Jump to content

Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Refs

[1]

  1. ^ "Twelve Soldiers Killed in Fort Hood Shooting". ABC News. November 5, 2009. Retrieved November 5, 2009.
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)

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 [2], 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)

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)
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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)

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,[3] indicates that Dr. Hasan had first been commissioned instead in June 1997. Between this datum and the media advisory released by Virginia Tech[4] 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[5]) yield information demonstrating definite errors of fact in those journalistic sources (see Mr. Blackledge's cited Associated Press article[6] 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[7] 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[8] 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:

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

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:

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)

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 [9] 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)

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)

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, [10], 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."[11] 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 [12] 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.[13] 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."[14] 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)
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

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)


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)

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)
  • 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)

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)

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[15], 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.[1]

  1. ^ Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists, The Telegraph, November 7, 2009

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!): [16] 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[17] 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! [18]
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 [19]

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.[20] 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."[21]

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[22] 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". [23] 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. [24] [25] 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)

FN Five-seveN Pistol Info

Just got this off the FN USA website [26]

"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)

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).

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)

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)

"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 [27] 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 [28] --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)

spelling of al-qaeda

in the source [29] it is spelled Al-Qaeda. I feel it should be spelled the same way in the article. right now it is spelled Al-Qaida

Reliefappearance (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

turns out the page is only semi-protected, I thought it was fully protected. I've made the change myself. Reliefappearance (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hasan's Family Contacted an Attorny

According to this, Hasan's family has contacted an attorny, who wishes to speak with Hasan later today.

Should we put this in the article, or wait to see what happens when they meet? - Drew Smith What I've done 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say wait for now, but keep hold of it. The lawyer might come out and make a statement or something- it could well lead onto something but, for now, just the fact that they've got him a lawyer is not overly significant if you ask me. HJMitchell You rang? 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thats what I figured. For what it's worth, AP just released that the lawyer is heading to San Antonio now, and will talk with Hasan today. He has also requested that investigators not question him yet, stating that he is unsure if Hasan has been medically cleared to talk.
I'll keep an eye on it, and if either of them release a statement I'll be all over it. - Drew Smith What I've done 22:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice. Good work. I'd be surprised if the two met and then no-one said anything... HJMitchell You rang? 23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You've got to admit, lawyering up as soon as you come out of a coma doesn't exactly sound jihadist...more like somebody whose mind snapped and is now realising the gravity of what he did, and just how screwed he is. Another sign we're right to reserve judgment and not jump on the 'omg terrorism' bandwagon. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Conversely, he might not have expected to wake up in the hospital. There are two band wagons: must-be-terrorism, and can't-be-terrorism. We need to stay off both. Tom Harrison Talk 12:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nidal Malik Hasan

Created article for Nidal Malik Hasan so that redirects work properly from section in this article, and so cats for arab / muslim american are not intertwined. Many people involved in this incident, so he should be pulled out as notable in his own right. Bachcell (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur - more than enough material here to support a separate article. Ronnotel (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how the WP:ONEEVENT test is met, or why Hasan should be considered an exception. What encyclopedic content about the Fort Hood Shooting is likely to be added in this or any other article other than information about the suspect? patsw (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You beat me to it Patsw, but I was about to say basically the same thing. If it hasn't already been done, I'll AFD it after I'm done with my current project. In any event, the infobox should have stayed, as it was very informative. - Drew Smith What I've done 23:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I see you're point re ONEEVENT, and I agree that this article is largely duplicative with the Hasan one, but what about the precedent set by the article on the Virginia Tech shooter? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Timothy McVeigh, John Allen Muhammad. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't address the arguments against an article on Hasan, as both were convicted and their crimes were years ago. This man has not been convicted and his alleged crimes took place a couple of days ago. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why everything has to have its own article like a bunch of Russian dolls. IMO it was fine with him featured in the Fort Hood shooting article. We might be at around 56KB for the shooting article, but it's nothing compared to other articles on Wikipedia. Computers have a lot more memory nowadays, and many more people use something other than dialup, not to mention that Wikipedia is not paper. Perhaps I don't understand what the motivation is against having big, good, comprehensive, accurate articles. MuZemike 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And if we're talking about possibly merging or redirecting back, we don't need AFD for that; we can discuss that locally (and if need be RFC if necessary) on this talk page. MuZemike 00:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an extremely problematic history when it comes to BLPs and great caution should be taken when creating one. If a person is notable for a single event, especially a recent one, then a separate article is probably unnecessary. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Times article reversion

See this edit[30]. The Times today reported people on the record saying terrorism was not involved. If it is disputed by other sources, it should still be retained, and the "dispute" if any reported. I know of no valid reason to remove.--JohnnyB256 Talk/Contribs 00:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are grasping at straws. This is the source quote: "Mr. Grey, a spokesman for the Army Criminal Investigation Division, said that investigators have still not been able to talk with Major Hasan because of his medical condition. 'We have not established a motive for the shootings at this time,' he said during a briefing for reporters held at Fort Hood on Saturday evening. He did not take questions from reporters. Interviews with other federal officials who have been briefed on the inquiry said that the tentative conclusion is that the attack was not part of a terrorist plot. Instead, they said that Major Hasan, who is Muslim, may have broken down because of emotional, ideological and religious pressures."
What does this have to do with your attempted edit? Which was: "So far, authorities have reached a tentative conclusion that the attack was not part of a greater terrorist plot but were trying to determine if others were involved."

It seems as if you are either being deceitful, or you lack the ability to comprehend what you read. ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't my original edit, but the editor who placed it there originally showed 20-20 comprehension in reading this section of the article: "Interviews with other federal officials who have been briefed on the inquiry said that the tentative conclusion is that the attack was not part of a terrorist plot. Instead, they said that Major Hasan, who is Muslim, may have broken down because of emotional, ideological and religious pressures." I added that they were still looking into a plot. Both aspects of the article should be in there, along with whatever else is relevant. --JohnnyB256 Talk/Contribs 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's not what I removed, and not what you put back in. I would point out that the actual authorities have preached patience, we must wait for their conclusions. That isn't a blanket statement, though. Our job is to include what has been respectively reported, officially, that is. If what the OTHER federal officials may have said is true, it will be widely reported. This is when I believe we should include it. ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That's precisely what you removed. What's said elsewhere doesn't matter. It was reported in a reliable source, and whether you or I agree with it or not, it has to stay. It so happens that I think that's a lot of rubbish. My personal opinion is that it is terrorism. But my personal opinion is of absolutely zero consequence. --JohnnyB256 Talk/Contribs 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what the motives of the other editors are but there's a persistent push to move "terrorism is not ruled out or ruled in" to "terrorism is ruled out". To use the word "conclusion" at this stage of the investigation is absurd and it shows poor judgment on the part of the source in using that word. The Wikipedia shouldn't be throwing around "conclusion" and "preliminary conclusion" at this point. There are published reports to the contrary from unnamed sources contradicting the "tentative conclusion" especially concerning his contacts with the 9/11 conspirators. I hope there's a consensus to avoid a rush to judgment, or a rush to whitewash: Conclusion doesn't belong in the article now even for a reliable source. patsw (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It may not belong in the lead paragraph, but I don't think we can ignore what the Times is reporting, or should omit entirely because we disagree with it. Also I think that we have to stop all the talk about motives of editors. It's tiresome, as well as a violation of WP:AGF, admittedly Wikipedia's most-violated policy. --JohnnyB256 Talk/Contribs 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I have no objection to inserting the "Allahu Akbar" stuff into the lead. I inserted that originally, and it was removed. I don't think editors engaged in a "whitewash" by so doing, and I'd like to remind editors of WP:CIVIL, that other policy that nobody seems to know exists.--JohnnyB256 Talk/Contribs 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Johnny, please don't. You really would benefit from taking a breather. You are quickly losing credibility with such claims. ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
See the edit summary of this edit[31], "not stated in source"? You see what's in boldface above, a direct quote from the article. How do you justify that edit summary? --JohnnyB256 Talk/Contribs 01:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit [32] did not match what was stated in the source. I explained that to you earlier in this thread. "Other federal officials" does not mean the "So far, (the) authorities". That was my premise for removing an intellectually dishonest edit. Will also post this on my talk page, since you asked this same question there. ThinkEnemies (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Then you removed entirely a passage that required, at the most, some changing in wording. You need to stop this kind of tendentious editing, as well as ratchet down the personal attacks and name-calling. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I accused you of being deceitful and somewhat behaving like a child. I apologize, and ask that we move on. Thank you for the replies. ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that, thanks.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I now ask those editors directly. What is the reason for pushing the article to "terrorism is ruled out" over "terrorism is not ruled out or ruled in"? patsw (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Because investigators have apparently now determined that Hasan acted alone and "without direction".--Evb-wiki (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
According to numerous reliable sources, this was an act of terrorism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Where is "determine" or "determination" in that cited article? The entire tone of the article is tentative. The investigations are ongoing and terrorism has not been ruled out. patsw (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The Times article says "tentatively concluded" and it is reflected accurately in the lead. The Times today said "In a statement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said, 'At this point, there is no information to indicate Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had any co-conspirators or was part of a broader terrorist plot.'"[33] This needs to be in the article if it's not there already. In fact, it can replace the current text, which was sourced to "sources." This is far better sourcing, an official FBI statement.--JohnnyB256 Talk/Contribs 14:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I added some stuff from Times columnist David Brooks, who said the media had downplayed ties to Islamic extremism out of political correctness. I think that helps the neutrality of the article and may resolve some of the concerns that have been expressed. --JohnnyB256 Talk/Contribs 15:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Move

In order to keep the uniformity in the English Wikipedia, within an hour or two I will be moving this page to Fort Hood massacre.(See Covina massacre,Virginia Tech massacre, etc.)Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be a dirty move without consensus. Please see the previous discussions on this point and hold off on the move. Шизомби (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile someone is trying to steal the TALK page by "archiving" it, which may be normal for normal things, but this is not the usual type of article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.10 (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
OPPOSE The 'military' murders seem to be treated a little differently to civilian occurences ie Camp Liberty killings, Hasan Akbar case, Deaths of Phillip Esposito and Louis Allen. (Maybe the resonance of the Vitnam era 'My Lai Massacre' is too strong?)
Secondly, consensus as per Шизомби AND this issue is still being discussed at the previous section on this issue.
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Too early for this move. I think we need to be guided here by what the media accounts and official sources call it. patsw (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

FOX NEWS as source??

Shouldnt wikipedia try to be as fair and balanced as possible and not quote the worst kind of tabloid trash in the world which is the right winged FOX NEWS?? Whats next? The onion will be quoted as source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fox News is considered a reliable source. Just as with the rest of our sources, the content that is being cited is news, not editorial or commentary pieces - you won't find any O'Reillys, Becks, Maddows, or Olbermanns here. If you have reason to dispute the reliability of a particular FNC news article which is being cited here, please identify it and share your concerns. If not, then please disengage. This is not the place to rail against organizations you happen to dislike. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 10:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Anon, if you find an example of where Fox News has made a error in its coverage of the Fort Hood shooting and the error became part of the article, please report it here. patsw (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, FOX news usage as a source should be kept to a minimum, keep in mind that not many sources here are from the National Enquirer or those kind of Magazines.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Fox News is as RS as ABC News or the Washington Post -- each of which also has its own critics. Opposition to Fox News is nothing more than political bias. People need to get over it.
If anyone doesn't like Fox News, they need to take it over to dkosopedia.com.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's actually almost kind of sad that we can use Fox News as a valid source. Even if that sources statement or belief can be flat out discredited or proved factually wrong by countless other sources. Certain tabloid media is not allowed as sources, yet Fox News as a source meets the criteria for a source being discredited as tabloid and unusable for Wikipedia. Oh well. 203.171.196.26 (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

To call a Fox News report tabloid journalism is to act either naively or like the current Obama administration whose behavior towards Fox News even CNN's Campbell Brown has cited as having "lost all credibility" (see [34], CNN's poor ratings ). As a news organization it belongs to and shares in the resources of the second largest media company in the entire world News Corporation. Who knows, there may be something biased in CNN's reporting if it's lack of ratings mean anything. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Fox News is certainly biased, but it's still a credible source of news. Calling it a tabloid is uncalled for. If you really have a problem with this, take it up on the reliable sources notice board. Without some very damning evidence, I doubt you'll get anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Fox News can be used (so long as it is a news article, obviously, or a notable opinion piece), but it's not particularly desirable for us to do so. If there is a better source (e.g. major national newspapers like the Times, Post, or Wall Street Journal) for a particular claim made by Fox then we should avoid referencing Fox. The quality of their journalism has been called into question by a number of sources (far more so than any other major news outlet, print or television) and Fox does not seem to have been awarded for their work all that much. There's no equivalent article to List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times staff relating to Fox, and recent Emmy Award ceremonies in the News & Documentary category have given a big nothing to Fox in terms of awards for journalism. All of the other major networks (PBS, CBS, NBC (which is tied to MSNBC obviously, though I'd say MSNBC is not a desirable source either), ABC, and CNN have won awards in recent years.
So again Fox News technically passes WP:RS, but like many other sources that could be used in Wikipedia articles, Fox is one we should avoid using when possible, and usually it is possible. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Fox News' article

This site: [Fox News] has an article from Fox News about this shooting.Agre22 (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Hasans' June 2007 Presentation

For your information. Appears to be a PowerPoint Presentation. (50 Pages) washington post

"As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program"

"Fort Hood suspect warned of threats within the ranks
The Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year and a half ago that to avoid "adverse events," the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims."

"Hasan on Islam
Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was supposed to discuss a medical topic during gave a presentation to senior Army doctors in June 2007. Instead, he lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries." --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a link to this in the External Links section.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On "Circumstances preceding"

This section is carried forward to the "Fort Hood shooting" discussion page from that of the page for "Nidal Malik Hasan" in order to facilitate consideration by parties interested in presenting a better appreciation of published data on factors which do not appear to have been properly presented in either of these articles.

  • Major Hasan's purchase of the semiautomatic pistol (an FN Five-seveN) allegedly used in the shooting had been made in "Guns Galore," a store in Kileen, TX, in August 2009,[35] shortly after he arrived on duty at Ft. Hood (July 2009). It is appropriate to incorporate information regarding his expenditures on this weapon, the many extra magazines which were found on his person when he was examined by the Army medic who was first to initiate his medical care on the scene of the shooting, and the large amount of 5.7mm ammunition with which those magazines had been loaded. These are all strong indicators of premeditation.
  • It is reported that Major Hasan had been issued a concealed carry permit in the state of Virginia in 1996, according to Roanoke County Circuit court records.[36]
  • The provenance of the .357 Magnum revolver that Major Hasan was also carrying is also of interest. In reports published thus far, there is by no means any clear indication that this revolver was fired by the suspect during the incident. The pre-existence of Major Hasan's Virginia CCW permit(1996) is likely to explain his carriage of that second handgun as well as facility with the semiautomatic pistol more recently acquired. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change order of columns in the the Fatalities table, make Image first and Rank last. The way that current order of victim information is displayed is very confusing. Suggest putting Image(photograph) of victim first, then Name, Age, Hometown, Rank.

Basically, make the Image column first, and the Rank column last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.145.83.58 (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2009

 Done. Please do not use {{editsemiprotected}} as your section title; this makes it difficult to respond. Please also consider creating an account. Though it is not required to read and edit, creating an account has many benefits, including being able to edit semiprotected pages. Intelligentsium 19:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Political correctness

I removed a section that referenced a single opinion piece as a basis of some political correctness argument. While it may be true, it's entirely undue weight. Grsz11 19:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, so I removed it again. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, This is very, very notable information that is referenced, and it's all over the reliable sources and talk shows. No reason to remove it other than to maintain a non-neutral POV, ALL sides of a controversy should be included to maintain a neutral view. Official US statements about diversity and anti-muslim sentiment is certainly worth noting, as well as conservative complaints about those statemnts . Bachcell (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In a column published on Nov. 10, New York Times columnist David Brooks said that media coverage of the shooting had downplayed Islamic extremism because of political correctness, and "suggested a willful flight from reality."[72] Lt. Col. Val Finnell who was a former classmate of Hasan in the medical school stated "The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit".[73]

Conservatives such as Michael Savage and Michelle Malkin have been critical of statements by officials seeming more concerned about upholding diversity and fighting Islamaphobia than terrorism. Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano stated "we object to -- and do not believe -- that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this....This was an individual who does not, obviously, represent the Muslim faith." [74] General George Casey stated “I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers... Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” [75]

This might be expanded into a section about concerns about islamaphobia either as part or or a balance to political correctness, citing groups that quickly called it islamic terrorism or purging all muslims from the military

This should be worked in, from a standpoint defending Muslims:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/2005/alleged_fort_hood_shooter_is_muslim._so_what/ As John Nichols wrote in the Nation last night:

No one knew on Thursday whether stress, fear, anger over mistreatment, mental illness or a warped understanding of his religion might have motivated Major Hasan. The point here is not to defend the soldier or his alleged actions. Rather, it is to question the rush to judgment regarding not just this one Muslim but all Muslims.

It should be understood that to assume a follower of Islam who engages in violence is a jihadist is every bit as absurd to assume that every follower of Christianity who attacks others is a crusader. The calculus makes no sense, and is rooted in a bigotry that everyone from George W. Bush to Pope Benedict XVI has condemned.

But that did not stop right-wing web sites from exploding with incendiary speculation about a "Jihad at Fort Hood?" and a "Terrorist Incident in Texas."

Removed sections on terrorism and political correctness / islamaphobia

Some guys removed the section highlighting the controversy as to whether the act can be classified as terrorism, and several paragraphs of a half-dozen statements about anti-muslim backlash and political correctness. If anybody else see this as censorship and promoting POV rather than NPOV, please help fix this. NPOV means including ALL notable controversies, PC and islamaphobia are certainly all over the media, left and right. Bachcell (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you aren't implying a call for meatpuppets? Grsz11 20:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, the "Terrorism" header is an obvious attempt to make a POV label. Grsz11 20:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
No, this isn't a call for "meatpuppets," even though I'm not sure I agree with Bachcell. You know, I really wish editors of this article would get a grip. I'm getting sick and tired of personal attacks and ad hominem labels. They're distracting and disruptive.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Most of these initial theories should be remembered.
Sooner or later the "Reactions" section will be changed to something like "Initial Reactions." All the notable controversies, like anti-Muslim backlash, political correctness, that PTSD theory, and the terrorism claims, are going to have to be in there.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
No, they really aren't. The stand-out ones will stay, but not every controversy needs mentioned. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite

CITE Errors

Can one of you guys with them thar fancy user names please fix the many errors that have been on the article for over 50 70 minutes? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I commented out the extras, but left them in the list. I assume this is because most of the Hasan material was moved to a separate article. Dragons flight (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done--220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The Hasan article was started over 24 Hours ago!. Thanks for fixing that, it looked crappy!
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

the pictures in the Fatalities section

File:Michael Grant Cahill.png, for example, says, in the Licensing section, that it's public domain because "it is a work of the United States Federal Government", yet the source is the associated press and when clicking the photo, you'll see that not even they credit the US Government, but rather, themselves. My guess would be that family members submitted pictures to the AP, but either way, it doesn't seem like those pictures are public domain. It's unfortunate since I believe they add to the article but whatever TerraFrost (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of this fact, the images have been removed from Wikipedia as Copyright Violations. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The press hasn't picked up yet on the university where Hasan's favorite philosipher works, and the founder who is on bad guy lists by the US treasury and the United Nations, students and graduates have been capturd as al Queda trainees and suspected assasins. Bachcell (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hasan had attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001, at the same time as Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, two of the September 11 hijackers.[1][2] Anwar al-Awlaki an American-born scholar now living in Yemen was the imam there in 2001, while a third hijacker attended his services while in California, and has apparently issued a statement in support of the shootings. The imam was a spiritual adviser to the hijackers, and Hasan has been reported to have deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings.[3] Awlaki has been called[by whom?] "one of the principal jihadi luminaries for would-be homegrown terrorists," and Awlaki's lecture on "Constants on the Path of Jihad" is similar to an Al Qaeda document[clarification needed], and is a "bible for lone-wolf Muslim extremists."[4] After the attack, Awlaki praised Hasan for the shooting; on his personal website, he encouraged other Muslims serving in the military to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal."[5] Awlaki teaches at Iman University headed by Abdul Majeed al-Zindani who has been designated "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" by the US Treasury Department. Zindani also appears on the UN 1267 Committee's list[6] of individuals belonging to or associated with al-Qaeda.

This almost seems like we're playing Six degrees of bin Laden. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, it will be 6 months before anybody can definitively link this incident to anybody from al Qeda. Bachcell (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hasan is only two steps away from Bin Laden: Anwar al-Awlaki -> Abdul Majeed al-Zindani who personally met Bin Laden as his spiritual advisor.
This section should not be in this article. If the Hasan article exists (which it most likely will), per summary style, this bit is not appropriate here. Grsz11 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by the President at Memorial Service at Fort Hood

I added a sentence about the above-referenced, with citations. Let me explain why I did so. First of all, the immediately preceding sentence provides one POV, without balance and without context in the days that have followed. While not all of the citations are perfect, I added what I could find quickly and was readily available. I welcome anyone to repair the format and find better sources. I think this speech was notable, perhaps so much so that it may need its own article eventually. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A section for the memorial service itself may be appropriate. I wasn't aware of notable criticism of Obama. News coverage picked up in a speech already in progress, so naturally he was talking about a different issue. Grsz11 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I have added two more citations, from the Associated Press and New York Post. Do you want to start a new section and add a quote, perhaps? Bearian (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Category

Shouldn't this be in the Spree shootings in the United States category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.148.118 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually... yes. I've added that category to the article.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This was not a Spree shooting. All of the victims were in a single location. Leaky Caldron 21:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That's right. The label is dubious.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless this, taken from the article, constitutes 2 or more locations: "then stood up and opened fire at soldiers processing through cubicles in the center and on a crowd gathered for a college graduation ceremony scheduled for 2 pm in a nearby theater" Leaky Caldron 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that here's the determining factor: has any reliable source referred to this as a spree shooting? This has received massive press coverage. Otherwise, we're engaged in OR/synthesis. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Plenty of shooting sprees and a couple of killing sprees. No "spree killing/shootings". What do you think, revert and bring it here? Leaky Caldron 21:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Union has already reverted it pending discussion. Leaky Caldron 21:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why Home-Grown Islamic Terrorism Isn't A Threat

The logic in this article is so counter-intuitive, it deserves to be mentioned as one source for determining that it was not a home-grown islamic terrorist incident, it was just a lone madman that had nothing to do with his religion. Bachcell (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/why_home-grown_islamic_terrorism_isnt_a_threat.php Nov 11 2009, 1:09 pm by Max Fisher Why Home-Grown Islamic Terrorism Isn't A Threat

I don't really think this article is a case of reporting as much as commentary. Remember a lone madman can still be a terrorist. That is in fact a category of terrorism (the lone wolf), as is leaderless resistance. There is strong evidence presently that this is exactly what took place. He may well be a lone terrorist who responded to the call to JIhad from groups like Al Qaeda. He doesn't need a membership card to be one. On the other hand he could have just been a guy who didn't want to go to war and decided to shoot people. BUt it is really starting to look more like terrorism and less like an office shooting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


See here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0235.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.210.174 (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New York Times reports Senior Sgt. Mark Todd (a civilian police officer), not Sgt. Kimberly D. Munley shot Hasan.

The Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/us/12hood.html?hp)....


"The [unidentified eyewitness], who asked not to be identified because it could damage his military career... said Major Hasan wheeled on Sergeant [Kimberly] Munley as she rounded the corner of a building and shot her, putting her on the ground. Then Major Hasan turned his back on her and started putting another magazine into his semiautomatic pistol.

It was at that moment that Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, a veteran police officer, rounded another corner of the building, found Major Hasan fumbling with his weapon and shot him."

If correct, the first part of the entry needs to be modified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellavita (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hasan was shot multiple times and it's not clear who hit him. We at least know these two fired at him, but let's wait for a ballistics report to cite who actually hit him. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 04:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Inside the Apartment of Nidal Malik Hasan ( PHOTOS! )

Pictures from the Time website taken inside Nadals'apartment. How on earth did they get these? Interesting viewing.
Some things here aren't yet reported and may turn out to be be very significant. NO original research! TIME.com[37]
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama's "best speech ever"

I have some reservations about the way this whole line is phrased. The construction is weaseley, and we have too many individual cites, the importance of which I cannot determine, and which may or may not be representative of the general view. We could do with losing all these sources if there was a single cite from a news agency (or other reliable source) saying this is how the media as a whole perceives the speech. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't you comment earlier? Should the speech be in a separate section? Right now, undue weight is given to critics, and to the immediate response. A new section must now be added about the memorial service. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Muslim" in lead section

To be transparent I wanted to mention what I just did. The third paragraph of the lead section started with, "Hassan is an American-born Muslim of Palestinian descent." My personal belief is that "Muslim" doesn't belong in the lead section, at least not in that sentence. His religion is found in the Suspect section of this article, is clearly implied by the reported use of Allahu Akbar, and is found in his own individual Wikipedia entry. Overplaying his religion is clearly what we want to avoid--any possible religious motivation is already analyzed at length so we're not hiding anything, but merely trying to not overplay it. I really wonder if we would say, "X is an American-born Jew," or "Y is an American-born Christian" in corresponding circumstances. --Dpr (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Along with the other indicia that suggest it is appropriate, I would point to the gunman shouting "Allahu Akbar!" during the attack. While I agree that it should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability, here I believe that is the case. And yes, in correspondending circumstances I would support referencing it in the lead for other religions.
Reminiscent of this ... After 9/11, the FBI released a handwritten 4-page hijackers' letter found in three separate copies at Dulles, the Pennsylvania crash site, and in Mohamed Atta's suitcase. It included a practical checklist of final reminders for the 9/11 hijackers. One notable excerpt: "When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers."[7][8] --Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
His ancestry from Palestine, as well as his religion is a key matter of controversy. If nobody talked about it, or if it were not important (for example, the fact that he like to buy his breakfast from 7-11, THAT would not be important), then it could be left out. It's obviously why right wing blogs immediately seized up on it the moment someone reported the shooter cried allah akbar, and again when his name was identified. Bachcell (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
But right-wing blogs aren't legitimate sources, and while they aren't (or atleast shouldn't be) used here, we shouldn't reflect their trends either. Grsz11 19:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a legitimate source if it is cited and condemned by a notable RS left wing website: Horror at Fort Hood Inspires Horribly Predictable Islamophobia.. that did not stop right-wing web sites from responding to the release of the suspect's name -- and no other details -- with incendiary speculation about a "Jihad at Fort Hood?" and a "Terrorist Incident in Texas." There are many, many opinion pieces condemning "islamaphobia" as well as statements by high US officials, which would not exist if Hasan's religion were not very important in this case Bachcell (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Strongly agree that the phrase "A devout Muslim and born in the United States of Palestinian descent..." is not necessary or appropriate for the introduction. Our articles on James Charles Kopp, Michael Bray, and Paul Jennings Hill do not refer to them in the introductions as "devout Christians born in the United States of European descent," even though religious affiliation is discussed in all of their articles as it obviously played a role in their crimes (violence against abortion providers). Of course Hasan's religious beliefs should be discussed in the article, and if it is determined that the motivation was religious in nature that should be mentioned in the lead, but the "devout Muslim" sentence is not appropriate at this time and should stay out. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Combat fatigues

In the article it presently reads:

"A medic who treated Hasan said the pockets of his combat fatigues were full of pistol magazines."

Now, my question is was he wearing ACUs, and if so, shouldn't the article state whether he was wearing ACUs or some other form of Battledress, such as the old Woodland BDU, rather than the generic combat fatigues. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What was the uniform of the day on 5 November for Darnall (to which Major Hasan was assigned)? Any variation from that mode of dress would have made the subject conspicuous, and likely would have been avoided. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Todd (policeman)

I have nominated Mark Todd (policeman) for deletion. You can add your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Todd (policeman). Singularity42 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

September 11th participants

Since my last edit the statement

Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001, at the same time as two of the September 11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour

was changed to

Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001, at the same time as two of the alleged hijackers in the September 11 attacks, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour

. The change specifically was this:

alleged hijackers in the September 11 attacks

Given that one cannot try the deceased in a court of law, I don't see why Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour should be labelled as "alleged hijackers" rather than something like participants in the September 11th attacks. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

See also section

I have noticed that there has been a removal of several related articles, including William Kreutzer, Jr., Dean Mellberg, and Deaths of Phillip Esposito and Louis Allen. Was there consensus regarding that removal, or was this done unilatirally by one editor? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's me! Some or all of those. As I pointed out in my edit summaries, none of them fit the lead-in description ("Other recent cases of American servicemen attacking others include"). There was more deleted I believe (not a serviceman at the time of the shootings--the DC sniper). I also questioned whether it even makes sense to have the two that remain.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Previously, all cases of a soldier attacking other soldiers which lead to a fatality were included, for they were similar events, in that regards. We see this is such articles as the Gulf of Sidra incident (1989). That being said, I can understand the Dean Mellberg article, and the Beltway sniper attacks not being included, as in those cases neither were current servicemembers. However, there had appeared to be a consensus that the William Kreutzer, Jr. shootings and Deaths of Phillip Esposito and Louis Allen, were similar enough to the event, that they are being "Blue on Blue" attacks, to be included in the section.
I have to wonder what the views of other editors are for the inclusion or exclusion of certain other articles that are similar to this event. This discussion should have happened before the removal of content, and not afterwards, which is now the case. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It would create an impossible burden if every addition and deletion required consensus after full discussion; it would make cleanups nigh-impossible. What's wrong with being bold? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I can understand where you are coming from, and I have read the Bold guideline, yet in it it states

"Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold."

Given the nature of this article, being bold leads to long reversion and discussion cycles, which readers who are interested in similar events, may not find without the articles linked in the see also section.
One thing that I don't find in your reply though is an objection of inclusion of the 'William Kreutzer, Jr.' and 'Deaths of Phillip Esposito and Louis Allen' articles. So thus I ask what is your stance regarding the section in question? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hate to point to my edit summaries again, but had you read them you could have short-circuted much of this conversation. But in addition to the two that you reflected are appropriate deletes because they were not by serviceman, as I pointed out in my edit summary the "Deaths of ..." involved a matter in which the serviceman was acquitted. That therefore does not meet the lead-in ("Other recent cases of American servicemen attacking others include"). Also, the Kreutzer matter was 14 years ago. As I said in my edit summary, I don't see that as qualifying as "recent". Finally, I continue to question whether the remaing two should remain. If we need a see also section that has more than the suspect here, perhaps the better links would be to the other attacks in which the attackers yelled "Allahu Akbar" -- 9/11, the 2002 Bali bombings (at least when sentenced), and the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot (at least recorded video footage of them shooting weapons and shouting Allahu Akbar).--Epeefleche (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Those 'see also' links typically include related or similar instances not linked to in the article itself, if the scope had not been qualified. I have to say that I agree with the removals in the sense that were appropriate to the scope you defined in that section. I would have interpreted 'recent' in this case to be within 10 years. Service personnel going on a killing spree inside a military compound would have in any event excluded Muhammad. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent)But why are we limiting this section to "recent", that seems as being to exclusive to me. Originally the scope of the See Also was for any event where there was 'Blue on Blue' on a military base/post/fob where one servicemember was targetting, to kill, multiple other servicemembers, leading to multiple injuries and or deaths. That was much more inclusionary, then what is claimed to be the present scope, which as I said, with which I disagree. Furthermore, how was consensus created to make this section exclusionay, if there was no discussion regarding it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The form these "See Also" are in now is good. KEEP em. Many readers will not be familiar with, or even have heard of these cases. As I wasn't, until I followed some of the earlier (now removed) links. Think international. Many non-US readers! The Hasan Akbar (any relation?) case in particlar seems relevant. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You asked why Epeefleche removed them, and I was merely agreeing with his rationale, although I did say 'see also' usually includes related (as in theme). Yes, he could have removed the scope instead, and that would also have been a legitimate edit too. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Acronym Usage/ Definitions

Towards the end of the 'Suspect' Section, Theres is a reference to 'NPR'. Not being American I thought 'What the?'
Could NPR(National Public Radio) be inserted here, please? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

About 5 lines from end of 'Reaction' section. 'IVAW' is also not 'defined'.
Could an 'authorised' editor please insert IVAW(Iraqi Veterans Against the War) oe similar.
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. That they were wikilinked somewhat offset the need to spell them out, but I agree it's good to spell things out the first time they appear (particularly if somebody ends up doing a spoken version). Шизомби (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, Шизомби. Readers really shouldn't need to click on acronyms just to find out what they mean! IVAWs' meaning came up in my status bar, but not NPR (which has a lot of alternate meanings!) Thanks again.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


obama press conf?

Hey, not to nit pick too much, but at the end of the first paragraph it says "barack obama later held a press conference about the shooting." This is incorrect; he held a press conference for another reason, something about an african leader visiting the country, and he mentioned the attack at the end of a 20 min press conference. So by saying he "held a press conference about the attack" is very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

material from Hasan Bio

I've now incorporated all the text from this version of the Nidal Malik Hasan article that I believe is relevant. There may still be some redundancies although I have tried to be careful about this. Feel free to use this or remove bits which are not appropriate, whether in tone, reliability, in the wrong section or simple redundancy. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Thank Goodness for 'Cop Killer' Weapons"

A knowledgeable and extremely thorough article on the subject of the FN Five-seveN firearm employed as the primary weapon in the events of 5 November 2009 had been published online on 9 November by writer Bob Owens[38] of Pajamas Media. Titled "Thank Goodness for 'Cop Killer' Weapons,"[39] this article discusses in detail the characteristics of the semiautomatic pistol itself, the specific type of 5.7x28mm ammunition used (the SS197SR), and the wounding propensities of this type of round. Mr. Owens' penultimate paragraph is of particular interest:

"No rational person would ever wish for our soldiers to be attacked, but the simple fact of the matter is that Hasan’s reliance on a gun the uneducated media told him was a powerful 'cop killer' quite possibly saved lives at Fort Hood. If the same victims had been hit with 155-180 grain .40 S&W or 185-230 grain .45ACP hollow points, their wounds would likely have been far more severe than the wounds they suffered from even a fragmenting 40 grain VMAX bullet in the most commonly available 5.7 cartridge."

Inasmuch as Wikipedia relies almost exclusively on "the uneducated media" for all information presented on these pages, it is recommended that the editors of this protected page consider seeking published information sources - like that of Mr. Owens - presented by authors who are educated and experienced in technical matters of this nature.

I suggest that an external link reference to Mr. Owens' article be appended to this Wikipedia page. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Owens' could be entirely correct, but Wikipedia generally doesn't use blogs as reliable sources unless the author has documented expertise in the area. The descriptions of Mr. Owens attached to his blog don't note any special expertise in firearms or their lethality, and without evidence of such expertise, it is unlikely that his viewpoints would be included here. Dragons flight (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
And for good reason. The article is overflowing with speculation and inaccuracies. For one, he says that the shooter used SS197SR ammunition in his Five-Seven. This has not been reported by any reliable source. There are other 5.7x28mm cartridge types available to civilians, so there is no telling specifically which one was used. All we know is that he used a FN Five-Seven with 5.7x28mm ammunition. ROG5728 (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The only 5.7x28mm cartridge types available for sale to civilians in the United States are the SS195LF (containing a 27-grain jacketed hollow point lead-free bullet[40]), which is purposed for target shooting, and the SS197SR (bearing a 40-grain Hornady V-Max projectile[41]), which is the "sporting" round. Please follow the link to the Wikipedia article on the 5.7x28mm cartridge and read paragraph two thereof.
Note in the links provided above that the less wounding SS195LF is significantly more expensive than the SS197SR, and appreciate the fact that Major Hasan, as a graduate of the college of medicine of the USUHS, absolutely certainly had more didactic training in the management of gunshot wounds than would the graduates of other medical schools in the United States, was an experienced firearms user, and therefore the likelihood of any employment of the SS195LF target round is precisely zero.
So Mr. Owens' article overflows with "inaccuracies," does it?
""Vas you dere, Sharlie?"[42]
71.251.131.163 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


Yes, there's a reason we generally don't use blogs as sources: sometimes they're dead wrong :) While 5.7x28mm bullets don't expand like conventional hollowpoint pistol ammunition, they have been shown to tumble when fired into ballistic gelatin,[43] creating far larger wound cavities than would be predicted from the size of the projectiles.[44] The FN Five-seven also won high praise for its accuracy: "man-sized targets are easy to hit, even at 100 yards."[45] Andrea105 (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the repeated references to David Fortier's article in Shooting Times. Perhaps you didn't notice that Mr. Fortier's impact analysis was predicated entirely on the SS195LF practice round, and not the SS197SR. Or appreciate his note about "Highly respected experts, such as Dr. Gary K. Roberts, [who] have stated current 5.7x28mm loads do not offer sufficient penetration or inflict a large enough permanent wound cavity based upon testing in ordnance gelatin."
And accuracy is supposed to be a bad thing? Hm. Not much experienced with firearms, are you?
As for Mr. Humphries interview with Capt. Mohamed Lostan of the Passaic County [NJ] Sheriff’s Department, did you note that the ballistic impact information gained in those tests Capt. Lostan and his SWAT team squaddies conducted were undertaken using the SS190 cartridge, with its 31-grain aluminum-core tungsten carbide penetrator tip projectile, a round which is not available for civilian purchase?
Seems that your comment here is "dead wrong," nu?
71.251.131.163 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
First, I would suggest dropping the attitude. Second, a blog post, isn't likely to satisfy our reliable sources guidelines. Especially as it's really an opinion piece, rather than based on any facts relevant to this case. The blogger does not know what the shooter was thinking when he chose this weapon; it's pure speculation on his part, combined with armchair analysis of the injuries. If anyone wants to know the characteristics of the Five-seveN, they can read our article on the topic, which is already linked. We don't need to duplicate that information here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And stating that "The article [of Mr. Owens] is overflowing with speculation and inaccuracies" while failing to prove said assertion (moreover, note the errors of fact and omission raddling both respondents' snerks above) is not "attitude"? That Mr. Owen fails of Wikipedia standards of delicacy in not repeatedly inserting "alleged" in his article simply makes his piece effectively identical to much of what the MSM ex-Journalism majors have been writing since the event took place. You've got some specific quote from Mr. Owens' article to support your contention that he was claiming knowledge of "what the shooter was thinking when he chose this weapon"? What's in the article is a speculation about "Hasan’s reliance on a gun the uneducated media told him was a powerful 'cop killer'," a line more reflective of the fatuity of the drive-by media in matters pertinent to firearms than of the alleged perpetrator's state of mind at the time he'd purchased that pistol.
If Mr. Owens' "armchair analysis" of the wounding characteristics of the SS197SR cartridge (not the specific injuries which were inflicted in this incident) is inaccurate or otherwise of no value in an understanding of the weapon which appears to have been chosen specifically to accomplish this battue, how is Mr. Owens wrong? He is conscientious enough to state that the various 5.7x28mm cartridges' "actual 'real world' ballistic performance is anecdotal at best" (something that Andrea105, both above and below, emphatically fails to appreciate in her comments despite the fact that she fixes upon nothing more than some extremely impromptu tests conducted by a squad of Sheriff's deputies in Passaic County) before going on to discuss two other high-velocity pistol rounds whose "established track record is that of bullets with excellent penetration characteristics but with questionable stopping power" in an effort to develop some context in which the various 5.7x28mm cartridges' wounding characteristics may be better appreciated.
It's not a matter of duplicating information contained in the Wikipedia page on the FN Five-seveN but observing that the only rounds available to Major Hasan for purchase - the SS195LF lead-free practice round and the SS197SR - were not the SS190 cartridges used in that one hardly rigorous "study" conducted by Capt. Lostan's SWAT team. The SS190 is designed to improve both the penetration and the wounding properties of the 5.7x28mm round. The SS197SR is designed not to be capable of similar penetration or of inflicting the kinds of particularly grievous wounds our police and military personnel are encouraged to impose upon their targets. Is this mentioned on the Wikipedia page for the FN Five-seveN? Nope.
If not out of arrant hoplophobia or a willful desire to present a skewed and inadequate understanding of firearms in general and the FN Five-seveN in particular, what is the impetus behind the denigration of an article presenting information that has not been demonstrated to suffer inaccuracies of any kind but which does indeed take to task the utterly exasperating and impregnably obtuse "uneducated media" in matters pertaining to guns? 71.251.131.163 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference between the armor-piercing rounds (supposedly available only to military and the police, though doubtless obtained by criminals through illicit sales), and the conventional ammunition available to the general public would be highly significant in evaluating the effects on people wearing body armor, but is of little importance in determining the casualties that would be inflicted in the absence of any ballistic protection (it does not appear than any of the soldiers attacked were wearing body armor). The bottom line is that both the article evaluating the civilian ammunition and the article reporting the results of testing the military/police armor-piercing ammunition clearly state that 5.7x28mm bullets tumble, producing a large wound cavities. This directly contracts Owens' blog-post assertion that such small, high velocity ammunition simply goes through a person shot with it, with minimal energy transfer and a small wound cavity. Indeed, a round which penetrates only 11 inches into ballistic gelatin[46] is probably going to have near 100% energy transfer. Whether "accuracy is supposed to be a bad thing" depends greatly on who is using the weapon. When utilized by a criminal for a mass shooting, a highly accurate pistol would presumably inflict a greater level of death and injury than a less accurate gun. Andrea105 (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
See above on the subject of the Passaic County Sheriff's Department's testing, which is the only study (if as such it can be dignified) on the basis of which you keep spouting your contentions about the wounding characteristics of all types of 5.7x28mm cartridges.
If you can sustain your connivance at peddling the notion that the intrinsic value of a firearm's accuracy "depends greatly on who is using the weapon," it may be robustly concluded that you are utterly bereft of moral agency.
Might as well say that the value of a sharp scalpel "depends greatly" on the intention of the individual who picks it up to begin cutting. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Another thing owens overlooked is that the gun & round is specifically designed to be easily controlled. Considering the large number of rounds fired at the victims it's entirely possible that another weapon/round would not have been as dangerous.67.79.10.114 (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Since 5.7x28mm ammunition has "approximately 30 percent less [recoil] than the 9x19mm",[47] and since the 9mm cartridge is itself less powerful than the .40 S&W that Owens claims is far more lethal ammunition, its reasonable to conclude that the 5.7x28mm more easily facilitates accurate rapid fire -- as anyone who has ever used a machine pistol knows :) recoil produces a barrel rise that has to be forcibly counteracted to keep a rapidly-firing pistol on-target. Andrea105 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, accuracy and ease of handling designed into a firearm is "bad" - morally wrong - only to the person who invests morality in the instrument as such. You don't get how wonderfully imbecilic that is yet? 71.251.131.163 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that the FN Five-seven is some sort of "evil gun" :) You began this talk page discussion by asserting that Owens' blog post credibly established that the use of a FN Five-seven in this shooting produced far lower levels of death and injury than a pistol firing more conventional handgun ammunition such as the .40 S&W, and that this purported fact absolutely must be discussed in the article. I refuted this claim by noting that since 5.7x28mm bullets tumble, Owens' claim that they go straight through targets with minimal energy transfer and small wound cavities is baloney. Additionally, the fact that the 5.7x28mm is more suited to accurate rapid fire than conventional pistol ammunition refutes Owens' claim of lower levels of casualties attributable to the FN Five-seven. Both of these statements were made for the limited purpose of establishing that a "fewer casualties due to the FN Five-seven..." claim does not merit inclusion in the article, and should not be seen as some attempt to paint the FN Five-seven as an extraordinarily dangerous instrumentality that must forthwith be confiscated from all civilian owners by ATF agents in house to house searches :) Andrea105 (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The greatest part of your assertions thus far advanced, Andrea105, on the wounding capabilities of 5.7x28mm rounds are predicated on information gathered by Mr. Humphries in an interview with Capt. Lostan regarding tests (which I have already correctly characterized as "impromptu," the reliability of results being doubtful at best) on a cartridge - the SS190 - which is not commercially available in the civilian market.
Have you presumed that the alleged perpetrator of the shootings on 5 November had somehow obtained SS190 cartridges? Do you persist in maintaining that the ballistic characteristics of the SS190 projectile are identical to those of either of the two cartridge types in this caliber which are commercially available when it is absolutely impossible for you to deny that there are differences between the projectile qualities of the SS190 and the SS197SR devised specifically in the designs of these two very different types of rounds?
You are now averring that the wounding properties of the slower, more massive projectiles of "more conventional handgun ammunition such as the .40 S&W" do not cause more severe wounding than do the much lighter (but faster moving) SS197SR projectiles because these "bullets tumble" instead of "[going] straight through targets with minimal energy transfer and small wound cavities."
Have you any support for this assertion?
As I've said, the only two citations you've pulled speak to the ballistic characteristics of the SS190 and (even more limitedly) the SS195LF practice round. You have no information whatsoever on the ballistic properties of the SS197SR, and you are assuming that all 5.7x28mm rounds are identical in this regard when one of the single most interesting (and controversial) qualities of the cartridges of this caliber is the degree of variation in wounding capability from one type to another. The earliest types, developed for the P90, had been purposefully designed to meet a NATO requirement to penetrate ballistic protection - made to be "cop-killer bullets" - while others had been tweaked in one way or another to serve other functions or meet limiting standards imposed by gun control legislation.
In his effort to help his readers to an understanding of the difference between smaller, higher velocity projectiles and the more massive, slower-moving bullets which continue to be preferred by most American law-enforcement officers (and, indeed, by the U.S. Special Operations Command, the F.B.I.'s Hostage Rescue Team, Delta Force, and a number of other agencies and military units) in their choice of handguns, Mr. Owens wrote that: "The difference between a wound from a 5.7 bullet and a .45 ACP is not dissimilar to the difference between the wound from an ice pick and the wound from a sledgehammer. The ice pick will penetrate far deeper, but the sledgehammer will cause far more traumatic injuries."
Then - I delight to note - in your post immediately above you put into quotations the phrase "fewer casualties due to the FN Five-seven..." as if you were attributing those words to Mr. Owens (or possibly to me?) when no such words appear either in my comments or in Mr. Owens' article. Mr. Owens' speculation was to the effect that fewer fatalities and less severe wounds had been inflicted upon the victims in this incident because the shooter was employing an FN Five-SeveN with 20-round magazines full of SS197SR rounds instead of (my example) a Glock 22 chambering .40 S&W cartridges loaded in 15-round standard magazines.
Remember, the alleged perpetrator of this attack had the cornucopia of Kileen's "Guns Galore" to choose from back in August. He could've purchased just about any large-magazine semiautomatic pistol in the store inventory, and instead of a "sledgehammer" (in the words of Mr. Owens), he selected an "ice pick."
Would the accused have been markedly less accurate with a .40 or .45 caliber handgun? Consider that he was also carrying a .357 Magnum revolver, with which (since he's had a Virginia concealed weapons permit since 1996) it is reasonable to presume he was experienced. That fact and three months in which to get in some firing range time leads to a very reasonable supposition that Major Hasan could easily have been well-practiced in the use of a far more lethal handgun by the time he decided to make his bid for the 72 virgins and the bonus car stereo.
Well, it's alleged that he did, anyway. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Catching up on this, you (71.251.131.163) are wrong on numerous points. I'll address three of them. First, you claimed that SS195LF is "less wounding" than SS197SR. This is only your opinion and it is not supported by actual tests. Most advocates of the 5.7x28mm actually prefer SS195 over SS197 for defensive purposes. I cannot point to any test where SS195 created a "long and narrow" wound channel like an "ice pick" as was claimed by the author. I am sure you cannot either. The SS195 projectile has a .850" length and yaws during wound travel. I can point to numerous independant tests where it behaved in this manner. Here are two examples using standard protocol.[48][49] The pictures and text there show the SS195 to yaw and widen the wound channel. They also show the SS197 to expand and spray bullet fragments into the wound channel. Both bullets are tested out of the Five-seveN and the PS90. In both cases this testing directly contradicts your claim and the author's claim that the wound it creates is "long and narrow" or similar to an "ice pick", or that it does not "dump its energy in the body". Second, you defended the author's false claim that SS197 was used. We DO NOT know yet that SS197 was used. As you said yourself, two cartridges are currently produced for civilians by FN. Note that other types have been produced by FN for civilians in the past, so it is always possible one of those was used. This is unlikely, but possible. It is NOT unlikely that he used SS195, because it is still produced by FN and commonly available just like SS197. The author's claim that he used SS197 was based on pure speculation but he stated it as a fact. Third, your reference to Dr. Roberts is irrelevant because he has never even tested any of the 5.7x28mm civilian cartridges (SS192, SS195, SS196, SS197) out of the P90/PS90 or ANY 5.7x28mm cartridges out of the Five-seveN. Most of his testing was done on the 23 grain SS90 plastic core prototype cartridge (discontinued about 15 years ago) fired out of a prototype P90. ROG5728 (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The SS195LF carries a 27-grain lead-free projectile which is designed specifically for target shooting. As such, its ballistic properties are devised to emulate those of the 40-grain SS197SR and the 31-grain SS190 so that both civilian and police/military shooters can achieve practiced skill on the firing range that will transfer reliably to firing with the heavier projectile cartridges. Also it is noted in Mr. Fortier's article that in his very limited tests of the SS195LF there was yaw but not tumble. Note that he fired into water-filled containers, not ballistic gelatin.
You gotta be a rocket scientist to understand that the kinetic energy imparted by a lighter projectile designed not to attain a trajectory different from those of the "business" types of 5.7x28mm cartridges or to overpenetrate on impact would, ceteris paribus, not demonstrate wounding characteristics more grievous than those of the types sold to the police or commercially marketed as "sporting" rounds?
The Brass Fetcher tests[50][51] were performed on the SS195 practice round (which for reasons discussed above it is reliable to conclude was not employed in the shooting on 5 November) and on the SS195 FMJ and SS197 ballistic tip cartridges.
The only tumbling with the latter two cartridges' projectiles occurred with the SS195, which was not commercially available to the alleged perpetrator. No tumbling was reported with the impact of the projectile of the SS197 when fired from the FN Five-seveN at either bare ballistic gelatin or heavy clothing.
Did you mistake the results of firing from the P90 for those of the SS197 fired from the FN Five-seveN?
The reference to Dr. Roberts is drawn from Mr. Fortier's article, and you'll note that Mr. Fortier was speaking of "Highly respected experts, such as Dr. Gary K. Roberts," and not of Dr. Roberts exclusively.
You got a support for attacking Mr. Fortier's statement simply because Dr. Roberts - one of an unspecified many "Highly respected experts" mentioned by Mr. Fortier - "has never even tested any of the 5.7x28mm civilian cartridges (SS192, SS195, SS196, SS197) out of the P90/PS90 or ANY 5.7x28mm cartridges out of the Five-seveN"?
In fact, you got a support for that assertion about Dr. Roberts?
The acquisition of the FN Five-seveN allegedly used in the shootings on 5 November has been established in "reliable" MSM reports as having been accomplished in a specific store in Kileen in August 2009. The stock of 5.7x28mm ammunition commercially available in that specific store might well be known to Mr. Owens. He didn't take the trouble to support his assertion that the SS197SR was the type of round used in the incident, but his supposition is reasonable and not the "false claim" you (without any support whatsoever) have accused him of advancing. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
"Might" is the key word you're using. We are not going to engage in baseless speculation in the article. The blog is not a reliable source and will not be added. The debate on this page about the efficacy of the Five-seveN and its effect on the injured is off-topic for improving the article. I suggest everyone drop this matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Feh. I consider the MSM to which the Wikipedia nomenklatura have plighted their collective troth to be several notches lower in reliability than the fairy tales related by my four-year-old granddaughter. F'rinstance, you people keep ignoring information on the Virginia Board of Medicine's practitioner Web site reporting Dr. Hasan's year of graduation from medical school as 2003, but apparently because your earliest frottage against the MSM got you the erroneous year of 2001, you keep that in the personal history of the alleged perpetrator. That Mr. Owens' particular piece of light extemporanea is qualitatively better informed than most of what the MSM root weevils have reported is laughably easy to defend, and his insights - while they could be better supported - really haven't been substantively refuted by any of the disputants thus far posting here. But he's a blogger, one of the accursed alternative media types, not ranked among Wikipedia's anointed angels of the MSM. Tsk. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So he fired 100 shots, hit 50 people and killed 13 of them in 3 minutes and you're saying the gun he used isn't powerful enough? What a pointless discussionTicklemygrits (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The public perception being (erroneously or with malice aforethought) fostered by the MSM is that this particular firearm is intrinsically a "cop killer" instrument, and the contentions of disputants above is that commercially available cartridge types for this semiautomatic pistol are "cop killer bullets" because (like all Spitzer projectiles - a type introduced in 1898, shaped as they are for reasons of aerodynamic stability fostering greater range, better accuracy, and the carriage of more energy on impact) tend to "tumble" upon entering ballistic gelatin, containers of water, or flesh.
In reality, unless specifically designed to do so (and the commercially available types of rounds accessible to Dr. Hasan's purchase at "Guns Galore" are deliberately not so designed), 5.7x28mm projectiles are no more prone to "tumbling" than are those of the venerable thirty-'ought six rifle round.
The point of Mr. Owens' article is not that a handgun chambering the 5.7x28mm round "isn't powerful enough" but that the alleged perpetrator's choice of the FN Five-seveN in fact acted to reduce the number of fatalities inflicted in the events of 5 November 2009, and this should be recognized despite the failure of the "uneducated media" to do so. 71.125.141.115 (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if he's trying to do away with erroneous perceptions. His blog article is speculation stated as fact and that makes it erroneous in itself. The author is severely lacking in basic knowledge of the weapon/ammo and so are you. To begin with there is only one type of SS195, not two ("practice" and "FMJ") as you falsely stated earlier. This is very basic information. If you really aren't even aware of this you should not be discussing that Five-seveN article in the first place. The bullet is occasionally called FMJ instead of JHP for the simple fact that it does not expand like a hollow point. It always yaws ("tumbles") as you saw clearly in any of the testing and this combined with the .85" length contributes to an enlarged wound channel. Again, you cannot point to any bare ballistic gelatin test where SS195 did not do this. I'll repeat this all again clearly for your understanding. There is only one type of SS195 cartridge, it tumbled in all known tests and it is available to civilians just like SS197. The author's statements regarding the 5.7x28mm bullet's behavior are contradicted by actual testing. The author's claim that the shooter used SS197 is also pure speculation even if he stated as fact. The article is not "knowledgeable" and we are not going to include it. Just drop it. ROG5728 (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
ROG5728,when I wrote about the "SS195 FMJ," I was faithfully recounting the statement in the Brass Fetcher tests[52] which you yourself had cited. If that manner of describing the SS195 round is wrong, the falsehood (or error) is not mine.
But, hey, thanks for your enthusiasm, misplaced as it is. Consider bringing it to the Brass Fetcher Web site.
That the SS195LF round with its smaller (27-grain) projectile was almost certainly not the choice of Major Hasan (an experienced shooter[53]) when the SS197SR (40-grain projectile) was both lower in cost and readily available to him is something you seem categorically disinclined even to consider. Tsk.
And, of course, you "cannot point to any bare ballistic gelatin test" in which the SS197SR yawed or "tumbled."
But then, as I'd observed above, all Spitzer projectiles tend commonly to undergo precession ("yaw" and "tumble") upon impact with tissue, particularly those to which transit through a short barrel - such as that of a pistol - fails to impart such spin as is required to invoke sufficient gyroscopic stabilization.[54] Doubtless the bullet of the SS197SR might be seen to do so. It's just that your "pure speculation" that such might be the case - like your "pure speculation" that Major Hasan would have stuffed his magazines full of target practice rounds instead of the more massively bulleted and cheaper SS197SR type of cartridge - is not acceptable. 71.125.141.115 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Brassfetcher's wording could be confusing to some people. I wasn't faulting you for being confused by it. I was faulting you for dragging this discussion on in spite of your obvious lack of knowledge about this weapon/ammo. If you look back I never stated that SS197 yaws or tumbles. I stated clearly that SS195 yaws/tumbles, while SS197 expands/fragments. Two different types of bullet behavior but each create enlarged wound channels. In either case the wound channel is enlarged and penetration is reduced, so it is true that the behaviors of either 5.7x28mm bullet contradict the author's claims. As for SS195 being "practice rounds", let me point out that both rounds are actually marketed by FN in this manner. The 'SR' in SS197SR stands for sporting round. The shooter was obviously not sporting, so by your same logic we could just as easily take this the other direction and assume he used SS195 just because he knew SS197 is marketed as a sporting round. But again, it's all speculation. It doesn't contribute to the article so it doesn't belong here. ROG5728 (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Tucci this has nothing to do with the Fort Hood shooting. Maybe you could stick it on the FiveseveN page. Whether using a FiveseveN saved lives is just speculation, and that the FeveseveN demonstrably can kill people. Until someone introduces legislation to ban the weapon because of this it's irrelevant that a couple of news organisations have called it a 'cop killer'.Ticklemygrits (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
While it's true that I'm not a "guy with gun oil on his hands" (not for something like forty years, anyway), I'm both didactically educated and clinically experienced in the medical management of gunshot wounds. Like any physician, however, I'm loathe to base argument on my own personal experience, having had impressed upon me the requirement for citing sources beyond the anecdotal (and by derivation, "anecdotal" includes much of what the Wikipedia nomenclatura consider "valid references" to the publications of the MSM) and the necessarily limited fund of knowledge that personal experience provides - 'cause I could be wrong no matter how much effort I put into fact-checking to validate what I've learned from the anecdotes and from bloody nights in the Emergency Department.
To the best of my ability to evaluate Mr. Owens' position in his article - which has the benefits of both brevity and a respect for the inexperienced reader's almost certain lack of familiarity with wound ballistics - and your contentions thus far voiced here, your arguments do not rise to a level that supports your opinion that Mr. Owens' article does not present to the Wikipedia reader considerations which improve the understanding of an important element in this incident. 71.125.141.115 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

See also section

I have noticed that there has been a removal of several related articles, including William Kreutzer, Jr., Dean Mellberg, and Deaths of Phillip Esposito and Louis Allen. Was there consensus regarding that removal, or was this done unilatirally by one editor? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's me! Some or all of those. As I pointed out in my edit summaries, none of them fit the lead-in description ("Other recent cases of American servicemen attacking others include"). There was more deleted I believe (not a serviceman at the time of the shootings--the DC sniper). I also questioned whether it even makes sense to have the two that remain.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Previously, all cases of a soldier attacking other soldiers which lead to a fatality were included, for they were similar events, in that regards. We see this is such articles as the Gulf of Sidra incident (1989). That being said, I can understand the Dean Mellberg article, and the Beltway sniper attacks not being included, as in those cases neither were current servicemembers. However, there had appeared to be a consensus that the William Kreutzer, Jr. shootings and Deaths of Phillip Esposito and Louis Allen, were similar enough to the event, that they are being "Blue on Blue" attacks, to be included in the section.
I have to wonder what the views of other editors are for the inclusion or exclusion of certain other articles that are similar to this event. This discussion should have happened before the removal of content, and not afterwards, which is now the case. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
It would create an impossible burden if every addition and deletion required consensus after full discussion; it would make cleanups nigh-impossible. What's wrong with being bold? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I can understand where you are coming from, and I have read the Bold guideline, yet in it it states

"Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold."

Given the nature of this article, being bold leads to long reversion and discussion cycles, which readers who are interested in similar events, may not find without the articles linked in the see also section.
One thing that I don't find in your reply though is an objection of inclusion of the 'William Kreutzer, Jr.' and 'Deaths of Phillip Esposito and Louis Allen' articles. So thus I ask what is your stance regarding the section in question? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hate to point to my edit summaries again, but had you read them you could have short-circuted much of this conversation. But in addition to the two that you reflected are appropriate deletes because they were not by serviceman, as I pointed out in my edit summary the "Deaths of ..." involved a matter in which the serviceman was acquitted. That therefore does not meet the lead-in ("Other recent cases of American servicemen attacking others include"). Also, the Kreutzer matter was 14 years ago. As I said in my edit summary, I don't see that as qualifying as "recent". Finally, I continue to question whether the remaing two should remain. If we need a see also section that has more than the suspect here, perhaps the better links would be to the other attacks in which the attackers yelled "Allahu Akbar" -- 9/11, the 2002 Bali bombings (at least when sentenced), and the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot (at least recorded video footage of them shooting weapons and shouting Allahu Akbar).--Epeefleche (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Those 'see also' links typically include related or similar instances not linked to in the article itself, if the scope had not been qualified. I have to say that I agree with the removals in the sense that were appropriate to the scope you defined in that section. I would have interpreted 'recent' in this case to be within 10 years. Service personnel going on a killing spree inside a military compound would have in any event excluded Muhammad. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent)But why are we limiting this section to "recent", that seems as being to exclusive to me. Originally the scope of the See Also was for any event where there was 'Blue on Blue' on a military base/post/fob where one servicemember was targetting, to kill, multiple other servicemembers, leading to multiple injuries and or deaths. That was much more inclusionary, then what is claimed to be the present scope, which as I said, with which I disagree. Furthermore, how was consensus created to make this section exclusionay, if there was no discussion regarding it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The form these "See Also" are in now is good. KEEP em. Many readers will not be familiar with, or even have heard of these cases. As I wasn't, until I followed some of the earlier (now removed) links. Think international. Many non-US readers! The Hasan Akbar (any relation?) case in particlar seems relevant. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You asked why Epeefleche removed them, and I was merely agreeing with his rationale, although I did say 'see also' usually includes related (as in theme). Yes, he could have removed the scope instead, and that would also have been a legitimate edit too. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ending the semi-protection?

This issue has been brought up before (including by me), but as things have calmed down a little bit I'd like to revisit the topic of unprotecting the article (I'll be leaving a note for the admin who originally protected it to weigh in here as well). Personally I think we should take the protection off and see if we can handle the results. A lot of anonymous editors have been making good constructive comments on the talk page and I'd like to give them a chance to edit the article. If we end up with scads of vandal edits right away we can re-protect, of course, but obviously leaving the article unprotected is more desirable so long as we can handle any vandalism quickly. What do other editors think? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion yet on the editing semi-protection on the article so far, but I strongly support continuing the indefinite full move-protection because of the page-move vandalism that was going on. MuZemike 00:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Definitely agree that move-protection should be maintained—any move of the article would need to be discussed here first anyway so we don't lose anything by keeping that in place. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is getting the signal-to-noise ratio that it should be getting. Perhaps this is a better idea to move this discussion to another venue, like WP:AN or something? MuZemike 19:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Time to end semi and put a time limit on the page move (no more than a few days). If vandalism comes back we can put it back on. We should almost never use indef protection, particularly on new articles like this. Ronnotel (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
MuZemike is right than not enough folks are weighing in here, but let's wait a little while and see if a few more people drop by. Perhaps the edit summary I'm leaving with this edit will bring some people over. If we're not getting many replies I don't think it would be a problem to just lift the protection since that's up to administrator discretion to a significant degree and at least two of us (Ronnotel and myself) would like to see it lifted while MuZemike does not object. I'm not sure a trip to WP:AN is necessary, but if others feel semi-protection should stay for awhile we can wait to hear from them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with taking off the semiprotection for a trial period, but let's be prepared to slap it back on.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and unprotect the article given the above response and lack of objection. Let's see how it goes, but since editing to both the article and talk page has slowed down somewhat I think we might be able to handle it (obviously there will be some vandal edits but that's par for the course, and I think we'll see some good contributions from IP editors and new accounts). I'll be offline for basically the rest of the day, but any other admin can feel free to re-semi protect if vandalism becomes too much to deal with, and non-admin editors can of course go to WP:RFPP and request protection again if there is not an admin handy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Let's see what happens. If we still get a lot of vandalism, we can always semi-protect again. MuZemike 16:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Acronym Usage/ Definitions

Towards the end of the 'Suspect' Section, Theres is a reference to 'NPR'. Not being American I thought 'What the?'
Could NPR(National Public Radio) be inserted here, please? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

About 5 lines from end of 'Reaction' section. 'IVAW' is also not 'defined'.
Could an 'authorised' editor please insert IVAW(Iraqi Veterans Against the War) oe similar.
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. That they were wikilinked somewhat offset the need to spell them out, but I agree it's good to spell things out the first time they appear (particularly if somebody ends up doing a spoken version). Шизомби (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, Шизомби. Readers really shouldn't need to click on acronyms just to find out what they mean! IVAWs' meaning came up in my status bar, but not NPR (which has a lot of alternate meanings!) Thanks again.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


obama press conf?

Hey, not to nit pick too much, but at the end of the first paragraph it says "barack obama later held a press conference about the shooting." This is incorrect; he held a press conference for another reason, something about an african leader visiting the country, and he mentioned the attack at the end of a 20 min press conference. So by saying he "held a press conference about the attack" is very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

material from Hasan Bio

I've now incorporated all the text from this version of the Nidal Malik Hasan article that I believe is relevant. There may still be some redundancies although I have tried to be careful about this. Feel free to use this or remove bits which are not appropriate, whether in tone, reliability, in the wrong section or simple redundancy. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference contradicts article text

The text in the article that says "Hasan was hit and felled by shots from Todd and Munley" is not supported by the first of the two references provided immediately after it [55] [56] to support that text. The first reference (militarytimes) [57] does not mention Todd at all and specifically says Munley "single-handedly took down Hasan" That directly contradicts the article text "Hasan was hit and felled by shots from Todd and Munley". As instructed (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the article stating that Munley alone shot the gunman is outdated. Though it has not yet been established how exactly the shooting ended recent reports give the impression that all the bullets that hit Hasan were fired by Todd. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC))
From my reading of what Wikipedia guidelines say they don't really care who did what but instead care that the article text reflects what the reliable sources say. Regardless of who fired first or last or who brought Hasan down, I believe the reference or the text should change; otherwise the text says something that contradicts the reference provided with it. Note that the order of those two references has been swapped [58] so it's now the second reference (militarytimes)[59] after the text that contradicts it rather than the first reference (stripes.com)[60]. As instructed (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Telegraph 2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYT 6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference AUTOREF5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference AUTOREF6 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference AUTOREF7 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ UN 1267 Committee banned entity list
  7. ^ FBI Releases Copy of 4 Page Letter Linked to HijackersFBI, Press Conference national Press Release, September 28, 2001
  8. ^ Instructions for the Last Night, PBS Frontline, "Inside the Terror Network, tracking their personal stories."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Fort_Hood_shooting/Archive_4&oldid=1158027686"