Valley State University. Retrieved 19 November 2009. Hasan has become the textbook definition of a traitor, and the role radical Islam played cannot be dismissed.
  • Gary Harmon (13 November 2009). "Hasan a terrorist? Actually he's more than that". The Daily Sentinal. Grand Junction Media, Inc. Retrieved 19 November 2009. What is on point, and clearly so, is that Hasan is a traitor.

Where, if anywhere, does this belong in the article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, this should be placed in the Reaction section - if you are going to write only one sentence claiming him to be a traitor citing the above sources as references then it should simply be added as is. However, if you want to add the above quotes as text, I would suggest a separate paragraph at the end of the Reaction section, or perhaps even a separate Subsection under the Reaction section called Traitor. Supertouch (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've done as you suggested. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs, a wargaming site, and student newspaper opinion pieces written by NN people? Sigh. Шизомби (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without prejudice to adding something on this point back if someone notable with expertise says this, I'm removing this per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability. It would be more to the point if he were at least charged with it by the government or convicted of it, but that's not necessarily necessary. Шизомби (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this removal. I think that for something as inflammatory as this we need much better sourcing. I also didn't like the way it was phrased, which struck me as original analysis.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will grant what I am about to write is WP:OR, however he did swear an oath as an Officer of the United States Army of allegience to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. His "alleged" actions did give the enemy aid and comfort, and thus an act of treason, therefore he's a traitor. OK, enough of this synthesis. I will see if I can find more references. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of us, or almost any of us, would dispute what you're saying. However, we're in a position similar to the jurors who are going to be convened in his trial. We are bound by strict rules as to what we can include in the article. This whole "treason" business is very inflammatory, seems to border on name calling, and doesn't seem terribly central to the issues unless he is formally charged with treason. If not, I'm not very enthusiastic about including a section on that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional references:
  • Claire Osborn (7 November 2009). "Soldier says Hasan "is going to get what he deserves"". The Austin American-Statesmen. He saw two soldiers and planned to visit other hospitals caring for the injured victims. Littrell would not discuss details of the two injured soldiers he saw but did say that one of them voiced anger similar to his own aimed at Hasan, whom Littrell called "a traitor."
  • JOHN NICHOLS (6 November 2009). "The Nation: Ft. Hood Horror Invokes Islamaphobia". NPR. I'm sad for those killed and wounded by a traitor to both God and our country, and I regret that I even feel that I have to write something on the subject. Words cannot express my emotions and the instant headache I received when notified by my dear sister Sheila Musaji over at The American Muslim (TAM) concerning the alleged culprit," wrote Salaam, who served in the Marine Corps, within minutes after learning the gunman's name. "They have not yet released further details such as the motive but I will state for the record that no true Muslim could ever commit such a crime against humanity. As Muslims we are reminded that to take one innocent life is as if one killed all of mankind. Muslims are also commanded to keep their oaths when given.
  • Yobie Benjamin (6 November 2009). "Help and donations for Fort Hood massacre needed". The San Francisco Chronicle. As far as the murderous traitor and cowardly low life animal Nidal Malik Hasan who shot the victims is concerned, I hope he is brought to trial as soon as possible and be given the most extreme and severe punishment possible.
  • Jeff Crouere (6 November 2009). "Political Correctness Led To Fort Hood Massacre". BayouBuzz. If Hassan was responsible for the Internet posts, he was a traitor who committed treason before he engaged in outright terrorism.
  • "'OUR VIEW' EDITORIAL: After Fort Hood, allow soldiers to be armed on base". The Morning Journal. 8 November 2009. Murderer and traitor seem too mild as words to describe someone who commits such heinous acts.
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am not looking to include anything major, just a sentence. I understand the need not to give any of this any undue weight, but if it can be verified by reliable sources, there is also no need to not have a little mention regarding it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the sources, I am of the opinion that this simply isn't notable. Basically the sources mention (sometimes only in passing) that some people have called him a traitor. Yeah, so what? Many people have called him many things. If President Obama calls him a traitor, that would be notable. If the U.S. Army or the FBI calls him a traitor by charging him with treason, that would be notable. I'm afraid what pundits, or even the victims, are calling him just isn't notable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. While there are more notable people addressing the terrorism charge, and terrorism is the subject of some articles about this case, and there is widespread discussion of it, "treason" is addressed in more scattered mentions in passing by people that don't appear to be notable. We could make a list of all the people calling him a "low life" too, or whatever. Possibly a non-notable person discussing it in a reliable source might be worth including if they had some kind of expertise and their discussion was substantive, and their discussion became notable. Treason#United_States mentions "In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions." Thus, the odds of it seem unlikely. The 2006 treason conviction of Adam Yahiye Gadahn might be a precedent in some way, but in that case it doesn't appear there was anything else they could have charged him with. In this case, they've got 13 or 14 counts of murder, many more injuries, etc. so whether they'd bother with treason, who knows? Шизомби (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The San Francisco Chronicle, NPR, Austin American-Statesman and San Antonio Express News are all reliable sources. I am not attempting to give undue weight here, but reliable sources have described the subject of this article as a traitor, even if its not a majority view it is a view held that has been verified. So I am not seeing how a single sentence mentioning it could hurt the overall article. Furthermore, it is a view held by some and should be represented in the article, even if briefly. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An additional reference:
  • Austin Bay (11 November 2009). "Hasan's Treason". townhall.com. Salem Web Network. Retrieved 19 November 2009.
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Townhall.com is a blog. I'd agree some of the sources you found are reliable ones, i.e. we can have a reasonable degree of confidence that they accurately reported what the people they quoted really said. That's not the sole measure of inclusion. The reliable sources are not themselves making the charge. The people quoted don't appear to be notable, most of them appear to be expressing understandable anger by calling him a name in passing, not advancing an argument. See e.g. "Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments" in WP:NOR. "Several people called Hasan a traitor" is not significant at this point. WP:SYNTHESIS may also be a problem here, and also WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, as you said. "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents [this is not currently possible]; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority , it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." When the charge is being discussed more to the degree that the terrorism one is, with similarly notable people making it, that would be the appropriate time, and definitely if he actually is formally charged with it by the government. Incidentally, I am curious now as to why so few treason charges have been made; that would be interesting to know and perhaps add to Treason#United_States if there's anything to be found about that. Шизомби (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Name in Arabic?

Would it be possible to include the spelling of his name in Arabic? I know he was born in America, but his name is Arabic. I have heard multiple pronunciations of his middle and last name. If we include the Arabic spelling of his name, it will clarify exactly how one is to pronounce the name.

99.129.146.161 (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really make sense. The pronunciation of names in America, even by the people whose names they are, does not necessarily (and often doesn't) follow the pronunciation in the language of their ancestors' family of origin. In order to render the name in Arabic we'd already be making an assumption about how it is to be pronounced, so the Arabic itself would not clarify anything. If you want to see how these names would be spelled in Arabic by people who were given the names in Arabic, see Malik and Hassan (name). If his did follow the Arabic, then it would probably be mal-ick and not mal-eek, since the vowel would be short since it comes from a diacritical mark and not a letter. I don't know how people would come up with different pronunciations of Hasan. And then there's "AbduWali," which is odd, I don't know if he really spelled and pronounced it that way or that was another typo. Abdul Wali or Abd al-Wali would seem more common; the L is elided in some names like Abdul Rahman which would be pronounced and could be rendered as Abdur Rahman or Abd ur-Rahman, but not with a waw as far as I know. Шизомби (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's really a sytle question. I don't see the harm if it is consistent with Wiki style. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to be consistent stylewise to render it in Wikipedia:IPA for English if we had a source for how he and his family pronounced it. Arabic would only make sense if a document turned up in which he used it that way, or on the Arabic language Wikipedia (which is indeed linked from the left sidebar to fa:نضال_مالک_حسن). I have no idea what the style guide for the Arabic Wikipedia is as to how they decide to render English names of Arabic or non-Arabic origin into Arabic. This has already been discussed at Talk:Fort_Hood_shooting/Archive_3#name_in_Arabic. Шизомби (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a transliteration of his Arabic name: Niḍāl Mālik ḥasan. The letters with a bar over them are long vowels and with dots underneath they are a heavier annunciation of the letter. Spelling this Hassan would lead to am ambiguity in the pronunciation as it could then be: ḥasan and ḥassaān which are two individual names. Nidal should should familiar to Westerns thanks to Abu Nidal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertouch (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
There's no alif in Malik AFAIK, so I'm not sure that part's right, but otherwise yes I think that's how the Arabic name would commonly be transliterated. But that's not likely to be of use to WP readers like IPA would be. And I'll again point out that it doesn't make sense to transliterate an English name of Arabic origin into Arabic and then back into English and assume that's how it's pronounced correctly. Шизомби (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person who requested the Arabic spelling. From the English spelling of his name, one cannot figure out how to pronounce it. We need to include the IPA and/or the Arabic spelling to clarify. On the evening news, I heard the news anchors pronounce his name at least three different ways. It would be excellent if Wikipedia could set the record straight.99.129.146.161 (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the IPA for English, if we had a source for how it's pronounced, but I'm not sure how we'd find one. And if we had it, then an .ogg of it would be a useful addition too (moreso, since the number of people who know IPA probably isn't that large?). I remain skeptical about including the Arabic or Arabic pronunciation, since it may or may not follow that. Шизомби (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, IPA is fine. Arabic names transliterated into English are difficult to pronounce correctly since the long/short vowels are lost, the dal, dhal, and dhad being written all as "d", etc.99.129.146.161 (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I have seen the "M" in Malik is a long vowel which would be indicated by an attached alif. I haven't heard of a person named Malik with a short vowel on the "M" which would mean king, whereas with a long vowel it means owner. Supertouch (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think you're right. I see the Arabic WP did use an alif. Шизомби (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comments are somewhat out of order in this section - this is a response to the request for the Arabic spelling of Hasan's name: نضال مالك حسن . Here is the reference for this spelling: ::قتل الجنود سيؤثر على المسلمين The killing of the soldiers will affect the Muslims. AlJazeerah.net, November 7, 2009, retrieved November 22, 2009. I included the transliteration above. Supertouch (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point about Major

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) it appears a title should not precede a name (see e.g. George S. Patton) the way it currently does "Major Nidal Malik Hasan." It should be included somewhere in the lede, but I'm not sure where to move it. Шизомби (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slide image

Image #13 from the slideshow is Hasan talking about Hasan Akbar throwing a grenade to kill fellow American soldiers a couple years earlier...seems worth more than the current random slide we're displaying right now. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nidal_Hasan&oldid=327626412"