Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Terrorism categorization[edit]

I reverted a bold removal of categories per WP:BRD, but did not state it outright. This reversion, was reverted by a third person.

The initial removal was stated

Not classified as terrorism. Read the article.


My reasoning for the reversion is

reverted good faith alteration; multiple reliable sources have referred to the event as a terrorist event although it is not officially labeled as such by the U.S. Government


Yet the reversion of the reversion only states for rational:

not terrorism. please take to talk


The category "Terrorism in the United States" has existed on this article page since at least 16 April 2012, a whole year since its removal. My reasoning for having it as a category is that it can be verified, a pilar of Wikipedia, that many people categories the event as a terrorism event (including recently in the news, even though it is officially called "work place violence" by the U.S. Government. Now I know that many people also do not categories the event as a terrorist event, and agree with the U.S. Government view however just because we disagree with what is verified is not a reason to remove the categorization.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, a lot like the dispute the bedeviled this page earlier. Sources say conflicting things, and there is debate out there among the sources as to whether the "terrorism" label is appropriate for this event. As one of the sources in your google search notes "the label becomes harder to stick on cases such as the 2009 Fort Hood shooting." There is no one answer at this point. My recommendation is to wait until the trial is over - the administration has said that one reason it is not categorizing it as terrorism is so that the military trial can proceed. Once all the facts come out during the trial, we will all know more, and also the administration may call it terrorism too. The label has also been turned into political football, with republicans using it as a way to attack the Obama administration. Seems to me we should follow how the law categorizes this. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Even Hassan said that the assault was an act of terror, and not "workplace violence." [1] Thismightbezach (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You clearly misread the article. He never said what you claim.TMCk (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the multiple reliable sources that verify that there are multiple statements, including by Hasan, that the event is terrorism, I say that we re-add the category.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The thing to do is wait a bit longer til the trial is over. A bunch of cards are likely to fall then, and it will be very easy to classify this at that time. What is the rush? Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
There is consensus for inclusion, two editors have stated that the event has been verified to be viewed by some as a terrorist event. Furthermore, there is not a strong argument against inclusion, so to say that there is no consensus is entirely false. Just because the government doesn't agree with the verified opinion of multiple individuals, doesn't mean that we should be in lock step with government's opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually it was reverted by me and another editor, so if you are counting, it is 2 to 2. Unfortunately the tag is binary, right? It is either tagged, or not. There is no room to nuance this as there was with the number of victims. Again, what is the hurry - why not wait til the trial is over? Please do answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Is this the other reverting editor?

missed this, yes. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the categorization is binary, and since it is either or, and it has been verified that the subject has been categorized as terrorism by non-primary reliable sources, I do not see the harm in including the categorization. Why wait for the trail to be over? Why insist to follow the Administration's "work place violence" categorization?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not answering my question, and instead asking another. I'll answer yours, if you answer mine. :) Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I could say the same thing.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Except that I asked first.. :) Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, however I in good faith request an answer to my questions as well. I replied regarding the binary nature of categorization, and am not in a "hurry". I am of a view, for this article, that given the substantial verified opinion of multiple individuals that have described the event of the subject of this article as a terrorist event (as included in the content of the article), that the article should remain internally consistent and thus be categorized in a way that coincides with what the content of the article states. As the article also states that it has been categorized as work place violence, if there is a category for that, I would not be opposed to that inclusion as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
you still haven't answered - why not wait for the trial to be over? I'll answer yours now - as long as the US government is not calling this terrorism, there is a major player - probably the major player in defining what is terrorism and what is not, not on the same page with the label. Who knows what is driving the government's choice in prosecuting Hassan, but they have elected not to go with a terrorism charge. Once the trial is over, they may well change their label on the event. But with such a major split in the key reliable sources for the label, it makes no sense to apply the label now. That's why I say, let's wait a few months. It is no big deal to wait a bit - Wikipedia will be here for years and years. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe I did answer, in that the question to me was why I was in a hurry to include the category, and I explained why I am not in a hurry and reasoning why it should be included. Thanks for informing me the reason why it shouldn't be included, but that doesn't mean that I agree with it. Just because the U.S. government doesn't call it terrorism, IMHO, does not mean that it should not be labelled as such, it enforces that POV of the U.S. government, while not being inclusive of other POVs (as far as categorization is concerned). If this is a BLP issue, then Hasan himself has described his event as a terrorist event, has he not? If so then it isn't really a BLP issue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As I've pointed out before, Hassan has not "described his event as a terrorist event". Please re-read the source with more care.TMCk (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── RCLC, I have suggested we wait on applying the label til after the trial; you want to act on this now. The question I am asking and that you still haven't answered, is what is the problem with waiting? Please stop repeating that some folks say it is terrorism and others say it is not. We all know that - it is the problem. You are proceeding here as you tried to do with respect to the number of victims - trying to force a hard answer (i think it was 30? or something) when there was no hard answer. This situation is just like that - we have to make a binary decision on applying the category or not, and there is a major divide in the sources. As I have suggested this ~may~ be resolved after the trial. It may become an easy decision. Let's wait, until then, to decide what to do with category. Again, what is the problem with waiting? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hasan has made a rather complete explanation of his motives here[2]. He does not explicitly say it was terrorism. However, to a person who with Al Qaeda ideology, it is all distressingly familiar stuff. For example,

I, Nidal Malik Hasan, am compelled to renounce any oaths of allegiances that require me to support/defend any man made constitution (like the Constitution of the United States) over the commandments mandated in Islam (i.e. Quaran and Sunnah). The Sovereignty of All-Mighty God must prevail over the Sovereignty of Man.[3]

This echoes almost exactly what Osama Bin Laden wrote about the US:

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord . . . .[4]

Now, if you want to argue that the above is a synthesis, well, that's true, but hopefully you realize that you are standing on a procedural fig leaf, and that on the merits, the case that it was terrorism is clear.William Jockusch (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper that needs to be up-to-the-minute - Wikipedia express the consensus of reliable sources and the main sources are divided on precisely this issue. The US government has not labelled this terrorism. You provide no reason why we should not wait til after the trial is over, to see if the US government applies the label once its prosecution strategy has been executed. What is your hurry? Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about hurrying. I was simply making the rather definitive case on its merits. If you want to ignore those merits, and stand on the procedural fig leaf you mention above, I won't try to stop you.William Jockusch (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree about not labeling it as terrorism. I also think the article is a bit of a mess in terms of dealing with the whole issue of the classification of it as workplace violence. It seems like almost every section has something about it being terrorism and there is almost nothing about the government's reasons for not calling it that. Maybe there needs to be a subsection about the classification of the shooting that brings all of that together. - Maximusveritas (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

President Obama: "It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009; in Chattanooga earlier this year; and now in San Bernardino." I think it's safe to say that we can now label this attack what it really is: Terrorism. If, after six years the President is finally able to accept that than I think the last stragglers here should go ahead and jump on board. grifterlake (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's save to say Obama said this as the article already states.--TMCk (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Then the "Possible motives" section and "Attack type" should be updated to reflect that. If there is not a lot of contention about this on the talk page over the next few days I will probably change it, but it's not worth getting into an edit war before some kind of a consensus, or lack of disagreement shows its head. grifterlake (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You're ignoring the reason given above in the discussion on why it is not stated in wiki-voice (and that includes the "attack type" and "motive"). The basic for that reason hasn't changed a bit and won't do so unless the official classification changes.--TMCk (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I read the above and am not ignoring it. But your statement begs the question: What constitutes an "official" classification? The President saying so? A specific government agency? If so, which one? And if we are relying on the government to make the official determination, does that mean that if they classify a tomato as a fruit we are obligated to follow suit here? Pretty much every terrorist expert there is has now labeled this event as terrorism, and while it can be said that the government has a vested interest in not doing so that fig leaf seems to have swirled on down the bowl with the President's latest statement, *equating* it with two other, separate and distinct acts of terrorism. grifterlake (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The DOD (Army) Policy on Personally Owned Weapons (POW) on Military installations.[edit]

"The Army prohibits soldiers from carrying personal firearms inside Fort Hood and other bases. Military weapons are used only for training or by base security, and personal weapons were kept locked away by the provost marshal."

This statement is factually incorrect, even the reference for it does not support the statement.

"The rules for carrying weapons on an Army post are standard throughout all bases, service officials said. The only personnel allowed to openly display weapons on the base are military police, said Lt. Col. Nathan Banks, an Army spokesman."

"Service weapons are checked daily and are usually only allowed to be removed from an arms room for training on a range or maintenance. Personal weapons must be kept locked and registered with the base provost marshal. The military police keep a record of all of the weapons on a base, Army officials said."

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-fort-hood-shootings6-2009nov06,0,4341651.story#ixzz2tG9Fy6IJ

As the LA Times relates, Personally Owned weapons are required to be registered, and military personnel (And Family members, Civilian Employees and visitors) are not allowed to carry (Concealed or Open) on Military Reservations. However, the weapons are not secured by the Provost Marshal (always capitalized) Office. They are required to be registered. You may keep your POW in your residence if you live in family housing, and are required to store POWs in the unit Arms Room if you live in the Barracks. You may transport a registered weapons to and from your residence and off post, range, or hunting area as long as it is not in the passenger compartment of the vehicle and it is not loaded.

http://www.hood.army.mil/dhr/pubs/fhr190-11.pdf

The news article from the LA Times is also a little misleading. The only people allowed to openly carry weapons are Law Enforcement(Military Police/DA Police) or those Soldiers performing duties (Usually guard duty) which require them to carry weapons. It does capture the essence of the Army and weapons, the Army is very strict when it comes to Army Weapons and Ammunition, and maintains positive control of them to an extent that most civilians do not comprehend. 108.241.120.20 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I know that it is a year after the fact, but I changed that section to better reflect the actual policy on personally owned weapons. Whomever made the original edit must have misunderstood the source and assumed that since you have to register the weapons with the MPs that they secure the weapons too. Amducker (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

I just want to say that it's pretty sad that we likely now need a disambiguation page for Fort Hood Shooting: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/04/02/us/ap-us-fort-hood.html?hp&_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.30.181.75 (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've created a page for the new article: Fort Hood shooting 2014 and added an about tag to the top of the article. Wshallwshall (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. Let's wait until the severity of the current incident is known. I've moved your page to the older 2014 Fort Hood shooting. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and made the disamb page, the term should not lead readers to the older shooting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to 2009 Fort Hood shooting with disambiguation at Fort Hood shooting Superm401 - Talk 06:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)



Fort Hood shooting2009 Fort Hood shooting – The recent shooting at Fort Hood means that the title should have a date to differ the two events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems premature to me - I can see little evidence that the latest shooting will meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, and I accordingly expect the article to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Perhaps that will be useful in the short term, but that title should either redirect here (if the 2009 shooting is deemed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) or moved to the current title (if the decision is to have a dab at the base title). --BDD (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy move All the signs are that this is a significant incident, it is getting publicity round the world. PatGallacher (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with utter sadness that this is even necessary, as 4 dead and 14 injured so far will in all certainty be a major story and event. Faith in humanity is taking a hard blow today... Tarc (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, and turn the Fort Hood shooting into a dab page (similar to our dab page of John Quested). Canuck89 (converse with me) 01:23, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, out of all the dab pages in Wikipedia, what made you pick that one? Ribbet32 (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It was a random dab page I came across that had 2 listings on it. I figure we can do the same if we turn Fort Hood shooting into a two-dab page, listing the 2009 and 2104 shootings. Canuck89 (have words with me) 03:15, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until we can have a proper argument over whether the current shooting is WP:Notable, this should remain the primary article. There's no reason to move this page if it's just going to be moved back in a couple days if the current shooting article is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrowny (talkcontribs) 01:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not a very good reason. Similar articles, but ones that have years in their name to anchor them, but ones that only happened in a single year, are:
So, Zrowny, I think your redirection to WP:NOTABILITY was a red herring, and unconstructive to boot. Epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support speedy move. Given the amount of national and international coverage, there is no doubt that the 2014 Fort Hood shooting article is here to stay, so the proposed move is necessary for disambiguation purposes. Nsk92 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support speedy move given the fact that this event needs to be anchored to a year. Epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy move This is absolutely notable, even if it is partly due to the repeated location. It is the top headline on foreign sites as diverse as RT and The Times of India. I cannot see how this is not a notable article. XpdN (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    Also, what Epicgenius said above. Even if this shooting wasn't notable and had no article, it still makes the 2009 shooting now need a year to properly identify it, like the examples given. XpdN (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy move as per stated many times above TheMesquito (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy move. With the tragic fatalities, the 2014 incident has sadly become as notable as its 2009 precursor.    → Michael J    02:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy move unfortunately this is no longer the only shooting and the this new event is turning out to be a significant shooting event as well, the name needs to be disambiguated right away. --CyberXRef 03:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy move - 2014 shooting no longer makes 2009 shooting the primary topic. Dough4872 03:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy move - and disambig the "Fort Hood Shooting" page. —  dainomite   03:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Whitewash[edit]

I have reverted bold changes made to the article per WP:BRD, and removed reliably sourced content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Update Needed[edit]

The Purple Heart/ workplace violence issues have been readdressed by the Army and should be noted in the article's "Aftermath" section which currently covers only up to July 2014. Here's a link for anyone who has the time. Orthotox (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It has been mentioned; however, I will expand upon it soon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The event is now officially classified by the U.S. government as "workplace violence," however, it is also
"workplace violence" that is "“inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organisation.”
Who knew that workplace violence could be motivated by foreign terrorist organisations? -XavierItzm (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The source provided by XavierItzm, does not state that the event is classified as "workplace violence".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The above is a mischaracterisation of the citation provided. For avoidance of doubt, here are the full citations:
* Motherjones.com: "the Pentagon labeled that incident "workplace violence"
* Defense.gov "the Army determined that there was sufficient evidence to conclude Hasan (was) “inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization.
So, we have the Department of Defense of the United States asserting that this "workplace violence" that is "inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organisation". XavierItzm (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: Mother Jones is not a reliable source. Second, the release states that this is the reason for issuing the Purple Heart, which is already covered in the U.S. Government section. It does not specifically state that the event of this article has been reclassified (regardless of what my views on that are). Therefore, it fails WP:BURDEN. Please, do not edit war. Moreover, the Army of the United States is no longer an active army. Please correct your edit.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, you want to deny the U.S. government has officially designated this as "inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organisation" at the same time it has designated it "workplace violence", go ahead and knock yourself out. Have a good one, XavierItzm (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:CIVIL
Regardless of how I classify the event which is the subject of this article, there have been no specific reliable sources that state that the event has been re-designated away from "workplace violence" (regardless of what I may or not believe personally). What can be verified is that the Purple Hearts are being awarded based on a change in the awarding criteria. What can be verified is that the reason why they Purple Hearts were not initially awarded is because of the governments "workplace violence" categorization. These things are already covered in the article in the U.S. Government section.
Until we can find multiple reliable sources that verify that the event has been categorized differently by the U.S. Government other than "workplace violence", we should not include that it has been categorized differently in the lead section. There is content in the body of the article showing that many oppose the current "workplace violence" designation. There is content in the body of the article stating who have been verified calling this event a terrorist attack. Now if there is a discussion for giving that more weight in the article, I think that is something we can discuss.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. So, defense.gov is not considered a RS? Their quote is:
""the Army determined that there was sufficient evidence to conclude Hasan (was) “inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talkcontribs) 18:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The context of that statement is about the Army awarding the Purple Heart to the victims of fmr MAJ Hassan. Not about the government no longer classifying this event as something other than workplace violence.
If one were to take the time to look at the archive of this article, I have my own views of what I think this event should be classified as. Regardless, it is based on what can be verified. So far there are insufficient reliable sources to give weight to a reclassification to a terrorism event (for worse or for better).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
That the government has classified the shooting as a workplace violence event, there is no doubt. This classification is for some purposes. The government has also classified the event as "“inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization"". This classification is also for some purposes.
The government does not qualify its edicts, nor does it have the prerogative of qualifying them, as "OK, this is the absolute, final, useful for all purposes classification." An encyclopedia should report the various instances of government classification of a thing. XavierItzm (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It does, as I stated in the U.S. Government section. Please there is no need to place it in the lead section or infobox. If the U.S. Government no longer classifies it as "workplace violence", than perhaps that is the time to change the lead and the infobox, but not before (regardless of what my opinions on that subject are).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of verified content[edit]

@The Magnificent Clean-keeper: nice way to remove verified content. So the event wasn't the largest mass murder/shooting on a U.S. military base in history? All these reliable sources are wrong?
"Army major kills 13 people in Fort Hood shooting spree". History.com. A&E Television Networks, LLC. 2014. Retrieved 11 February 2015. 
"A History of Shootings at Military Installations in the U.S." WRC-TV. Washington, D.C. 4 April 2014. Retrieved 11 February 2015. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan carried out the largest mass murder at a military installation in American history, opening fire on dozens of unarmed soldiers at a medical deployment center at Fort Hood, Texas. 
Knickerbocker, Brad (2 April 2014). "Another Fort Hood shooting: Motive unclear, but 'jihad' ruled out (+video)". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 11 February 2015. 
Karoline Patterson Bresenhan; Nancy O'Bryant Puentes (29 January 2012). Lone Stars III: A Legacy of Texas Quilts, 1986-2011. University of Texas Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-292-71859-3. 
Gary M. Jackson (25 May 2012). Predicting Malicious Behavior: Tools and Techniques for Ensuring Global Security. John Wiley & Sons. p. 408. ISBN 978-1-118-23956-8. 
Michael J. Pomante II; Scot Schraufnagel (18 April 2014). Historical Dictionary of the Barack Obama Administration. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-4422-3217-4. 
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast:
A: The part you complain about is already in the lead:
"The shooting produced more casualties than any other on an American military base."
B: There is no official change in classification yet even so that might change in the near future. Again, just as I asked in my edit summary: Did I miss something? Also what is the purpose of dumping all those sources, including opinion pieces if one RS is all that's needed?
C: Thanks for pinging.TMCk (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Is that answering your question and questions you might have? If there is no further response from your side within the next days I assume all (or at least the fundamental points) answered.TMCk (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What sources above are opinion pieces?
Last I checked the change in Purple Heart definition related to the article subject made this event considered an International terrorist attack.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Weekend, thus even less time for me. Minor resp. - more to come next week if necessary.
Re. the citations: My fault as I should've made clear I was referring to those you placed in the article. Those are (besides one?) from last year before things became more clear.
Regarding the Purple Heart, it'll take some time (several month) for our army vetting who would be eligible [for the purple one]. It also will take some time (tho I think much less than the army's vetting) to have this incident officially changed from "workplace violence" to some kind of terrorist attack. You know just as well as I and most people do, that the White House might or might not make the change even so now that the Purple Heart can be given to the involved that were killed or injured. There is no rush to make our own (OR) conclusion so let's just wait for an official change that I have no doubt will happen soon. To make it clear, all sources I could find, for the most made the point/claim that it "would" render the incident a terrorist attack, but none said it was officially changed to such as of today. Let's wait and get it right by wiki standards when it happens. What do you think considering my input on this?TMCk (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW: Since you started this thread with "nice way to remove verified content." which I find to be misleading and a little bit hostile since that part you were referring to was nothing else but a duplication in the lead. Please assume good faith when addressing edits. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

FOX News bias[edit]

This article uses around twenty sources from Fox News. Although FOX news may be reliable for mundane news, a university of Maryland study demonstrated that FOX news viewers are the most misinformed

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/study-watching-fox-news-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524

I don't have the experience or the weight behind me to make these edits (they would just be reverted by FOX faithful). But someone needs to have a good hard look at this. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and I think when we look back at history we'll be pretty embarassed that we thought a project that relied so heavily on FOX news was in any way masquerading as an academic endeavour.Bagist (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Would not put much faith in Rolling Stone Magazine, esp these days. I think after all these years with the shooter in prison, ceremonies held on Fort Hood along with Purple Heart proceedings, no one really cares about the bias of Fox vs the government and hinderance. At least the memorial is being built and I'll be down there for the sign ceremony this coming November. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


14 killed(including an unborn baby)[edit]

One of the victims was pregnant. Shouldn't the kill count be 14? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 00:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems I was right. One of the victims was pregnant. Changing the kill count. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fort-hood-massacre-victims-pregnant-soldier-francheska-velez-moment-silence-bases-article-1.414362 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 23:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We have to go by the count used in reliable sources.--TMCk (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Lol! The US-Army has sneaky killed so much guiltless peoples all over the world and nearly gapless in the whole history of the usa - inside the usa (not only indians) AND outside - who counts still an unborn then? Murder is the main commerce of the american estate since his start-up. Thats evident by numbers and history and well known in the whole world. So: Don't betray yourself with sleazily pseudo-humanism! Hella — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.146.28.26 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 2009 Fort Hood shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a edifying recursive logic,[edit]

if a murderer murders murderers. This barbaric system judges itself and hopefully, this regime destroys istself soon this way. Its the scum of the earth. Hella — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.146.28.26 (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)