Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 182: Line 182:
:::::Additionally, if I haven't pointed this out already, the source that ROG5728 is using as the sole source for only using the 30 wounded figure, is dated the day after the event. One can argue that is more accurate, or less accurate. I have shown in the discussion above how the reliable sources do not all agree that 30 is the correct wounded figure. Again, please see [[WP:VNT]].--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Additionally, if I haven't pointed this out already, the source that ROG5728 is using as the sole source for only using the 30 wounded figure, is dated the day after the event. One can argue that is more accurate, or less accurate. I have shown in the discussion above how the reliable sources do not all agree that 30 is the correct wounded figure. Again, please see [[WP:VNT]].--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, your "U.S. government source" for the 38 figure is just an '''image caption''' that is not part of the main article and may or may not have even been written by the DOD; it doesn't even discuss the number or go into any detail on it. Your other sources are at least as weak as that one; your CNN source, for example, incorrectly said 12 people were killed, as opposed to the correct number of 13, so you can forget about CNN. It's simple; the 29 number comes from excluding the shooter from the total, while the 30 number comes from including the shooter, and the 32 number comes from the number of attempted murder charges against the shooter, and the 38 number comes from including 8 extra people who were not shot and simply suffered stress. Understandably, lots of news sources were confused by that, '''but we aren't going to repeat their mistakes here'''. [[User:ROG5728|ROG5728]] ([[User talk:ROG5728|talk]]) 16:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, your "U.S. government source" for the 38 figure is just an '''image caption''' that is not part of the main article and may or may not have even been written by the DOD; it doesn't even discuss the number or go into any detail on it. Your other sources are at least as weak as that one; your CNN source, for example, incorrectly said 12 people were killed, as opposed to the correct number of 13, so you can forget about CNN. It's simple; the 29 number comes from excluding the shooter from the total, while the 30 number comes from including the shooter, and the 32 number comes from the number of attempted murder charges against the shooter, and the 38 number comes from including 8 extra people who were not shot and simply suffered stress. Understandably, lots of news sources were confused by that, '''but we aren't going to repeat their mistakes here'''. [[User:ROG5728|ROG5728]] ([[User talk:ROG5728|talk]]) 16:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
:Because ROG5728 says so?
:It may have been past consensus (where? what archived discussion? please provide diff), however please see [[WP:CCC]].
:Again, please see [[WP:VNT]]
:I have provided multiple reliable sources that have provided multiple wounded figures. Unfortunately, those sources have been [[WP:IDHT|ignored]]
:I have shown how the source provided by ROG5728 has been contradicted by its own publisher in later published articles.
:As for the DoD source, it is an image caption, but one published by the DoD. If the DoD believed it inaccurate they could have changed the caption. That being said, this is why a single number doesn't meet verification as there are other reliable sources that contradict that number.
:I can agree to a compromise of "more than X" were wounded, giving a reliable source for each of the reported by reliable source articles (with a quote for each source), but to say X wounded would not meet verification IMHO.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 18:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:29, 12 March 2013

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

Not sure, but maybe the unborn child is included in the count. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Saying there were 32 attempted murders is not the same as saying there were 32 wounded. ROG5728 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Like I said, the 32 figure was likely just taken from the number of attempted murder charges (which is not exactly the same). ROG5728 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say whether that is the case or not, neither can ROG5728. What we do know is that more recent reliable sources have used the 32 figure, others have used the 30 figure. I wish that the reliable sources would be consistent, but they are not. This is why I suggested using the low figure, and leaving a note, or giving a range as is common practice when different reliable sources give different figures.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we point out that he is charged with 32 counts of attempted murder, I don't see an issue. ROG5728 (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the content to give the range of wounded figures of the multiple reliable sources, here is the diff.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? I restored the correct number. We already have a reliable source explaining that the 38 figure is NOT correct because it includes 8 people that were not shot but were merely hospitalized for stress. There is absolutely no reason to include the 38 figure in the article when it's demonstrably incorrect. ROG5728 (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did amend the Casualties section to explain that early news reports incorrectly stated 38 were wounded, which was due to an additional 8 people (who were not shot) being hospitalized for stress. That should alleviate some of the confusion. ROG5728 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please properly format references used.
I do not understand why ROG5728 only insist in only using one number for wounded. As I stated, there are multiple reliable source references that do not corroborate the 30 number that ROG5728 insist is the only number that belongs in the article space. Furthermore, only using the source from the Austin Statesman gives that one source undue weight over the multiple other reliable sources.
Furthermore, the addition of one source claiming another source is wrong is not needed, and again, gives undue weight to a single source that is not corroborated from later published reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have a reliable source explaining that the 38 figure is NOT correct because it includes 8 people that were not shot but were merely hospitalized for stress. We do not use demonstrably incorrect figures in Wiki articles, regardless of how many sources may use them, they're still demonstrably incorrect. ROG5728 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, there are dozens of reliable sources that contradict and do not agree with the 30 figure given by the one source that ROG5728 prefers. Are we to ignore all those other figures because one figure says one number is wrong, even if those figures are published by reliable sources at a later date?
To only give one source dominance over all other sources gives that source undue weight.
There is not only the San Antonio Express News source that says that 38 were wounded, but also ABC, CNN, and Fox News. I am not saying any of those sources are right, but please see Wikipedia:The Truth and WP:VNT. These are reliable sources that verify the number; it might be an inaccurate number, but content is based on what can be verified not what our opinion of what the truth is.
This is why giving a range based on what can be verified is IMHO the best solution. It does not give any source any more weight than any other source, the readers can look at the references, see the quote and see the differing figures.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To speak in "Wikipedia voice" and say only 30 persons who did not die were injured is contradicted by other reliable sources, which IMHO is a disservice to the readers of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is not Wikipedia policy to use demonstrably incorrect info, regardless of the source. The sources you mentioned included 8 people who were not shot but were hospitalized for stress. There are a number of sources supporting that assertion, by the way (not just the Austin Statesman). Why are you so intent on artificially inflating the number of people shot by Hasan? ROG5728 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(2 EC's)Here we are, years later, and the discrepancy of casualties is now part of the story. As Editor RCLC states, to not give our reader some hint that a discrepancy exists does a disservice to the article. RCLC is not intent on anything more than informing our reader. Why are you so intent that the count is what you say it is. Maybe one of us should contact the base commander and ask him. On another issue (but not one I'm willing to pursue for weeks on end), why are the hospitalized stress victims NOT included in the count. They may be just as, if not more impaired, than a gunshot victim. But, that is a seperate issue that I state just so that the point is made. Some may easily consider them casualties without any stretch of facuality.```Buster Seven Talk 21:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discrepancy IS already noted in the article, under the Casualties section. It mentions that an additional 8 people were hospitalized for stress, leading to incorrect initial reports of 38 instead of 30. ROG5728 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory quote, courtesy of the Austin Statesman:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A pair of military briefings to members of Congress about the Fort Hood rampage resulted in confusion and conflicting information late Friday on the number of wounded.

Two congressmen and a senator said they had been told the number of wounded had risen to 38, or eight more than had been publicly reported by the military. But a fourth lawmaker, who had been among those briefed, said the 38 figure included some that had been hospitalized for stress, and had not been shot.

In addition to the 30 wounded in the shootings, lawmakers were told that eight additional people were taken to the hospital to be treated for stress and trauma in the hours immediately following the event, said Lindsey Mask, a spokeswoman for Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif.

...

Fort Hood reiterated that 30 people were wounded.

In light of the above quote, I cannot imagine why either of you would have any confusion over this. It's absolutely mind boggling. By the way, if you look at the archive for this talk page, this issue was already discussed by a number of Wiki editors back in 2009 and they came to the same conclusion that 30 is the correct number and 38 is incorrect. The figure given in some sources was 38 because 8 additional people who suffered stress were accidentally lumped into the figure even though they were not shot. Period. ROG5728 (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That "conclusion" would be WP:OR, as since 2009 other sources have come out that have used the 29 figure, the 30 figure, and the 32 figure that I have shown above (if we are to throw out the 32 figure given by multiple reliable sources entirely).
Again, using one source for the wounded figure gives that one source undue weight, and the majority of opinions appear to not give that source undue weight in the context of the subject we are discussing. I recognize it, it (the Statesman source dated 6 November 2009) claims to rule out the 38 figure was published by the multiple reliable sources (on or near the same date as the Statesman source), but that does not overrule all the other reliable sources published after that single Statesman source was published. Again, some use the 29 figure, others use the 30 figure, and still others use the 32 figure (and yet still others continue to use the 38 figure).
So, no 30 is not the truth when it comes to the wounded figure as far as can be verified by the multiple reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've explained to you repeatedly:

  • The 29 figure is the total number of wounded minus the shooter.
  • The 30 figure is the total number of wounded including the shooter.
  • The 32 figure comes from the number of attempted murder charges against the shooter.
  • The 38 figure comes from including 8 extra people who were not shot but simply suffered stress.

There is nothing confusing or irreconcilable about any of this. You're making something confusing that should not be confusing at all. As for the fact that some sources continued incorrectly using the 38 figure, most of them were likely copied from each other anyway. Two of the sources you listed that supposedly used the 38 figure (San Antonio Express and FOX News) say only 30 of 38 were actually hospitalized, so they agree with the Austin Statesman article. As for WP:UNDUE, that is a neutrality content guideline that has nothing to do with sourcing or technicalities like this one. ROG5728 (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ROG5728, undue does apply, as it is a question about weight. Currently ROG5728 is advocating the POV that 30 wounded is the truth, and only answer. This goes against the multiple reliable sources that verify different figures. Again, please see WP:VNT. Content should be based on what is verified and not what the truth is. I have shown through the multiple links provided that 30 is not the only verified wounded number published regarding the event which is the subject of this article. One other editor, has agreed with me, that to only give the 30 figure serves as a disservice to any reader of this article given the different figures that can be verified to different reliable sources.
The information just posted by ROG5728 is WP:OR at worse, and WP:SYNTH at best, even though I believe that ROG5728 is defending his/her position with the best of intentions.
This is why I suggested that the range be provided to the readers where applicable regarding the numbers wounded. As I had tried to do, the reliable sources, with quotes, will provide the reader the differing reliable sources that have differing figures. This allows the reader to determine for themselves what they believe is the correct figure.
This is the foundation of WP:VER policy. We provide references so the reader can see where our information is from, so they can evaluate on their own about the information we provide them. If done well it will show the quality of our work, if done poorly it can mislead the reader or not give all the information we can be providing to them.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also let us look at the two sources presently used to verify the 30 casualty figure in the Casualties section. The reference labelled as "AP 3" is a dead link so I cannot verify what it says, but it appears to be a reprinting of the same Associated Press article which is the Austin Statesman source that ROG5728 prefers (published 6 November 2009), but that is conjecture on my part given the similar article titles. The second source is a CNN article:
  • Ted Rowlands; Michael Cary (7 November 2009). "Army honors dead, searches for motive in Fort Hood shootings". CNN. Retrieved 7 March 2013. Thursday's mass shooting killed 12 soldiers and one civilian and wounded 38 people at the Fort Hood Army Post in Texas. The suspect in the shooting, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a licensed Army psychiatrist, was among the two dozen who remained hospitalized Friday night.
Based on the source, the CNN article contradicts the figure from the Associated Press source. Therefore it does not verify the content in the article which it is suppose to.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing on Wikipedia for a long time but I don't think I've ever seen anyone make such a massive issue out of something so trivial. Simply put, there is absolutely no reason to include the 38 figure when it's demonstrably incorrect (according to a number of sources) due to 8 extra people who were not shot being included in it. Sure, you can point to a handful of sources that used the incorrect 38 figure, but there's one key difference -- the sources I provided explicitly state that your 38 figure is incorrect, and they go into great detail explaining why that is the case, while on the other hand the sources you provided give almost no detail on their numbers whatsoever and do not tell where they originally came from. The Austin Statesman source is by far the most detailed source we have with regards to the number of wounded, and it says the other figure is incorrect and it also says Fort Hood reiterated that the figure of 30 wounded is the correct figure. In fact, the entire point of the Austin Statesman source was to clear up confusion about incorrect reports on the number of wounded, and that's the only thing the article talks about; it also identifies its source for the number as being directly from Fort Hood. Please note that verifiability policy does not in any way support the deliberate use of incorrect sources on Wikipedia. Just because an article from CNN (for example) is technically an RS does not mean it's necessarily reliable or can/should be used in a Wikipedia article -- especially when the latest figure from Fort Hood (30) directly contradicts CNN. Let's see, which is a better source for info on this subject... Fort Hood itself (which said 30), or CNN (which said 38)? Tough question. Not. ROG5728 (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the same day that your source (CNN) said 38 were wounded, they also incorrectly said only 12 were killed (instead of 13). So much for that source. ROG5728 (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, earlier in this discussion you thought we should take a census of available sources and see what most of them say. As it turns out, if you search Fort hood shooting 30 wounded you will get quite a bit more Google search hits than if you search either Fort hood shooting 38 wounded or Fort hood shooting 32 wounded. ROG5728 (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please show us the work for this statement above about the 30 figure being more prevalent than the 29, 32, or 38 figure.
Although I previously stated a census was the best solution, given the multiple reliable sources (from different publishers) that have since used differing figures for the wounded (even after more than two years after the event) I now believe the best solution is to give a range.
There is one other editor who believes that the stressed individuals maybe considered wounded. I am not saying whether I believe that to be the case, but the other editors opinion should be considered.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the CNN which ROG5728 called "your source" was not added by myself, but is the existing source presently used in the Casualties" section of the article. I was just indicating that a presently used source contradicts the Austin Statesman source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not provide information that we know as a fact to be wrong. The statesman article perfectly explains the different numbers out there, which by the way are all true with some being wrongly attributed and thus misleading, a mistake we don't have to repeat here. There is no OR in doing as ROG5728 did and if one still thinks policy is not followed, (I don't), we use common sense and ignore all rules if they prevent us from improving an article.TMCk (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The date of the Statesman source is 6 November 2009, the day after the event. There are multiple reliable source published more than a year since the event that use the 29, 30, 32, or 38 figure for wounded. I am not saying that any are wrong, or right, I am saying what can be verified. Furthermore, I think IAR shouldn't be used given that I can provide at least half a dozen reliable sources that have been published more than six months after the event that use each figure (except for 38, where I only found three).
29: Northwest Guardian, AFP, Fox News, AP hosted by NBC News, The Record, San Francisco Chronicle.
30: AP hosted by Huffington Post, NPR, Austin Statesman (uses "more than 30"), Washington Times, Fort Hood Sentinel (uses "more than 30"), San Francisco Chronicle
32: NYT, CNN, Stars and Stripes, The Guardian, Austin Statesman, Eighth Army Public Affairs, United States Army
38: American Forces Press Service, Testimony of Lawrence J. Haas, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, American Foreign Policy Council in front of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives (page 15), Killeen Daily Herald
There are even more sources for the 29, 30, and 32 figures, and the first 38 figure is published by the United States Department of Defense article titled Pentagon releases final Fort Hood shooting review. Therefore, using only the 30 figure would also be wrong. In the Statesman source it says that an "Fort Hood reiterated..."; Yet, in a later published report by the Department of Defense it contradicts what the Fort Hood representative said.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your "DOD source" for the 38 figure is actually just an image caption that is not part of the main article and may or may not have even been written by the DOD; it doesn't even discuss the number or go into any detail on it. I didn't look at all of your other sources, but I would suspect they are every bit as weak as that one (did you even look at any of these before citing them?). Your CNN source, for example, incorrectly said 12 people were killed, as opposed to the correct number of 13, so you can forget about CNN. Please stop sowing confusion where none exists; there is nothing at all confusing about any of this. I'll reiterate: the 29 number comes from excluding the shooter from the total, while the 30 number comes from including the shooter, and the 32 number comes from the number of attempted murder charges against the shooter, and the 38 number comes from including 8 extra people who were not shot and simply suffered stress. Understandably, lots of news sources were confused by that, but we aren't going to repeat their mistakes here. ROG5728 (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason why I gave multiple sources, and as I said there are more that I can post, but I am sure that others can search for themselves. I didn't hear that and holding to what one believes to be true is poor reasoning, to support with only providing a single number, which may or may not be true. Again, WP:VNT.
It's obvious that we disagree and are not budged by each others lengthy reasoning. Perhaps DRN or an RfC is in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

Should the casualty figure in the lead section of the article give a single number or a range? Please see above discussion for previous debate regarding this question.

Per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, I shall notify the relevant wikiprojects of this RfC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Support single number - I don't think there should be a range unless there is much disagreement between reliable sources. United States Man (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly the point. There IS much disagreement between reliable sources. So...just to clarify...you support a single number in spite of the fact that there is disagreement between reliable sources? ```Buster Seven Talk 05:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The accuracy of many of those sources on this entire subject has been (demonstrably) very poor, so for purposes of this discussion they aren't "reliable" sources. CNN for example said only 12 people were killed, which is completely incorrect. ROG5728 (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets wait until US Man explains the discrepancy before his support is included in any Concensus Tally. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support using a single number per User:ROG5728. --John (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a range ```Buster Seven Talk 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? You have to give a reason, as you said just above. I support giving a number because I have read and agree with the arguments of ROG5728. Why do you wish to give a range? --John (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have given a reason in the discussion above. More than once...good reliable sources don't agree. Our reader should know that fact.```Buster Seven Talk 00:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support using a single number for reasons explained already. I suggest anyone new to this discussion carefully read this source, which quotes Fort Hood directly and explains the discrepancies found in other sources. ROG5728 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support single number per my reasoning in the above discussion.TMCk (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support range, see discussion above for lengthy reasoning.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC discussion

  • I came upon this article because of another gun/shooter related article I am working on. I wanted to provide the death and casualty #'s for the recent US massacres in that other article. I dont want to include in-accuracies or questionable info. I don't want to replocate #'s that may not be exact. The source I had discovered for the other article stated that there were 30 casualties as a result of the shooter but not including the shooter. Weeks ago, when I came to this article, I saw the 29 figure which, based on my quality sources, was wrong. So...I changed it to 30. Much has been made and said about the casualty # since then. From what I understand it is not the first time this discussion has been held. It probably wont be the last. One of my fellow editors makes charges that his fellow collaborators are taking to hard a stand over trivialities. I would point out that many sources give credance to a # that is not 29. So..we have one side (provide a range)of the discussion that is accussed of making mountains out of molehills while the other side (29.)is anchored in their interpretation of The Truth. Denigrating the efforts of editors by trivializing their motives never works. I think wording that tells our reader that there is a discrepancy and that they should not trust the 29 figure is the way to go. The reader will then know that further investigation, on their part is necessary. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source you're referring to actually says the rampage killed 13 and wounded 30, which does not necessarily contradict the 29 figure. The 30 figure includes the shooter; the 29 figure excludes the shooter. He was wounded in the incident just like everyone else, so of course some sources are going to include/exclude him in the total count. Again, no one denied that there are plenty of sources using the inflated 38 figure, but the point is that it was debunked by higher quality sources (e.g. Austin Statesman via Fort Hood). Again, there IS wording in the article that tells the reader there are discrepancies in the numbers due to 8 extra people being mistakenly included in the number. However, to tell the readers that they "should not trust the 29 figure" would be dishonest and misleading; we already know it's the correct figure and no "further investigation" is needed. ROG5728 (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yet I have shown that even the Austin Statesman has used the term "more than 30" (not just once, but at least trice (2, 3), so the only 30 figure is contradicted by its own publisher. So should we not include the Austin Statesman as an unreliable source as well?
This is why I think a range is best, as it doesn't force judgements upon the multiple reliable sources. It is not our job as editors to enforce our own POVs of "the truth", but to include what is verifiable in a neutral and due weight manner.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, the Austin Statesman source was quoting Fort Hood directly in the source I linked. Meanwhile, where did CNN (et al.) get the 38 figure? Do you even know? Did they ever say? No, and no. ROG5728 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source I am referring to, not the one ROG mentions above---->[1]. 13 charges of premeditaed murder and 32 charges of attempted premeditaed murder (which would not logically include the shooter as a casualty) ```Buster Seven Talk 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of charges of attempted murder is not necessarily the same as the number of people wounded. They're two different things so you can't substitute one for the other. We already went over that. ROG5728 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I have shown how the U.S. government has published other figures that are more recent; therefore I can use the same argument/reasoning that ROG5728 has been using and say, I do not believe in the accuracy of the Austin Statesman in the context of the wounded number due to it not being consistent with other wounded figures it has published.
See, using such "I am right, it is the truth, you are wrong" type language moves this discussion no closer to a consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if I haven't pointed this out already, the source that ROG5728 is using as the sole source for only using the 30 wounded figure, is dated the day after the event. One can argue that is more accurate, or less accurate. I have shown in the discussion above how the reliable sources do not all agree that 30 is the correct wounded figure. Again, please see WP:VNT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your "U.S. government source" for the 38 figure is just an image caption that is not part of the main article and may or may not have even been written by the DOD; it doesn't even discuss the number or go into any detail on it. Your other sources are at least as weak as that one; your CNN source, for example, incorrectly said 12 people were killed, as opposed to the correct number of 13, so you can forget about CNN. It's simple; the 29 number comes from excluding the shooter from the total, while the 30 number comes from including the shooter, and the 32 number comes from the number of attempted murder charges against the shooter, and the 38 number comes from including 8 extra people who were not shot and simply suffered stress. Understandably, lots of news sources were confused by that, but we aren't going to repeat their mistakes here. ROG5728 (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because ROG5728 says so?
It may have been past consensus (where? what archived discussion? please provide diff), however please see WP:CCC.
Again, please see WP:VNT
I have provided multiple reliable sources that have provided multiple wounded figures. Unfortunately, those sources have been ignored
I have shown how the source provided by ROG5728 has been contradicted by its own publisher in later published articles.
As for the DoD source, it is an image caption, but one published by the DoD. If the DoD believed it inaccurate they could have changed the caption. That being said, this is why a single number doesn't meet verification as there are other reliable sources that contradict that number.
I can agree to a compromise of "more than X" were wounded, giving a reliable source for each of the reported by reliable source articles (with a quote for each source), but to say X wounded would not meet verification IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Fort_Hood_shooting&oldid=543669481"