Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Contradicting reports on who took down Hasan

According to various sources, Sgt. Munley did not manage to get off any shots before being incapacitated by Major Hasan and that it was soley Sgt. Mark Todd who took down Hasan with gunfire.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/11/12/2009-11-12_civilian_cop_mark_todd_was_real_hero_whose_shots_ended_ft_hood_masscare_says_his.html

http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/11/13/black-police-sgt-mark-todd-actually-took-down-fort-hood-shooter/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.134.216 (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood Sentinel

Added link to bases' internal newspapers' coverage of attack --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Did Anwar al-Awlaki and Abdul Majeed al-Zindani effectively order the attack?

Compare the two quotes about killing, and justifying the killing of soldiers "about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan".

"Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims" Anwar al-Awlaki "Nidal Hasan Did The Right Thing"

"They were troops who were going to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill Muslims. I honestly have no pity for them." Duane Reasoner, mentored by Nidal Malik Hasan [The First Post (UK) http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/55822,news-comment,news-politics,no-pity-for-fort-hood-dead-says-killer-nidal-malik-hasan-young-friend No pity for Fort Hood dead, says killer’s friend by Jack Bremer NOVEMBER 10, 2009 Interview by Gavin Lee of the BBC]

Reasoner (who so far hasn't appeared in the WP) is quoting a line almost exactly from Awlawki, though it isn't clear it's from studying AW's statement, or if he learned it from Hasan in one of their many "bible study" sessions.

If it's been established a) AW has stated good muslims should kill US soldiers to be killed b) Hasan's idea of being a good muslim was to follow the teachings and spiritual guidance of AW (which appear to be confirmed by US intelligence intercepts) c) AW effectively announced "mission accomplished" in his website statement and d) the Blind Sheik was convicted for his "bomb something like the world Trade Center" fatwa, isn't there enough information to at least establish that there is a POSSIBILITY the attack was directed by al Qeda? Being that AW has at many times reported to Zindani, who allegedly has and some say still does report to Bin Laden, doesn't that point a finger to him as the higher up that could have been in charge? Bachcell (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good example of what we on Wikipedia call Original Research. Until a reliable source makes the same connection, we can't add it to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely original research, and we absolutely do not include this kind of speculation in Wikipedia articles. Bachcell, can I ask you to please leave this issue to the side for the time being. It's obvious you believe Al-Qaeda was somehow involved in the Fort Hood shooting, and of course it's entirely possible that's the case. But while you and the media can speculate about this all you want, we are not going to put in any statement like "it's possible Al Qaeda directed the attack," anymore than we are going to put in any statement like "it's possible Hasan had severe psychological issues which motivated him to commit the attack all on his own." There are any number of possibilities here as you can surely see, and in the absence of far more definitive information we are not going to idly speculate about any of them at this early time. It's possible no motive will definitively be established in the end, in which case we would undoubtedly discuss various possibilities. But this remains a breaking news event, and as such we sit tight and wait for more information. It would be very helpful if you could hold off on bringing this issue up for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If we can find reliable third-party sources making these statements, then they certainly can be reported in Wikipedia. I'd suggest to Bachcell that he focus on finding secondary sources making that precise connection. Remember WP:SYN, which is the commandment applicable in this situation.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

SoA = Soldier/Servant of Allah?

Please see discussion above under Islamic_terrorism --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is covered well in the Nidal Malik Hasan article;

"Hasan's business card describes him as a psychiatrist specializing in behavioral health, mental health, and life skills, and contains the acronyms SoA(SWT).[43][44] According to investigators, the acronym "SoA" is believed to refer to the terms "Soldier of Allah" or "Servant of Allah" and SWT to "subhanahu wa ta'ala", an Arabic phrase mentioned after saying "Allah".[45][38] The cards neglected to mention his military rank.[38]"

Anyone altering this section should probably consider this paragraph first.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Scrubbing of Al-Qaeda and Political Correctness

Why is there no mention of Al-Qaeda or Political Correctness? Awlawki has been described as an AQ recruiter, and 9/11 attacks of course are linked to AQ. There is a mountain of news articles and opinion pieces blaming the failure to recognize Hasan's problems on politicial correctness, and the effort to ignore or supress Hasan's name and religion, and place the empahasis on figthing anti-Muslim backlash and PTSD. So far it looks like everytime somebody attempts to put these in they get reverted in mintues. It looks like despite the numerous links to Al-Queda or people linked to Al-Queda, there is no mention of the Fort Hood shootings in that article yet. Bachcell (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Because that is an issue about Al-Alawki. Per WP:SS, since there is an article for Hasan, it is there. Besides the fact that all of those are allegations and not verified facts. Grsz¹¹ 17:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Al-Qaeda stuff really is just at the level of allegation and innuendo at this point, and arguably we already talk about al-Awlaki more than we should given the lack of information about motive and Hasan's connection to him. Some editors really need to quit jumping the gun on this whole "it was terrorism, this is connected to Al Qaeda" etc. etc. argument. Obviously that's quite possible, but in no way shape or form do we know that right now, and this is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill. It could easily be weeks or months before we get the story straight, and even then the details might still be up for debate.

As to the political-correctness-is-part-of-the-problem argument, if this is in fact getting some mainstream attention (meaning it's not only showing up in highly partisan and/or ideological publications), then personally I could probably be convinced it should be discussed to some degree in the article. I would recommend to Bachcell or anyone else who thinks we should talk about this that they propose some language (with sources) here on the talk page which would then be discussed in order to avoid edit warring.

Finally for Bachcell to refer to the fact that certain material has not been included as "scrubbing" is decidedly unhelpful as it implies bad faith on the part of other editors. It's perfectly reasonable to have editorial disagreements, and there's no need to impugn the motivations of others as these issues are debated. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that vital details like Hassan shouting Allahu Akbar have been removed, I do not see how you can describe as anything but scrubbing. There is clearly an attempt by editors on wikipedia to downplay the role of Hassan's radical Islamic viewpoint and to limit references to terrorism. Even stuff that his been reported in multiple sources, are either being ignored or removed. I am the furthest thing from right wing, but have to say the Fort Hood Shooting article is falling victim to left wing newspeak and bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

'Latest' Nov. 16, 2009 - Purchased 13 EXTRA mags+

As reported earlier, not only was Hasan visiting the local strip club 'Starz', but,

"Right next door(?) to the strip club is the gun store, Guns Galore, where authorities say Hasan bought his semi-automatic pistol and bullets and in the weeks before the shooting, 13 extra ammunition clips that could hold up to 30 bullets each."

Actually, strip club appears to have been across the road from Starz.(picky, picky me)

"as the shooting date neared, Hasan became a regular at a nearby shooting range, Stan's Outdoor Shooting Range in Florence, Texas. He was last at the range two days before the shooting and fired off more than 200 rounds, according to the investigators."
Note: All bolding is mine to highlight 'facts'.

Is this worthwhile/suitable for inclusion? The recent practice (unusual?) & number of mags seems to confirm Hasan had "pockets full of magazines" & intent. Source abcnews.go.com [1]

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

new Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation article.

Check it out. They're a pretty significant source of information for this case, and other terrorism, er, whatever cases. Needs categories, etc. and watching to make sure nobody speedy delete or AFD's it for no reason. Bachcell (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, redlinks are rarely a good source of information. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It was speedily deleted three times, twice for not being notable (which I don't think was really appropriate as a speedy deletion, but whatever), and the third time for being a copyright violation of this. Bachcell I'd say a couple of things here: 1) Don't create articles by possibly violating copyrights from other web sites; 2) Cheeky comments like "other terrorism, er, whatever cases" are borderline disruptive. You've made it crystal clear you think the Fort Hood shooting is terrorism, and it's terrific that you are a fan of the Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation, but neither of those things have anything to do with writing this encyclopedia article, and this talk page is not remotely the place to tell editors about an article you wrote that needs "watching to make sure nobody speedy delete or AFD's it for no reason." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FBI

Added a section to Federal Bureau of Investigation. Anybody got ideas or info on why the FBI has so consistently chosen to treat this case as anything but an act of terrorism? Awlawki and the incident aren't even on the FBI home page which lists many less important cases. Loss of face? Bachcell (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM please. Grsz¹¹ 20:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Second that link from Grsz11. You're skirting ever closer toward outright disruptive editing Bachcell. I reverted your addition to the main FBI article (which was unbelievably sloppy incidentally—you didn't even notice apparently that your addition had nothing to do with the topic of that section of the article, Notable post-Hoover reorganizations) and hope you don't continue to try to plaster your concerns about the Fort Hood shooting case on other articles. If you continue to pursue what seems to be an obvious agenda with respect to this topic, you will likely end up blocked or topic banned for a period of time. With respect to your question about "why the FBI has so consistently chosen to treat this case as anything but an act of terrorism," you might consider the possibility that they simply do not think it was an act of terrorism, or at least have little or no evidence for that at this time. Occam's razor and all that as opposed to whatever cover-up you seem to have in mind. If you are completely unwilling to consider the possibility that the shooting was not terrorism and unwilling to keep an open mind in general on this and related articles, then maybe this simply is not a topic you should be editing on, and perhaps some of the stuff you are writing on the talk page would be better in a blog. I don't mean that as a slight, but am simply pointing out that you seem to have an agenda other than writing an NPOV article on this tragedy, and we can't really countenance that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bacheli: I understand your concern and frustration, as this has the hallmarks of a terrorist attack and most people in the counter terrorism industry appear to regard it as such. That said, we don't have all the facts yet, just reports of what has been said or done. As far as I know the FBI is investigating whether this was a terrorist attack, and it may just be a matter of them waiting to confirm before making any statements to that effect. Remember this isn't a case where a terrorist group claimed responsibility immediately after. And it appears to be the actions of a lone person, perhaps acting on the proclamations of a terrorist leader, but not under a direct order. The creates a little bit of ocnfusion over what motivated Hassan. I agree with you that this looks to be a terrorist attack, but it's also an event that has generated a good deal of controversy over what constitutes terrorism. I have researched terrorism for a number of years, and under most working definitions, an act of this sort should be considered terrorism if the attackers aim was to intimidate the population, participate in the global jihad or push a political agenda. There really are two questions here. First, was it terrorism. Second: was it Jihad. I am sure the FBI is looking into both.24.147.110.167 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood Shooting Navigation Box

Could somebody start a navigation box that goes at the bottom of this and related articles? Suggested starting topics: Bachcell (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Anwar al-Awlaki
• Nidal Malik Hassan
• Various mosques
• FBI
• National Security Agency (in charge of signals intelligence)
• General "but losing diversity would be worse" Casey
• Ramallah
• Palestinean American
• Islam
• Radical Islam
• Islamic Terrorism
• Jihad
• Al Qeada
• 9/11
• Yemen
• USS Cole bombing
• Fort Hood
• US Army
• Spree shootings
• Virginia Tech
• Abortion doctor killings
• Oaklahoma city bombing
• PTSD
• Islamaphobia
• harassment
• NEFA foundation

No. Mainly because navigation boxes contain links to relevant articles, whereas most of the articles you've pulled out here are just to fit an evident POV. Grsz¹¹ 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A nav box is probably not needed at this time since the number of actually related articles is undoubtedly rather small (such a box is useful for things related directly to the article in question (e.g. Nidal Malik Hasan) not tangentially (e.g. "Palestinean [sic] American") or quite possibly not at all (9/11, USS Cole bombing). And "General 'but losing diversity would be worse' Casey"? Knock it off for god's sake. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Allahu Akbar

Why was this removed from the article? After all that is what he said, and given his clear sympathies with racidal forms Islam and the type of act committed, it should be mentioned. It is significant that he said it. While the comment is true that it can be the Muslim equivalent of "Praise God" (it means God is Great), the fact that he said it while killing people indicates religious motivation. If the man who killed the abortion doctor earlier this year had said "Jesus Saves" that would have been significant as well. This article is falling victim to serious bias on the part of people who want to remove any indication of terrorism, and are affraid to draw the obvious connections between this man's personal beliefs and what he did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I doesn't indicate a religious motive. That is only one possible interpretation. The abortion doctor killer didn't, so that is irrelevant as well. We are not here to draw connections between a man's personal beliefs and his actions either, so that is just further POV pushing. As it stands it's not encyclopaedic and in the lead simply looked ridiculous. Leaky Caldron 16:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said it proves he had religious motives, just that it indicates a religious motivation. The abortion doctor example was relevant because it makes the point that a person's religion becomes important to the story if they are shouting pious utterances when they commit violence. A muslim would not shout allahu akbar while hurting another person, just because he happens to be muslim. Just like a normal Christian wouldn't shout "Praise Jesus" when committing violence unless there was a connection between the action and his beliefs. I Hassan had simply been a muslim, and didn't have a history of expressing radical Islamic ideas, and didn't shout Allahu Akbar while gunning people down, I would agree with you that his religion isn't important the the story. But that isn't the case here. I also agree, the lead may not the best place for it. But it was reported numerous times that he said it, and therefore should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly a context-driven usage. But it is still highly notable.

Btw, it may be of interest that after 9/11, the FBI released a handwritten 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, including the following:

"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."[2][3]

--Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me of the case of EgyptAir Flight 990 in which the pilot uttered something of religious import which contributed to speculation that the plans crash of Nantuket was the result of the pilots suicidal forced crash of the plane. I recommend someone refer to this at: EgyptAir Flight 990#Western media speculation. Supertouch (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead first sentence of an article is not the place for speculation, per WP:Weight. Elsewhere in the article is more appropriate. Leaky Caldron 17:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The egypt air comparison is very weak. In that case we don't know the pilot deliberately downed the plane, so he may have just been saying Allahu Akbar becuase he was affraid. In this case, Hassan deliberately gunned down soldiers at a military base, and we are just debating his motivation. To ignore that he said Allahu Akbar as he killed people makes no sense at all. It has serious implications for his motivations. There is evidence all over this case that Hassan was a self radicalized muslim. From statements he may leading up to his Allahu Akbar pronouncement. That people want to ignore that, strikes me as the worst kind of poliical correctness. It is also more likely to generate a backlash against muslims, than addressing it would. By ignoring it, you are making the problem worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If a Christian domestic terrorist (zomg not all terrorists are muslim) shouted "Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!" before he died, would you include that in the lead section? No. Hence why inclusion is unwise. We already discuss the possible religious intention, but pretending that "Allah Ackbar" is anything but the Arabic version of "Hallelujah" is just Islamophobic xenophobia that the American public has unfortunately largely succumbed to. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

While I think it is quite possible it was said, it's only an allegation at this point. The military has not come forward to confirm it, even. Some articles (I suppose I should find them) have said that "'allah akbar' or something like it" was shouted, while others have had people say they didn't hear him say anything. If it is to be in the article, and I agree it is hard to ignore, it needs to be clear in the text of the article what exactly is known about it at this point. Putting it in the lede or stating it for a fact both seem premature still at this point, but it may make sense later. I agree the Egypt Air comparison makes no sense in this context. A muslim or Arabic-speaking pilot (or passenger!) might say that if his plane was crashing and one could not conclude from that utterance alone that he crashed the plane on purpose. If the shooter said this prior to shooting people, however, well it's not like there's any ambiguity as to whether the shooting was accidental. Шизомби (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Septre: if a christian terrorist shouted "Praise God" yes I would include prominently in the article (though I agree the lead is not the place for it). I have stated again and again, that when a religious person commits violence while making pious utterances it is significant and should be included. And I never said Allahu Akbar was something other than the arabic version of "God is big/great" (which is the direct translation). I know arabic, and understand the frequent use of poius utterances by Muslims. But in this case, shouting praise to God while committing violence, clearly warrants inclusion in the article and isn't a form of Islamophobia. If anything, excluding it from the article indicates an unwillingness to treat Islam with the same level of objectivity we treat any other faith. And while it is true Allahu Akbar is just a way of saying Praise God, it is also true that terrorist use it a lot when committing acts of terrorism. Suggesting a link between Hassan's use of Allahu Akbar and terrorism, doesn't in any way imply that other Muslims who use the phrase are terrorists. That is sloppy and illogical thinking at its worst. In fact, the first people to issue a condemnation of this attacks were Muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

- Sceptre: I agree with you not all terrorists are Muslim. But the two biggest terrorist threats to the US right now, are Right Wing Christian Terrorists and Militias (i.e. Christian Identity), and Islamic Terrorists. Unfortunately there has been a lack of focus on the growing right wing-Christian Threat (mostly because it is politically incorrect to label them terrorist). That doesn't mean we should ignore the reality of Islamic Terrorism. We should instead recognize that Bruce Hoffman's thesis about the rise of Religious Terrorism (and the greater threat is poses) needs to be taken seriously, no matter what faith is involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You stating something “again and again” doesn’t make it worthy of inclusion. If the guy had shouted “Wikipedia is shit” it wouldn’t be any more or less notable. As for construing a motive from what he’s supposed to have shouted , suppose he’s found to be deranged and off his head at the time? Does that make him more or less radicalized? By the way, it would help if you signed your anonymous edits. Leaky Caldron 18:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Cauldron Leak: I am not just repeating the same thing over and over again. You can ignore my arguments, but they I respond with fresh points to each post. And yes, if he had said "wikipedia is sh**" while shooting people, and there were reports of a history of anti Wikipedia speech in his history, then yes it would need to be included. It may be that he was deranged. But right now, it looks obiovus to me and most other people that there was some kind of religious motivation (as evidenced by his use of the phrase Allahu Akbar, while killing people and his history of hardline muslim statements). In fact there may be a combination of things going on. He may well have been crazy. However, so far no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that. The only pertinent information right now appears to be that he sympathized with Jihadists and he was becoming increasingly radical in his religious views. A number of counter terrorism experts, counter terrorism publications and even time magazine have stated he was most likely a radicalized lone wolf muslim terrorist. I am by no means saying the article for wikipedia should conclude that to be the case, but the evidence is leaning on a religious/terrorist motivation, not insanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts! Type four tildes in a row and your IP address and time of posting will automatically be filled in when you click save page. On the substance of your post and Leaky Cauldron's, I tend to think one could include what a person said prior to, during, or after killing people regardless of what their history might be: whatever they said is probably notable. It may speak to motive or state of mind. If in fact it was said, it's hard to avoid religious intent, though that's not an all or nothing proposition: one can be religious and/or terroristic and/or psychotic. Шизомби (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The tildes are not working on my keyboard due to a previous power surge. I have opened an account under this name, and will use it for future posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnCityofsin (talk • contribs) 19:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even with an account you still have to do the same thing! You could copy and paste the tildes, perhaps. Or above the open edit window under Special characters> Symbols there's a button you can click for them. Шизомби (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Шизомби: That is what I am trying to say here. Whether the person is shouting "Praise God", "how dare you fire me" or "I can't stand wallmart" it is an important detail in the attack and gives us clues to the person's motivation. If the statement correlates with other things the person has said (especially if they were striking like the anti-US/Pro Jihadist statements Hassan was reported to make) then clearly the article should address the connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnCityofsin (talk • contribs) 19:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

To unsigned IP. It doesn’t matter what "looks obvious" to you or anyone else. It is what is verifiable, properly sourced, neutral, considers the individual who is still alive as well as the victims and not a pet theory. Please follow the blue links and try to understand the nature of material that is suitable. Leaky Caldron 19:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Cauldron Leak: This isn't a "pet theory": the pronouncement allahu akbar by the attacker has led many in the american media to suggest a religious motivation, and the theory is predominant among counter terrorism experts. And all I am saying is the article should include that he said Allahu Akbar and that there is a great deal of speculation that he was a religious terrorist. The foremost expert on religious terrorism, Bruce Hoffman, has even called it religious terrorism. I think that makes this more than a pet theory. 24.147.110.167 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(talk) 761.011.741.42 Encyclopedias are about verifiable facts, not theories and speculation, regardless how eminent the source. Leaky Caldron 21:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Cauldron Leak: and it is a verifiable fact that most counter terrorism experts consider it religious terrorism. It is also a verifiable fact that the majority of americans think it was terrorism. It is also a verifiable fact that he was reported to have said allahu akbar, to have made numerous extremist statements, to have expressed admiration for suicide bombers etc. I never said the article should say it was terrorism. I am just saying it should report what credible sources are saying about it, and what the majority opinion is. By the way, judging from your user page, you are not exactly the most unbiased person on this issue.24.147.110.167 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, ad hominum attacks are a good way to have your argument ignored. Grsz¹¹ 21:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's also a verifiable fact that he desperately tried to get out of the army. Why would he do that, if he planned a terrorist attack all along? If you ask me, the reason for the shooting was a severe inner conflict stemming from his belief that the war was unjust and that a Muslim should not have any part in it. After all, this is what he said in his little presentation; let the Muslims leave the army or you might face some severe adverse reactions. He wanted to leave, they didn't let him go, even wanted to send him into the conflict zone, so, I assume, in his eyes they were asking for it. It's not that he hadn't warned them of what might be coming. I'd say, as long as it is not proven we should take a step back from all the terrorism rumours and admit that we do not know why he did what he did. Maybe he will tell us, maybe not, but there's certainly no incentive to rush things, while any form of speculation is pretty much useless and only interferes with our objectivity. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Maj. Hasan's detachment from Walter Reed to Darnall at Ft. Hood appears to have been ordered as the penultimate step toward a tour of duty in Afghanistan. The "Soldier [Medical] Readiness Center[4] at Darnall has as one of its key missions the pre- and post-deployment health assessment of Army personnel,[5] and I expect that as facts are glacially elucidated by the militarily illiterate root-weevils of the MSM it will be reported that Maj. Hasan was certain by the time he arrived in Kileen last July that he was not only not going to be able to "buy out" of the extensive service obligation he had incurred by way of his costly medical schooling and postgraduate training but also that he was going to Afghanistan to serve the functions for which he had been trained, and to which the Medical Corps had assigned him.
These factors understood, it is doubtful that the alleged planning for the events of 5 November had not begun to manifest in physical preparations (the acquisition of a suitable semiautomatic handgun with high-capacity magazines despite the fact that he apparently already had a .357 Magnum revolver with arguably the best possible "man-killing" rounds chambered by any manageable pistol, getting in some firing range time, etc.) until his arrival on post at Ft. Hood.
What I'd like to learn more about is why Maj. Hasan was scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan when his performance at Walter Reed and at Darnall while he was there (despite the disciplinary interventions in his jacket) indicated performance in his role as a psychiatric medical officer was satisfactory enough that he could be deployed in another foreign post - South Korea, for example - where his Islamic devotion would not have placed him into the conflict that allegedly impelled him to plan and execute this massacre. Seems as if the Medical Corps committed the error of trying to force a decidedly square peg into a too-damn-small round hole. 71.251.129.12 (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That isn't really an ad hom. Cauldron raised the issue of neutrality and objectivity. His neutrality is being called into question. If he thinks Bush and Blaire were war criminals, I doubt he can approach this subject with an objective eye. There seems to be a serious problem here in general with objectivity on the subjects of terrorism and the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnCityofsin (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Off topic but for general awareness. If you have registered under this name LynnCityofsin I think you are required to use it rather than switching between it and your IP. Feel free to challenge my neutrality and objectivity - but please use WP:Policy to do so. Leaky Caldron 21:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should expunge records of posts in that way. Just sign correctly going forward. Leaky Caldron 21:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And I think going forward, you shouldn't let your political point of view cloud your judgment of article entriesLynnCityofsin (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend this policy WP:Civility and this guideline WP:AGF and will disengage from any direct discussion with you until evidence shows that you are willing to contribute without ignorance. Leaky Caldron 22:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

LynnCityofsin, please drop the accusations of bias against another editor—we don't say that kind of thing just because someone has a userbox or two. It's fine when discussions get heated but we still need to "comment on content, not on the contributor". --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I should have added that Leaky caldron's "contribute without ignorance" remark is completely inappropriate as well. Everyone needs to tone it way down. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing inappropriate about it. He needs to contribute without ignorance of the polices and guidelines that I have highlighted for him. Leaky Caldron 22:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was the Bruce Hoffman quote removed from the article. I put that in there because he is the leading expert on religious terrorism and someone removed itLynnCityofsin (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I explained why in the edit summary. I'm happy to discuss the issue with you, but if you want to do that please start a new thread at the bottom of the talk page as this is a completely separate issue from the one being discussed above. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting back on track

The thread was started to talk about mention of the phrase "Allahu Akbar" in the article, and the above has gotten far afield from that, so let's try to get back on track and put the issue to bed for now. Apparently mention of Hasan calling out "Allahu Akbar" was removed from the lead of the article. No one seems to be objecting to that at this time, and I would agree that it's not appropriate for the lead. We do mention this issue in the [Fort_Hood_shooting#Shootings|Shootings section]], where we say "Initially, Hasan reportedly jumped onto a desk and shouted: "Allahu Akbar!", before allegedly firing more than 100 rounds." That strikes me as a relevant detail and we don't use it to draw conclusions about Hasan's motivations which is very much appropriate at this point. I think it's fine as worded and worthy of inclusion, just as it would be worthy to mention any other phrase Hasan purportedly shouted while engaged in the shooting (after all that section should describe all the pertinent details). Are there any objections to what we have right now, or can we move on from this thread and get past some of the bickering above? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Although I did not remove it from the lead, I was always opposed to it being given such prominence. Leaky Caldron 22:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I object. As I indicated at the beginning of this thread. I think it is a significant enough aspect of the story that it decidly should be in the lead. I would be fine w/a mention of his being about to deploy being in the lead as well for "balance" if you like.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but so far you're the only one who does object (the anon user who started the thread above even admitted it probably does not belong in the lead) so you'll need to say a bit more than that if you want to convince anyone. Why, as of now, is the fact that he said Allahu Akbar so significant? I'm afraid I don't see it, unless you are assuming it is definitive evidence of his motivations, which to me it absolutely is not. I also do not see how mentioning the fact that he was about to deploy adds "balance," or why it would at all be desirable to mention the fact that he was about to deploy in the lead. I don't think we should mention either detail. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Because: a) it was a notable aspect of the shooting; and b) its notability was reflected in its extensive coverage. We're not supposed to connect dots. But it is appropriate to report the notable ones. And the greater the notability of the item, as measured by coverage, the more important it is to reflect the item in the lead.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So which dots are notable and who decides? And after that, who decides which are notable enough to be included in the lead?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the mention in the *Shooting* section is appropriate, but I don't think the detail belongs in the lede. Even if we knew the exact purpose Hasan had for uttering the phrase (if he did and which we don't), the detail in the lede would have undue weight. The phrase could be a battle cry of sorts, but it could also be used to muster strength/courage/steadfastness or as a call for God's protection/assistance, much like the act of a Christian making the sign of the cross. The fact is we don't know if/why it was uttered, and it very well may have nothing to do with terroristic motives. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Hoffman

Someone removed my Hoffman quote on the grounds that it wasn't factual. Everything in the reaction section is speculation on motive and implication by authorities, experts, and commentators. I don't see how Hoffman's argument that this represents a shift in the process of radicalization, is any different. The quote was taken from a legit news source, and has appeared in multiple publications since. LynnCityofsin (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it has everything to do with opinion and nothing to do with fact. Any other speculation should be removed as well. Leaky Caldron 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :It's not based on anything actually related to the shooting, though. It's one commentator talking about a general phenomenon he believes exists. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What Hoffman is saying is extremely speculative, but because he is listed as an expert (and in fact is one) it sounds factual when it is in fact not (at least now). Hoffman said "we have once a month a plot that is related somehow to Afghanistan, Iraq or what these people see is a war against Islam..." (emphasis added). Thus Hoffman has concluded that there was a "plot", that it's related to the two American wars, and that the shooter is a radical Islamist who acted as a soldier fighting against the "war against Islam". None of those things have been remotely proven at this point, and we cannot have a statement from a known expert that seems to state things so definitively when we do not have all the information. I'm not sure Hoffman would even want to be quoted that way here. If you look in the reaction section, basically none of the other responses include speculation about motives/cause of attack, excepting very wishy-washy comments from the relevant U.S. authorities. The other exception is a comment from Salman al-Ouda about how Hasan might have psychological issues, and I think it actually makes sense to cut that part out and just point out that al-Quda dispraised the attack, rather than mentioning his musings about Hasan's mental state.

The key here is that the "reactions" section should not become a place to dump in every bit of conjecture and speculation that is out there, even from experts. Obviously the majority of the section right now is official and non-official condemnation, as well as suggestions about what to do going forward (decrease guns, allow guns on base, have more counseling available for soldiers, etc.). Hoffman apparently knows his stuff, but an encyclopedia article is not the place to quote an opinion article written by him when he was not remotely in possession of all the facts. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an interpretation of the event by a renowned expert on the subject, and there are many such instances of that type of speculation in the article. There are examples in there of people saying they believe it is terrorism, and others saying they believe it isn't (and most of those people are not part of the investigation, they are commentators on news programs). Perhaps I placed it into the wrong section, but it clearly has value and gives an important piece of the dialogue that has emerged around the shooting. It also gives much needed clarification on terrorism and lone wolf attackers. I don't think it should be presented as a conlcusion. That is why it is in quotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnCityofsin (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Big Peace: But the shooting is an event related to afghanistan and Iraq. Hoffman makes a point of not specifying what the relationship is. But we know there is one. Hassan reportedly expressed concern about the wars, viewing them as part of a war on Islam. And we know he was being deployed. Whether the attack was terrorism or someone snapping, the wars are still in the mix. Does he imply Hassan is a radical muslim? Yes. But many others in the article imply he isn't or just suffered from stress. The important thing is it is one experts opinion on a possible motive, and on the attacks implications. I don't see how it is harmful at all to include it, as long as it is framed as one experts opinion. It should also be noted, Hoffman is The Expert on religious terrorism, which is why I thought it useful to include his recent statement. He is a much better source than some guy paid to speak on fox news. LynnCityofsin (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaky Said:":Because it has everything to do with opinion and nothing to do with fact. Any other speculation should be removed as well. User:Leaky_caldron" Leaky because there is so much controversy over whether the attack was murder or terrorism or both, I think it is important to include what is being said by commentators and experts. So long as the article doesn't take sides, it is fine to report on what people have said. There is no reason not to include Hoffman's remark with other remarks about it. To remove the comments from people calling it Terrorism, or Just a shooting, removes important information about the debate unfolding. People reading the article need to be informed that there is a controversy, and it is helpful to let them know who is saying what.LynnCityofsin (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First, despite appearances, there simply is no ironclad proof that the shooting is related to Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, Hasan apparently took issue with those wars, but that may or may not (I'd say the odds are 99 out of 100 it's the former, incidentally) have played a role in the shooting, which itself is still only an accusation at this point. I'm not being pedantic here, I'm just saying we cannot really assume anything right now, despite what the information we have now seems to suggest. Putting in a quote from Hoffman (an authority, identified as such, speaking in an authoritative, definitive tone) along the lines of what you added would seem to establish for many readers facts which are actually still in question, and we really should not do that.

Perhaps there is a better place in the article for a comment from Hoffman, and perhaps there is a different passage you could use that might be more appropriate, or a different way to couch it. I'd recommend proposing something here on the talk page so it can be discussed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I am not saying afghanistan conclusively led to the attack, but it is at the least, part of the story because of Hassan's alleged views on the war and his deployment. I would very much like to include Hoffman's remark, because of his stature on the subject and the fact that he issued a statement at all. Unfortunately that seems to be the only remark he made. The statement was made within the context of an article on the spike in domestic terrorism, and terrorists who act out on there own with no official ties or line of communication to terrorist organizations. He appears to see the attack as part of a new pattern, where people and small groups self radicalize and respond to propoganda on their own. He also appears to be cautioning against dismissing these people as lone nutjobs, when politics and religion may the real motivating factor. I suggest including it as part of a section on the controversy surrounding the shooting. Hoffman also acknowledges the difficulty of discering motives given the unique circumstances of each case. LynnCityofsin (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

... so, Hoffman "acknowledges the difficulty of discering motives" and... then he goes and says it's part of a pattern of people responding to propaganda and acting on it as their motive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledging the difficulty of discerning the motive, doesn't mean he can't speculate on what he believes the most likely motive is. And in this particular case, it isn't exactly obscure. It is really a matter of waiting to see if all the initial reports about hassan's previous statements are true. LynnCityofsin (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Which means there's no reason to include an opinion piece of pure speculation in our article. We'll wait for actual information to come out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, there is reason, because it is part of the ongoing debate over whether it constitutes terrorism, and it reflects the thoughts of the leading expert on the subject. It has appeared in Time and the Washington Post, in articles specifically dealing with the question of whether or not this was Terrorism. 24.147.110.167 (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You have previously been advised not to mix the use of IP and registered accounts. Please take urgent notice of this WP:SOCK. I will WP:AGF but if you repeat this style of contributing it will need to be dealt with by admins. Leaky Caldron 14:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Leaky. I don't think LynnCityofsin is intentionally trying to "mislead or deceive" per WP:SOCK here, he seems to just be responding in the conversation and he has responded from only one IP consistently... no indication here that he is trying to appear to be different people. I understand there is frustration about etiquette but we probably shouldn't tell newcomers their posts will be "dealt with by admins" in these kinds of situations either. LynnCityofsin, you might want to check mark the "remember password" box when logging in so that you stay logged in repeatedly when making posts to avoid the problem. Wishing peace and continued civil conversations to you both.

With regard to the issue at hand, I would echo the sentiment that we should strive to avoid including opinion pieces of pure speculation in the article, the benefits they might convey are usually outweighed by the problems they create. --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So, which is it? Do you want to wait "to see if all the initial reports about hassan's previous statements are true", or do you want to press on to get unfounded speculation included in the article? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaky: I appologize. The signature thing is not intentional, I simply forgot to sign into my account when I went to the wiki page, and in some instances I have forgotten to use the tildes as well. I am not trying to deceive.

Hand: Neither, I want to report on what terrorism experts and officials are saying about the case. While we need to wait for the complete investigation before concluding anything about initial reports, the initial reports still are note worthy and informative. It is also worth pointing out that the administration, while being cautious has even said he was likely motivated by extreme religious views. Here is a senior Obama Amin. Official quoted in the Time article: "It is clear that he had contacts with individuals overseas who have espoused the use of violence like al-Awlaki. It is unclear whether or not it was anything more than just contacts, or if there was any type of operational engagement. It appears as though Major Hasan was inspired by some of this extremist rhetoric and propaganda. But what we are trying to do is make sure that we don't reach conclusions based on just a preliminary review of information that is available to date. That's why we have to go back in, make sure we scour those files." This is hardly "unfounded speculation". LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Islamic terrorism

I'm trying to understand, at what point can we in this article safely classify this incident as an act of Islamic terrorism? We have a suspect who identified himself on his business cards as a "soldier of Allah,"^[6] attempted to contact Al-Qaeda, made presentations about how non-muslims should be tortured and killed, wrote on the Internet about the merits of suicide bombing, went to the same mosque with two of the 9/11 hijackers, shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire, and is currently being praised by a radical imam who calls other Muslims to "follow his footsteps." On one hand, we have experts and media figures calling it an act of terrorism, and on the other hand we have other experts and media figures attributing the attacks to "pre-traumatic stress" disorder. What evidence or citations must be provided before this incident can be classified as terrorism? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would say when/if the military charges him with an act of terrorism. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's even possible. In discussions of where to charge him one of the apparent issues I've seen reported is that the uniform code of military justice does not generally have terrorism statutes in the same way the US Federal system does. So, if he is tried in a court martial rather than a US Federal Court, it is likely that none of the charges will actually say terrorism on them simply because such crimes haven't been addressed in the UCMJ. Dragons flight (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the things listed are allegations, ones that may well prove true, but allegations all the same. The info on the mosque is still circumstantial; that they attended it during the same time period is provocative but isn't terribly significant, what would be moreso is if they knew each other. The after-the-fact remark of al-Awlaki indicates he approves, but still doesn't indicate why it was done. Perhaps when there's more consensus among the experts and the investigation and trial have been conducted. WP should not be leading the charge. Шизомби (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with 'Hand' & 'Шизомби' time, solid information and hindsight will tell.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. We're not talking about the PRC, so yes, not until the authorities recognise it as an act of terrorism should we do the same. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the FOX report ^[7]directly,

"the (Hasans' business) cards contain a discrete reference 
to his religion: 'SoA(SWT)'.
 Watchdogs 
(Who?) say the first letters are shorthand among militant Muslims
 to 'soldier of Allah.' The last
 letters 
refer to 'Subhanahu Wa Ta'all,' 
which means 'glory to God.'

Does 'Onward Christian Soldiers ' sound familiar? That may be meaningless, in context, but if you'd never heard it before? Surely many people innocently have religious (even Islamic) references on cards, stationery and their cars. ie. 'Fish' symbol,
JMJ (Jesus, Mary, Joseph) Of course it may not be innocent at all. I don't know and the references don't make it a lot clearer.
See card references NY Daily[8] - ABC[9] from the Nidal Malik Hasan article. Maybe these should be added to the exiting refs, may be more up to date? This part of the 'Hasan' article reads better than the 'Shooting' equivalent. Should be copied over.
Direct link to Wikipedia source of info re 'SWT'.[10] Shouldn't we refer back to source, rather than to Wikipedia?
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS's are inching their way towards calling him a terrorist. See

• http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/has-president-obama-been-convinced-that-hasan-was-a-terrorist.html

George Stephanopoulos tells us that Obama most likely thinks Hasan is a terrorist.

• http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1938415,00.html

Time Magazine is sure enough in ordert to raise the question.

• i agree many innocent people include religious symbols on all kinds of things, but Soldiers of Allah is very popular among terrorists and insurgents. kinda like a way for different factions to be united. and ive heard some say that "SoA could mean a number of things", but the fact that SWT follows should solidify that it means soldier of allah; putting swt right after would signify that they are basically saying "Soldiers of Allah, All glory to Him." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That category needs to be approached gingerly. I have a problem in general with categories that reach a conclusion, and this one is a whopper. It's too judgmental a category. Right now he hasn't even been convicted of anything. Sure, we should discuss the connections with terrorists and militant clerics, but these judgmental categories are a headache that should be applied carefully.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt this discussion is a bit pointless right now. The simple fact is we need bulletproof reliable sources in order to put this incident in the category for Islamic terrorism or anything remotely similar. We do not have those, obviously, because there simply is no agreement whatsoever on whether this was terrorism or not, in large part because are not particularly close to being in possession of all of the facts. Discussing what was said on Hasan's business cards and wondering whether or not that makes this tragedy terrorism is more than a little original researchish and is a bit of a waste of time. As to "what point can we in this article safely classify this incident as an act of Islamic terrorism" I would say: 1) Possibly never, if that's not what it is determined to be in the end, which is entirely possible; 2) Definitely not until the relevant authorities accuse him of being a terrorist and/or charge him with terrorist related crimes, which they obviously have not done yet. Hasan has obviously been charged with multiple counts of murder, but the continuing "inquiry into the shooting is going slowly" and "a motive for the shootings ha[s] yet to be determined." So let's just sit tight for awhile. I'm a bit flummoxed as to why some folks on this talk page think Wikipedia should draw conclusions about the Fort Hood shooting before the people investigating it do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia needs multiple reliable news sources calling it terrorism to do so, or a statement from the authorities. But I also think most people sense a connection and that there is a brewing controversy around Terrorism vs. Shooting. Shouldn't wikipedia at least include a section on the controversy itself. Every time I turn on the TV, read a paper, or listen to radio on the left and right, this subject eventually comes up. Very clearly, it is being debated in the public arena. I think there should be a section on whether it is Terrorism (not just references to this in the reaction section) that give point and counter point to the controversy. I also think the article should include statements or lack theroef from expected sources. For example, the first thing many will want to know when they open the article is "What has the president called it? What did the FBI label it? etc". Including a breakdown of which sectors are calling it Terrorism, which are calling it a Shooting or Tragedy and which are refraining from concluding either way, will really help people who know there is a controversy but want more information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We're talking here about the category. The problem is that people slap on categories to easily sometimes. Categories are of limited usefulness in general and can be a pain in the butt in a situation like this.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar's SUV attack and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad's shooting of a recruitment office were classified as Islamic Terrorism on Wikipedia,I think there is a good argument for including this incident as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar "confessed to intentionally hitting people with a sport utility vehicle on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide" and to "punish" the United States government" (he also said he was following in the footsteps of Mohammed Atta) and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad "has been indicted on one count of capital murder and 15 counts of terrorist acts." The accused Fort Hood shooter has neither confessed to the crime, nor said he did it to avenge the deaths of Muslims or to follow in the footsteps of a 9/11 attacker, and he has not been charged with terrorist related crimes. So actually the examples you bring up do a good job of illustrating why this incident should not, at least for now, be classified as Islamic terrorism. Honestly, if this is terrorism, he will almost certainly be charged with crimes related to that, so let's just sit tight until then. There is not rush to "classify" this as Islamic terrorism or indeed anything else. Again we are encyclopedia, not a beat reporter trying to make deadline and scoop the competition. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"classified as Islamic Terrorism on Wikipedia" well, other articles aren't supposed to be used as precedents, because there's no telling whether they were done properly. Was the event classified as terrorism in *reality*, and if so, how: that would be the proper thing to investigate. "no one was killed in the attack, nine people were injured (none seriously)." If attacks by individuals all around the world in which almost nothing happened merit articles, there are a lot of articles missing from WP that need to be added. Шизомби (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

1) I don't think it is for the attacker decide what crime he committed. He will likely not confess that it was terrorism, because that will result in a harsher sentence. Right now, all evidence points to him doing this because he wanted to participate in the Jihad and opposed US involvement in the Middle East. 2) I am not sure we should let the government dictate what the act was. The Bush administration over used the term for political purposes, and this one appears to underuse it for political purposes. We should look to leaders in Terrorism and Counter Terrorism studies, for an answer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk • contribs) 11:39, November 15, 2009

And those groups have not made an indication that this is terrorism, yet. So we wait. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hand: bruce hoffman has called it a lone wolf terrorist attack and the product of self radicalization. He is realy the big gun on Religious Terrorism. Curious to see what other experts say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to keep the above in mind here. If I'm wrong please remove--220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the worst policy I have ever seen or heard of. It effectively makes it impossible to have meaningful articles on the subject of Terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't. It allows us to say that people are groups are described as terrorists (if they are), who describes them as such and why they do (or why reliable sources speculate they do). If there are people who do not describe them as terrorists, then we say who these people are and why they don't (or why reliable sources speculate that they don't). This maintains Wikipedia's neutrality, equally we do not declare people as "heroes", "freedom fighgters", "the best thing since sliced bread", etc - we report that other people have declared them to be without declaring them so ourselves. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But that makes no sense, Terrorism is an established term for a type of crime. It is very important once something has been established as a terrorist attack, that wikipedia can describe it as such, without having to wrap it in quotations. This isn't neutrality. It would be like avoiding the words Child Rapist, Murderer, or Bank Robber. This is clearly being done for reasons that have more to do with political correctness than creating a workable encyclopedia. When this gets out, and it will eventually, wikipedia will lose what credibility it had left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You refuted your own argument: "Terrorism is an established term for a type of crime." Hasan has not been charged with a terrorism related crime yet. Until that happens, how can we claim it is terrorism without making assumptions of our own? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying at all. I am actually making a few arguments here, and you are conflating them. Terrorism is a type of crime. But someone can be a terrorist even if they are not charged with Terrorism. And an event can be a terrorist attack, even if no one is charged. If Hasan isn't charged, that could easily be the result of politcs, which is why I have been advocating we report on what Counter Terrorism experts label the incident, and we continue to monitor the controversy over what to call it. Even then according to the rules, if he is charged with Terrorism, editors shouldn't use the term. They can only make reference to the charge. I have no problem with being over ruled if other editors feel their isn't enough support or information to call this incident terrorism. But I do take issue with removing the term from the table entirely, because some see it as a biased label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Related article Terrorism in the United States

There have been two recent changes (see [11],[12]) to Terrorism in the United States to add the Fort Hood shooting to the list of terrorism incidents.

• It seems appropriate that these two articles should be in sync regarding this issue.
• From what I've read here, there seems to be no WP:CONSENSUS yet that this incident is Terrorism
• I've invited the IP user, User:65.34.249.197 (talk), who has made these edits to Terrorism in the United States to joint the discussion here.

Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to my note, User:65.34.249.197 (talk) replied on my talk page:

It wasnt a comment war, and I dont see why I cant keep it. I have backup and proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.249.197 (talk) 8:41 am, Today (UTC−7)

I left another message at the editor's talk page, pointing out relevant guidelines and policies and reiterating the invitation to discuss the change here. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite wajzkd02. I think it was terror but I will go with what you say until a report on it is released.

OK, thanks. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I propose including a section on the controversy surrounding Terrorism and Fort Hood, in order to avoid confusion of facts and to accurately reflect the debate it created. I think this is especially helpful for readers outside the US, who may not be aware of the massive firestorm the debate's become in the country. It really has raised all kinds of issues about the word terrorism, and it has become a source of contention between the left and right. LynnCityofsin (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" (and its cousin "criticism") sections have become less and less popular of late, and the standard practice right now is to avoid them whenever possible (they're still out there though). See WP:STRUCTURE for some thoughts on this, particularly the idea that "segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents."

However, I think something along the lines of what you are suggesting could work, although it would need a different section title before creating it. There are arguably two large categories of debate surrounding this incident; 1) Cause/motive; 2) Meaning (for the U.S. military and the way it handles possibly troubled soldiers, for U.S. war policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, for counterterrorism efforts, for American attitudes toward Muslim servicemembers, for societal and military "political correctness," and many others). I would argue that "debate" about the first issue (cause/motive) is a bit tricky for us to cover at this point, even though we are already doing so here, because it allows for all sorts of unwarranted speculation, and really much of it won't matter in the near future once we know more. It's actual easier (and in the end more interesting) to cover the "fallout" debates so to speak, and it could be useful to look for some in-depth pieces that consider a variety of these arguments and use those pieces as a basis for a new section, or possibly something folded into (or turned into a subthread of) the "reaction" section. There's no rush on this but I think it's worth looking into and thinking about further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

These issues can be and mostly already are covered in other sections without lumping them together in an inherently POV "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. Grsz¹¹ 23:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than accomodating psuedo fact the OP should surely jusify using established policy the content he is advocating. Also, there is no need to patronise readers outside the US. It's an encyclopedia, not a news sheet. Leaky Caldron 23:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the OP" but I think we should refer to people by their user names if they have them. Also I detect nothing remotely patronizing with respect to non-U.S. readers in the comment from LynnCityofsin. The shootings have indeed generated a tremendous amount of debate in the United States about a host of issues, and if you do not read U.S. newspapers or watch U.S. news broadcasts the full scope of that might not be entirely clear. I think the editor was making a rather innocent point about why the proposed section would be useful, so why not AGF a bit? There's nothing that remotely suggests that LynnCityofsin is not contributing in good faith and there's no need to bite a newcomer. If you object to the proposal that's fine but let's not use unnecessarily confrontational language. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no disrespect in referring to someone as the “OP” – original poster. He was alternately using IP, username & unsigned and referred to me 3 times as “Cauldron (sic) Leak” so there is not a whole lot of good faith there – new user or not. As for biting LynCity.., I have positively shown him 6 blue links identifying core policy and guidelines in my posts above. I fail to see what is confrontational about asking a contributor to consider relevant policy. He started with an intolerably blatant line that needed to be moderated. There was no edit warring and I believe I have remained civil, despite your accusation to the contrary. Leaky Caldron 10:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaky: I am not patronizing readers outside the US, and appologize if you found that offensive. I have just notice, in speaking with people from other countries, that they often are unaware of the magnitude of the debate over the shooting. My wife is not from the US, and even she has had some difficulty understanding the Fort Hood-Terrorism controversy. Nor is this an attempt to deal in pseudo fact. The opinions of important leaders, commentators and experts are very important to the story. They don't need to be presented as factual conclusions, but they absolutely should be included. It would be absurd to have an entire article on Fort Hood, without discussing the debate it created over Terrorism vs. Mass Shooting. And it would be equally absurd not to include the various arguments involved. Articles routinely contain this sort of information (i.e. So and so called the attack X, but this person felt it was too early to make such conclusions...). That Bruce Hoffman has made a statement about the attack, is itself significant enough to warrant inclusion.

This isn't an attempt to slip in anything that violates the Policies of wikipedia, it is attempt to include important details and viewpoints in a way that prevents confusing them with established facts of the case. Encyclopedias also report on debates and controversies. I don't see how it would harm anything to give a break down on the various points of view. Especially since they have profound implications for US polics and foreign policy. LynnCityofsin (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Caldron: I meant no disrespect when I referred to you as Cauldron Leak, this really was because I glanced at your signature very quickly and unnintentionally reserved the words. I am dyslexic, and I reverse words and letters a lot. No offense was meant. I have just noticed I misread the spelling of "Caldron", as well. This was also unintentional. For what it is worth, I retract my comment about your objectivity. It was an a personal jibe, based soley on reading your home page, and took no account of your actual editing. For that I appologize and hope we can move forward assuming good faith on both sides. LynnCityofsin (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hasan's motive

Let's avoid an edit war on this. In the interests of NPOV and balance, we must include the following information in the lede. The war-crimes reports are the best-sourced information we've gotten so far about a motive. The various "terrorist" links are circumstantial and speculative. This is the information that should go in the lede, and there is no reason to censor it:

In the first official report of a motive, the Dallas Morning News reported on November 17 that investigators suspect that the shootings were triggered by the Army’s refusal to process Hasan’s multiple requests that several of his psychiatric patients be prosecuted for war crimes, allegedly perpetrated while they served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Attorneys familiar with military psychiatric work have stated that Hasan was within his authority to report the alleged crimes, and that no patient confidentiality would have been violated. Qworty (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Qworty. Thank you for moving to the talk page since Bachcell and I both removed this content; hopefully any interested parties can discuss the matter here to work it out. I see big problems with inserting this into the lede, allow me to elaborate. You wrote "In the first official report...", yet no official report has been issued. Instead, it's the statements of an Army Captain, Shannon Meehan, who is not an investigator or official of record in the case, who told a reporter that he "learned of Hasan's prosecution requests from another base psychiatrist" who could not be reached. That effectively makes the information anonymous hearsay, while the article states that "Fort Hood officials did not respond to interview requests... ...citing the ongoing investigation," which is the official position. ABC News goes on to cite "anonymous sources", but we still have nothing official. The information could turn out to be absolutely correct for all we know - but the way this has been inserted into the lead, it has too much undue weight. If it belongs in the article, I think it belongs down in the motive section as a possibility yet to be further fleshed out, but clearly not in the lede. Also, the portion about "Attorneys (plural)... have stated that Hasan was within his authority" seems problematic too, since the source article says Hasan "may have been justified" according to one attorney, who added "it's impossible to be sure without knowing exactly what was said." Better to stick a little closer to the cite source and try to avoid speculation or the balance of NPOV starts to shift. Thank you for listening. Does anyone else want to contribute their 2 cents? --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, basically agree with AzureCitizen though) I would strongly disagree with the notion that the above passage belongs in the lead. The sentence from the article "ABC News, citing anonymous sources, reported that his superiors rejected the requests, and that investigators suspect this triggered the shootings" is not remotely strong enough sourcing to warrant making the above passage the third paragraph of the introduction. One news outlet, citing anonymous sources, who say investigators (who may be someone other than the anon sources) "suspect" thing x triggered the shootings? That is hardly a source on which we want to hang our hats. There is probably some useful stuff in that article (particularly if other sources are backing it up), but it still offers nothing definitive on the motive (which shouldn't make up half of the intro anyway, as it did in your edit) and as such should not be discussed prominently in the intro. Probably something could be mentioned about this issue in the possible motivation section, again particularly if other media outlets back up this account. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMO, neither the terrorist speculation nor this new claim of war-crime frustration belongs in the lede. It's all speculation as to Hasan's motive at this point. Do put it in the body, where all the speculations can be sorted by weight. Do stick very close to the source. All motive speculation must stay close to the respective sources, and avoid synthesizing. My 2¢. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The articles I have read mentioning this, including the one's cited in the wikipedia article, also make mention of his increasingly radical beliefs. I think if this is part of the motive, it would be narrow sighted to isolate it from reports of his growing religious extremism. I also think if this is included a point needs to be made not to exonerate Hassan in doing so. It should also be emphasized that right now there isn't any evidence the war crimes were ever committed. This may well have been part of Hassan's "paranoid" (to use a word from the article) world view.LynnCityofsin (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"if this is part of the motive" is the key here. We don't know what his motive is, so it's improper to put such speculation in the lead of the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, even though I think this really isn't part of the motive, if this speculation is part of the debate, I believe it should be included. I did a brief review of articles over similar incidents where there was a lack of clarity over what happened, and it seems like common practice here to include samples to indicate the range of speculation. Since the range of the debate seems to be one end "it was islamic terrorism" and the other "it was a mass shooting by someone who snapped after being harrassed", this position probably deserves mention. As long as the article isn't forming conclusions about it, I really do not see how presenting a break down of the debate and speculation does any harm. LynnCityofsin (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have no shame? The man clearly stated his motive by shouting 'allahu akbar' before the shooting. He has had contact with terrorists abroad and was clearly a radical muslim praising suicide bombers. To say 'we don't know' is to offend the readers IQ and the families of the deceased. Your whitewashing of this event is extremely offensive and racist to non-islamic religions, not to mention the many victims. Everyone denied the fact that he was a terrorist and that cost lives, how shameful it is that you now continue to deny it. How must the victims feel now when watching this charade on WikiPedia? Does the soldiers lives count less than the need for political correctness? And what is that about trying to legitimize it by referring to a christian antiabortion murderer, Scott Roeder? You know very well that 99% of all terrorists are muslims and the attempt to compare that to christians is thin propaganda. Go ahead with your writing but be aware that your readers are throwing up at the sight of this article. You're way past the point of nausea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.125.118 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop all the personalizing. I'm tired of it on this subject. There is a NY Times Week in Review article today dealing with all these issues and it can and should be mentioned in the article, briefly and in an objective fashion. I don't have the link handy but will get it when I have a chance.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Mass shooting"

This strange term "mass shooting" - does it represent a kind of consensus-compromise combination of mass murder, and spree shooting? Interesting, but was this crime so particularly unique that it needs its own special term? There idea of creating a new term for conceptualization purposes is probably not good idea here - the concepts are not particularly new, and the motivation for twisting the conceptualization of the case is somewhat politicized. The linguistics is easy: The term "spree shooting" is itself only a crude colloquialism, and just looking at the definition of "spree" should suffice to understand how "spree" belies the seriousness of the crime, and therefore its usage here must be deprecated. The term "mass murder" fits well enough - its not necessary to distinguish the method as a "shooting."

"Terrorism" and the allegation thereof are the real issue, and an indication of that term is perhaps necessary in the lede. A good way to deal with this would be to use the two relevant terms:

"..was a mass murder (sometimes called a spree shooting).."

or

"..was a mass murder (also called a "spree killing" or an "act of Islamist terrorism").."

and indicate in a ref/footnote that there is some controversy about the terminology.[13]. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 06:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead is fine as it is. I disagree entirely with every aspect of your proposal. There is no evidence of terrorism, Islamic or otherwise. It was not a spree-killing as defined here spree killing since the attack appears to have took place in a single location. Footnotes are entirely unnecessary. You'll need convincing argument as well as consensus to change it and that will require more evidence. Leaky Caldron 10:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious?! The amount of evidence is growing on a weekly basis. This is absolutely disgusting... * http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873 * http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fort_hood_xjP9yGrJN7gl7zdsJ31vnJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.125.118 (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The NYP is an opinion piece. It's no more or less valuable than my opinion or yours. The ABC piece should be used appropriately. That doesn't mean re-writing the lead to call it Islamist terrorism because there is insufficient overall weight of evidence for that. The perpetrator is still alive so WP:BLP has to be considered, as well as all other source, verifiability and weight policies and guidelines. I'm not saying it wasn't terrorism - I'm saying that speculation is no basis to write an encyclopedic article. Leaky Caldron 15:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine as it is. There is no need to add further descriptions categorizing it as a "spree killing" or as "Islamic" whatever. To do so would be original research. I'd leave it as it is or think up another neutral term to describe the shooting. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that all of you are misreading me in your own varied ways, and doing so apparently due to your own varied biases. The issue I raised is simple - we don't coin new terms like "mass shooting" where existing terms suffice - doing so violates SYNTH. In this case, because there is some controversy about how the case is conceptualized, regardless of what you think about those views, public opinion is evenly divided enough to require us to employ more than one conceptualization. Not deferring to one which any particular group uses does not mean using a made-up term - it means using more than one term, and footnote or section-link to a separate explanation of the relevant and political ambiguities. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree WP should not be inventing a term, if "mass shooting" is not one being used in the sources. Something like "The Fort Hood shooting entailed a gunman killing 13 people and wounding 30 others on November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood—the most populous United States military base in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas" might work: simply say exactly what it is known for sure to involve without labeling it. How best to handle the possibility of it being terrorism in the lede, I'm not sure. There are certainly a number of troubling allegations. Шизомби (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre is "mass murder", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre is a "school shooting" and "massacre", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre doesn't characterize the nature of the attack in the lede (but note the article title). Unless we have good WP:RS for characterization, I'd suggest we find sources that characterize for us. Ronabop (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated information please check

I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm trying to "be bold". I changed the last paragragh to reflect updated information on Hassan's hearing held Saturday. Could someone please verify that the text and reference formating are correct. I'm trying to avoud getting in Wiki trouble. JustinRJoneZ (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! After a quick glance, I'd say it looks good, and follows the format of other elements of the article. My minor comment is that I would have followed the "2009" with a comma. Enjoy editing! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NY Times: The Fort Hood shooting, then, is an example of Islamist terrorism

Can we stop this "we know nothing about whether this as anything to do with Islam / Terrorism" bit now?? This is from a left wing opinion in the RS New York Times: Bachcell (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fort Hood shooting, then, is an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism — or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Fort Hood is the biggest data point we have — the most lethal Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It’s only one piece of evidence, but it’s a salient piece, and it supports the liberal, not the conservative, war-on-terrorism paradigm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22wright.html?_r=2&hp Who Created Major Hasan? By ROBERT WRIGHT New York Times November 21, 2009

It's probably worth noting for balance that the entire Obama administration, FBI, Homeland Security, and every branch of the military are still consistently refusing to call it an act of terrorism, or provide witnesses to congress/Senate. Why do we have to wait until the official commission determines that it was a lone shooter with absolutely no connection to terrorism or Islam to be able to state the fact that just about everybody else thinks the FBI, DOD has messed up badly, especially for refusing to acknowledge that Islamic terrorism is not just an "unlikely possibility we're looking into"? It is also worth noting the amount of howling over the press over their failure to do so, and the frequency of the use of the term "political correctness" which is always reverted the moment somebody tries to mention the term in this article. The DOD still won't confirm the "allah ackbar" outburst which was sourced by a woman was afraid to be quoted. Is there some good reason the DOD has chosen to bury this important detail? Bachcell (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That piece is an wp:opinion. The shooting article, in particular the lead, requires a wp:verifiable wp:fact. Leaky Caldron 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the reaction section of the article. Although I have my own opinions regarding the event, which themselves have been repeated by other reliable sources, I unfortunately have to say, the chances of getting the piece in, are low. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It is an opinion piece. I think I mentioned this a few days ago in this article or the Hasan one. It should be mentioned and quoted, but is certainly not dispositive on this issue by any stretch of the imagination. There's a lively debate on this subject and it needs to be reflected here. But we don't call this guy a terrorist, not now. We just don't. We may hold personal opinions that it is terrorism, and I personally feel that way, but our personal opinions don't matter. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the murdered baby not counted as a fatality, and by what authority?

It is clear that a human fetus was killed (i.e. murdered as manslaughter) at the death of his mother; why then is this death not listed as a fatality and casualty? To what authority is this Wikipedia entry held? It is self-apparent to me that this unnamed person should be counted; it is an insult to him, his deceased mother and his father to do contrary. The only reason I have not already edited the article to correct this grave mistake is that perhaps this entry is held to some military standard of which I am ignorant, whereby the death of the unborn are not counted. -- Newagelink (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is already footnote regarding the unborn child, and it is supported by a reliable source reference. Are you looking for something more? Is the footnote insufficient? How do you propose that the issue, if there is one, be remedied? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• We have had insistent 'Catholics' not long ago, and I thought the matter had been resolved - the unborn child was mentioned separately. The sources citing death-toll figures all count in the same way, and most of us seem to agree. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur w/RightCow and Oh.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that Hasan has been charged with only 13 counts of murder, so under whatever authority has jurisdiction thus far, the unborn child is not being counted. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as Texas has a fetal homicide law applying in all stages of gestation, I see nothing wrong with the tally of 14 victims. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Texas law is not the law being applied.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Then if the case were magically transported into Civillian law as the liberals and Obama-backers want, you would all agree that the fetus WOULD, in fact be counted in the murder tally, and the correct tally would and should be 14 victims. Or would the "editors" with a so-called neutral POV somehow find a new reason for the fetus not to be counted? It's a good thing you all had mothers who chose life and didn't just think of you all as fetuses!!! What is the world coming to!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.140.178 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The world has been going to hell in a handbasket since at least the medieval era, but I'm afraid we aren't going to do anything about it here on Wikipedia, so complaining about it won't help much. If this case was happening in a civilian court, and if it did refer to 14 victims, then this would be an issue worth discussing. But those things aren't happening so it isn't. Other editors have explained the situation above, and your comment is not really adding anything to the process of building the article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple answear Hasan has not been charged with the death of the fetus. If/ When he is I suggest we act accordingly. --JustinRJoneZ (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The model of pistol used in the attack

A FN Five-seven, one of the models of handguns used in the attack.

There was some controversy a couple of weeks ago about whether the article should include an image of an FN Five-seven, apparently the only weapon actually fired during the attack [14]. I suggest inclusion for the following reasons:

1. The image is a neutral description of the means by which the shooting was effectuated, and does not seek to convey any political position regarding gun control. Indeed, the photograph appears to have been taken by an owner of the pistol, presumably a pro-firearms source.
2. While the September 11 attacks article does not include images of the models of aircraft used in the attacks, their appearance is widely known. By contrast, the image of the FN Five-seven is informative insofar as most readers have probably never seen this particular model of pistol.
3. The live cartridges included in the image illustrate that the FN Five-seven uses bottlenecked ammunition, a feature common on centerfire rifle cartridges such as the .308 Winchester, but rarely seen in pistol ammunition. Andrea105 (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The text already says "and a .357 Magnum revolver which he may not have fired." (emphasis added) [It cites <ref name="ABC 1" />.] This is the same thing your ref says. [Same ref?] To state that "apparently" the FN Five-seven was the only one he fired is to make a claim not supported by the source. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The claim is substantively the same; WP:VER and WP:RS do not require articles to use language which so closely tracks the wording of the original sources that we are effectively plagiarizing them. Andrea105 (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No. "Apparently" mean "probably" and "it's apparent". "May not" means "possibly not" and "maybe not". A substantively similar claim would be "the FN Five-seven may have been the only one he fired". --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It really would be nice if you actually read the text of the original source, instead of using the existing language of the article as the source. In any event, I've revised the statement in a manner clearly and unequivocally supported by the citation provided [15]. Andrea105 (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read it. That's how I know what it says. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you would know that the text of the source itself doesn't use the language "he may not have fired" in reference to the .357 Magnum revolver, and wouldn't be stressing the alleged incongruity between "he may not have fired" and the the image caption. Andrea105 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it does not say "A FN Five-seven [was] apparently the only model of handgun discharged by the attacker." It does say "A second gun found was a 357 Magnum Smith and Wesson revolver, but it is not yet clear if Hasan used the weapon during the shooting." --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've found what the source actually states regarding the use of the .357 Magnum :) It's unfortunate that you didn't cite the actual text of the source in your previous comments, instead describing the purported incongruity between the existing language of the article (which has no status as source material) and the image caption. Really, if you thought that the image caption wasn't supported by the source cited, wouldn't the relevant text of the source itself be exhibit A in demonstrating your claim? Andrea105 (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlike your version, which was misleading, mine was an accurate paraphrase. Perhaps you should have read the source before adding an inaccurate caption to an image that was the subject of prior contention. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You believe that the correctness of the image caption should be measured against what you believe is "an accurate paraphrase", rather than the actual language of the source whose meaning is being represented? So, who appointed you God? Andrea105 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If your edit were not misleading, you might have some credibility here. But you don't. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice try :) Your claim of a "misleading" image caption is itself predicated upon your blatant misrepresentation of the English language. You asserted that

"Apparently" mean "probably" and "it's apparent".[16]

Now, please review the definition of "apparently". I'll give you credit for at least attempting to describe meaning 1 (though your sense of the term is not altogether accurate), and for providing the uselessly circular definition "it's apparent" (for the etymologically challenged, it seems.) However, particular attention should be directed to meaning 2 of "apparently": "Seemingly; in appearance only." On the basis of the claims by the source that "Hasan used an FN Herstal 5.7 tactical pistol" and "A second gun found was a 357 Magnum Smith and Wesson revolver, but it is not yet clear if Hasan used the weapon during the shooting,"[17] it is quite reasonable to write that the FN Five-seven was "apparently the only model of handgun discharged by the attacker,"[18] once the full sense of the adverb is understood. Andrea105 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This argument really has to qualify for WP:LAME. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Agree w/EvB on this (fairly tangential) issue, but don't believe its worth any more of the editors' time or space on this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Code Words?

The reference (Suspect para. 5) to Hasans' possible use of "code words" in his e-mails leads to a rather unsatisfactory link. I can see what the article is geting at, but it still doesn't fit. The article Code name actually fits better, but it's talking about things like "Have Blue" for F117 development. Code word is the term the commentator used, but perhaps code 'phrase' is closer to reality. ie "I can't wait to join you", he sent to al-Awlaki .
The One time Code section of Code (cryptography) may be an even more apt link. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Recently, there have been edits to wikilinks, removing any direct link to the the article on the State of Texas. Is there a good reason to remove those links? Was there consensus prior to those edits to remove those links? I for one don't see a reason for removing those links, or at least maintaining one. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Texas is already linked in the lead paragraph, and it's generally considered unnecessary to link it multiple times in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While Fort Hood is germane to the topic in question, the relationship enjoyed by the state of Texas is but tangential. Someone who has found their way here is more likely to be distracted by a link to Texas than attracted by it. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I know there is a single link to Texas in the lead, I am the one who re-added it. Prior to that all links were removed outright. I understand the removal of multiple links, and saw the reasoning behind it, but not the removal of all links. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that. Thanks for clarifying. I'd WP:AGF that whoever removed them all intended to leave one behind and just overlooked it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content

The following content was removed from the article:

Al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, was the spiritual leader of the Falls Church, Virginia, mosque when Hasan attended it, knew three of the 9/11 hijackers, and Hasan recently exchanged e-mails with him. After the shooting, he stated on his blog that "Nidal Hasan is a hero, the fact that fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims."

May I ask why it was removed, as I did not see an edit summary for it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know too. If there's no adequate explanation, it should be restored. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit. The paragraph doesn't really fit as 'motivation', and seemed to hint strongly at a terrorist conspiracy. Half of it is repetition elsewhere in the article. The quote about Hasan, which is not repetition, was moved to 'reaction'. I hope that clarifies what happened, and why. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

this article has been poorly managed

there are 2 major problems with the management of this article. 1 there is no link to it from the list of terrorist incedents from 2009. 2 it is a low priority article. this should be a high priority because it is the worst act of terrorism in the US since 9/11. please fix these problems promptly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.105.89 (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please search the archive of this regarding terrorism and the subject of this article. This may assist you in better understanding why it is not presently linked to terrorism incidents of the past. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Priority" simply means how important it is to the Wikipedia groups that watch the article to keep editing, not how important the subject is. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be "low" priority only from the standpoint of Project Texas. I can understand that classification. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism

Why does United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting fall under the category of "terrorism," while this article does not? The perpetrator of the former attack was not charged as a terrorist either, but was considered by many to be a terrorist, as in this case. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Either both should be categorized as terrorism or neither. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's fair to question it as Mr. Saturn does, and what JohnnyB256 writes may be true, although it's also important to beware of false dilemmas. One thing that makes the cases different for the time being is that the investigation in the USHMMs is finished, while in the case of the FHs it is not. It's quite possible once the investigation(s) finish that it will be appropriate at that time. Шизомби (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for the Holocaust Museum shooting, the terrorism category was added the day after the attack. A short discussion on the talk page concluded that it belonged. But on this article, there were heated discussions and the category is no longer on the page. What accounts for this inconsistency, especially when the magnitude of this attack was much greater than the Museum Shooting, with many reliable sources labeling it as "terrorism"? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, such as a category on an article, is not in itself a strong argument for universal application. I believe that adding the category to the USHMMs article the day after the attack was probably inappropriate and did not follow policies and guidelines. The inconsistency is due in no small part to the fact that one does not find the same editors editing the same articles all the time, one of the reasons why precedents are not binding and probably never could be until such a time as WP editors all share the same consensus on everything, which is not likely to ever happen, more's the pity. There have been a number of prior discussions here regarding the terrorism category which can be accessed via the five archive links at the upper right of this page and I also just added a search box at the top of the page which enables searching all the archive pages for something such as "terrorism" in one go, which I hope will be helpful. What reliable sources do you have in mind? I am not sure they would actually meet RS, particularly absent the completion of the investigation(s), which would be, one hopes, conclusive. There's no categories for "possible acts of terrorism," "probable acts of terrorism," "acts being investigated in relation to terrorism" or whatnot AFAIK, which would be pretty awkward. In this case, it is all or nothing, so BLP, RS, etc. would require something pretty definitive. The absence of the category doesn't mean it was not terrorism, whereas the presence of it states as an absolute objective truth that it was. There is, however, content in the article noting who thought it was or wasn't and that it is being investigated; this is all perfectly fine. My own guess? It certainly seems like it was. My opinion is quite irrelevant, however. Standing up for laws, policies, guidelines, etc. may sometimes require us to act as sorts of devil's advocates as in this case, where that means keeping the category off the article for the time being. Шизомби (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The assistant director for the Washington FBI field office characterized the Museum attack as "domestic terrorism" the day after the shooting [19] No one from a reliable source has done the same for the Fort Hood shootings. That's the difference. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The former U.S. Attorney General and at least one U.S. Senator labeled the Fort Hood Shooting a "terrorist attack." Your assertion is false, there is no difference in that regard. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard of that assertion. What sources do you have? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources from the article:

• Army base shooting was 'terrorist attack': US lawmaker
• Mukasey Says Fort Hood Attack Was Terrorism.

--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I recall Lieberman making the statement. He's not exactly a law-enforcement individual or terrorist expert though, so that's been adequately dismissed. I did, however, miss the statement by the former Attorney General. Unfortunately, he's making the assumption that this was an act linked to Al-Qaeda terrorism, which has been soundly dismissed. That's a fairly dubious source to go with. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is "dubious" in your opinion, however, you are trying to legitimize the Museum attack's characterization as a terrorist incident based on the "assistant director for the Washington FBI field office." However, a U.S. Senator and former Attorney General are more reliable sources, you can't simply discount their claims based on your own viewpoint. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Or countless others including several U.S. Congressmen, General Barry McCaffrey, bin Laden Unit head Michael Scheuer and terrorism expert Walid Phares. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We seem to repeatedly go through the same points, such that a talk page FAQ might end up being a good idea, since evidently the archives are not being read or searched. Mukasey and Lieberman's and the others (countable, not "countless") remarks are both in the article, they are not being discounted. Although I'm not sure Lieberman's are reported correctly. It says he made a qualified statement that it might be terrorism, then weeks later said it was. The "weeks later" statement seems to be quoting out of context what he originally said (not that the original reports on what he said were complete either), the remarks I called "waffling," not reporting a new statement about the case; this is something that should be checked. And in any case, if he changed his mind, why did he change his mind? Neither are anywhere near definitive, it represents one POV on the issue, that is all. That something is said by a reliable source doesn't make it true. There's no category on this article saying [Category: Shootings that were not terrorist acts]; not having a category at this point one way or the other regarding terrorism is the appropriate NPOV position. It can be added when it is appropriate. Шизомби (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's appropriate now. Did we wait for "investigations" into whether 9/11 was a terrorist act, or the Museum shooting? There is obviously something political behind not calling a spade a spade in this situation. Do you have a definitive reliable source saying it was NOT terrorism, because I have several reliable sources that say it is? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate saying "assume good faith," because so often it is said by people who are not themselves doing it, and I don't want to be that guy, but I guess that's what I'll say. No, I am not being "obviously" "political," and it is not "political" for the article not to have the "terrorism" category on it right this moment. Islam, like all religions, is false, and many religiously-motivated people are terrible people who commit acts of violence that are completely unacceptable and they should be condemned and punished for it, just as people who are not motivated by religion but by atheism or politics or race or hair color or whatever (or no reason at all) who commit acts of violence should be as well. Man's inhumanity to man is just staggeringly awful. There are reliable sources in the article that say it is, that it isn't, and that it's being investigated to determine whether it is or not. I don't understand why there is such urgency to have it declared an act of terrorism by Wikipedia editors. What would that even prove? Шизомби (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I wasn't referring to you, just to the editors who adamently opposed any mention of terrorism on the basis of BLP. The only argument I would see against inclusion of the category would be if a reliable source definitively stated that it was NOT terrorism. If there are not objections on this basis then the claims from reliable sources that it is terrorism cannot be discounted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

← That's exactly the opposite of how Wikipedia works, though. We don't include something until someone says it's not; we refrain from concluding until a reliable source says it is. In regards to your earlier reply, how is the statement from the AD of the friggin' FBI office less-reliable on terrorism than a random Senator? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should reread what I wrote above, you seem to have misunderstood. Reliable sources have been provided that state the incident was a "terrorist attack," including the former highest law enforcement official in the nation, and many terrorism experts. It's much more than the "random Senator," (who happens to chair the Homeland Security committee). Since the reliable sources have been provided that state it is terrorism, equally reliable sources must be provided that counter this claim in order to exclude the category. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is perhaps unfair for HTF to refer to Joe L. as a random senator; his opinion has relevance, although I am still not sure that his statement that it is terrorism is not being taken out of context from his statement that it is "if [...]". When it comes to something like "X was WP:Words to avoid," it's a case of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which is how it is currently being handled in the article. There's no way of handling POV attribution for categories, which are required to be factual, not just reliably sourced. We have opinions by knowledgeable people that it was terrorism Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion, but the investigation has not been completed to establish it as fact. Among those saying it's not are Carl Tobias, Bruce Hoffman who says it "may be," Ret. Gen. McCaffrey said it's "starting to appear as if," and one suspects there would be additional others saying it is, it may be, or it isn't if we continued to look. Шизомби (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Lieberman was quite definitive after looking into the matter for 2 weeks. And Mukasey said: "In that respect, this is, in fact, the worst terrorist act carried out on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001."

--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I still have a question about whether Lieberman's statement is being taken out of context and would like to verify the full statement that was made. However, let us suppose he did state so uncategorically, as several others have done. You asked if there are reliable sources saying otherwise, and there are. Even if there weren't, it doesn't appear that there existence of multiple, even hundreds of reliable sources offering their opinion that it was would be sufficient to categorize, though it would probably be less controversial to ignore policies and guidelines were that the case. I don't know is left to say? Shooting soldiers, civilians and police was a despicable act and I reiterate my belief that the category will be added subsequent to the reports of the investigations. Likewise, religious fanaticism of the sort that Hasan appears to adhere to is despicable. ":–) <-- Muhammad" [20] Шизомби (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• A perusal of the comments here indicates that user: William S. Saturn is correct. The numerous quotes in reliable sources satisfy the strictest inclusion criteria.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"numerous quotes in reliable sources satisfy the strictest inclusion criteria" (emphasis mine). Hyperbole never ever ever ever helps. ;-) Yes, they satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the article text, I don't think anybody disputes that. Requirements for the inclusion of the category are not.

Here is another article that labels this shooting an act of terrorism: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1949329,00.html. Supertouch (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a real problem with categories in general. They don't add value to the article, and they can be the focus of endless arguments and POV pushing. I've been against adding the terrorism category to this article from the beginning, but I think that we need to consider doing so in light of the extent to which this shooting is cited as a terrorist incident in multiple reliable sources. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim Munley

It's not clear if officer Munley is counted among the 30 who had been shot, although I guess it's implied. The article only mentions her role in attempting to stop the gunman. According to the press and the article, she was hit three times. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Political Correctness

Why is there still no mention anywhere in the article the huge volume of opinion pieces and quotes from those who knew Hasan blaming Political Correctness for the failure to pull Hasan out as a threat? Bachcell (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In the early stages of this article I included an of course referenced quote from one of Hasan's med school peers commenting that the reason students' complaints about his behavior were more or less ignored was because no one wanted to offend his sensibilities. This quote was removed and the reason given was it was mere speculation. Supertouch (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed source material from lead

Before attempting to restore removed material, I would like to point out that the previous lead

• had no details of Hasan's "radical beliefs" such as the war on islam, his long history of association with Awlaki, or the association of Awalaki with numerous other terrorist incidents
• makes no mention of the notable link between this case and the Northwest flight 253 bombing who is Anwar al-Awlaki which has been heavily covered in the press, and the recent reports that confirm that Awlaki recruited, trained, blessed, and planned the bombing/bomber
• makes no mention the FBI and Army determined that Hasan acted alone without outside direction, despite the widespread knowledge of Hasan's contacts with al Qeda through Awlaki, or statements by Obama and Gates cautioning against calling it an act of terrorism.
• makes no mention of polls showing most believe it should be investigated as terrorism nor public statements by elected officials or commentators that it was an act of terrorism.
• the fact that so many federal officials have stated or refused to state the incident as terrorism when the mainstream press has pretty much laid out all of the obvious connections to Al Qeda appears to have biased this article in favor of the official "not terrorism" POV while downplaying or removing reliable mainstream news sources and notable opinions that have concluded that indeed, Awlaki at the minimum assisted in the radicalization of Hasan, approving if not ordering a military operation targeting US soldiers, and played a much larger role in the Flight 253 bombing. The policy of WP is to include ALL notable points of view, not enforce or remove any one point of view, wnich appears to be the case of edits in this article.

Many of these problems were addressed by the edits which were largely reverted for dubious justifications. Although most of the comments are that this is too much information to put into the lead, historically this lead has been reduced to stub, compared to other articles such as the one for Flight 253 which contains a largely complete summary of the incident, and do not appear to be the result of efforts to minimize mention of terrorist connections. This lead should contain a brief summary of important issues, such as statements of who stated it was or was not a terrorist incident, when, and notable theories of the intelligence and structural failures that led to the incident such as harassment, political correctness, insanity, PTSD, etc. Bachcell (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Evb-wiki (rvt - way too detailed for the summary lede - sufficently covered in text below

removed 

Hasan's religious and political beliefs were deeply influenced by Anwar al-Awlaki, whom he had first met nine years earlier at a mosque in in Washington, DC. . The imam was a spiritual adviser to some of the 9/11 hijackers, and later was identified as a al-Qaeda recruiter and motivator. Awlaki attained the rank of regional commander, and was believed by intelligence to have participated in an Al Queda gathering that was targeted by a US-aided attack in Yemen. Hasan had on a number of occasions expressed radical beliefs, complaining about anti-Muslim sentiment, and injected his politics into courses. Intelligence agencies intercepted e-mail correspondence seeking spiritual guidance on "rules about a Muslim soldier who serves in the American army and kills his fellow (soldiers)", and how to send large amount of money overseas without attracting attention. Shortly after the attack, Awlaki pronounced the action was a heroic attack on a military target as "Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan." Aulaqi denied recruiting Hasan, or ordering the attack on Fort Hood, suggesting that Hasan was motivated by his grievances against the US military, and that "America recruited him with its crimes and injustices". Awlaki is now believed to be a direct participant the Al Queda-sponsored recruiting, training and blessing of the bomber in the failed attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253.

Revision as of 17:53, 7 January 2010 (edit) Evb-wiki (talk | contribs) (rvt - way too detailed for the summary lede - sufficently covered in text below

Revision as of 17:55, 7 January 2010 (edit) (undo) Grsz11 (talk | contribs) (too much detail for lead, and confusing as to what its referring to) (Certainly a statement that the FBI, Army, Obama, and Secretary of Defence that it is not a terrorist incident in the face of a mountain of obvious connections to Al Qaida through Awalki are notable enough for the lead)

After the incident, President Obama cautioned about "jumping to conclusions", while Defense Secretary Robert Gates later refused to characterize the violence as a terrorist attack. stating “I'm just not going to go there.”

Revision as of 17:53, 7 January 2010 (edit) (undo) Grsz11 (talk | contribs) (too much detail for lead) (How is mention of opinion polls and statements by public officials "too much detail" as opposed to completely ommitted in previous version?)

Polls show that as many as 60 percent want the incident to be investigated as a terrorist attack, and many prominent public officials including senator Joe Lieberman have characterized it as a terrorist incident. Others believe the causes to be based on mental instability and PTSD.

evb-wiki 7 january rmv off-topic sentence (how can this be off topic when Ft Hood and Hasan has been mentioned in almost every report on flight 253??)

Awlaki has since been linked as a direct participant the Al Queda-sponsored recruiting, training and blessing of the bomber in the failed attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. After intelligence intercepts were forward to FBI terrorism task forces, they determined Hasan was not a threat prior to the shooting, dismissing discussions about attacking US soldiers were consistent with his research, and satisfied that large donations of $20,000-$30,000 sent overseas did not go to terrorist organizations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachcell (talk • contribs) 19:17, January 7, 2010

WP:TLDR to your comment. If the information isn't in the article, it most certainly should not be in the lead. A single comment (Lieberman), an insignificant poll are far too much detail for the lead. Grsz¹¹ 19:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Lieberman is hardly insignificant, he's taken the leading position that it is a terrorist incident, and there are many other less promiment Republicans as well, not to mention practically every talk show host from Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, Malkin etc who have all declared the attack to be terrorist. The federal agencies FBI, Army, DOD, Homeland Security and Obama adminstration appear to be the ONLY ones who continue to refuse to call it a terrorist incident. (Who else clings to this position? Even Awlaki himself called it a military operation to kill US troops on their way to "kill muslims". It is no longer credible to claim there is no evidence of a tie to Al Queda or an outside participant who helped radicalize Hasan given that we now know Awlaki was a direct participant in the Al Queda sponsored "underpants" bombing which _has_ been called a terrorist act by Obama. This makes the obviously erronous conclusions of the FBI and Army investigation even more notable. These reverts appear to merely be an effort to surpress the POV that Ft Hood was motivated by Jihadist beliefs and inspiriation if not direct orders from Awlaki which is certainly one of the more notable POVs that should be included as per NPOV. Must Wikipedia lag even the mainstream media in acknowledging the weight of evidence and mention in the press of Jihad? Bachcell (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly a major part of the story. Without remarking on specific language, I support working the concepts back in.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• It just suits the neocon agenda that this one is chalked up to terrorist action, continue to increase military and police power and erode civil liberties. No, he was just another one who flipped, like Cho Seung-Hui Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I like to call it the "OMFG! Terrorist!" crowd. We seem to be running into WP:UNDUE issues with those desiring to find some conspiracy that isn't there. Sure, he may have developed radical views, but that certainly doesn't mean this was a organized attack by numerous individuals, just a lone gunman. William and Bachcell seem to be trying to drag up issues with entirely too much weight. Grsz¹¹ 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring his motive? This was not just another person who flipped, this was a radical Islamist who killed innocent people for political reasons. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering he hasn't made a statement about his motive, how do you know what it is? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you not been following this case? Read the article, the motive is quite clear.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you and Bachcell making damn sure anything ever mentioned about this guy is there, ya no kidding, it's "clear". Grsz¹¹ 06:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Investigation details

I've filled in many of the details of the early evolution of the Hasan investigation, and the conclusion that he acted alone with no connections to terror organizations or terrorists. The picture that emerges that the official investigation appeared to take a very narrow view. very flawed view of the evidence, while the press dove into details about the suicide bomb posting, statements from Lieberman and the representative that it was terrorism, and the press had dug up links to Awlaki both before, and after it was revealed that the FBI had considered Hasan as harmless before. Yet they were still satisfied there was nothing to indicate any credible threat, no link to terrorist groups like Al Qeda, or terrorists like Awlaki. Since then the press has uncovered an avalanche of links between Alwaki and dozens of jihadist attacks and plots that contradict the still current operating assumption that Hasan acted alone and did not contact any known terrorists. These conclusions have not been revised since the revelation that Awlaki is a regional Al Qeda commander that planned, trained, and blessed the flight 253 bombing. The CIA bombing in Afghanistan caught homeland security by surprise by its use of a single attacker, but this was also the case with Hasan, and like Awlaki's statement, the bomber's wife similarly issued a statement clearly outlining the motive for the bombing. I would suggest a section that concentrates on notable criticisms of the investigation, and specific flaws such as the FBI not actually looking at the content of the e-mails, etc. Bachcell (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job on the additions. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Use caution to avoid WP:SYNTH. If A says he acted alone, and B says he talked to so-and-so, we can't say that A was wrong or, in your words, had a "narrow view". Overall, the investigation section looks acceptable. Again, all we have to worry about is not letting your opinion that the investigators approached the issue poorly result in SYNTH, but like I said, it seems alright now. Grsz¹¹ 06:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to clean up this section a bit. Most (leaning towards all) of the content remains the same, but I tried to make it easier to follow, and removed some redundancy (for example, mentioning he communicated with Awlaki more than once was redundant, I kept the one that appeared more prominently and where it was more appropriate, and had appeared first). I hope this is acceptable, and like I said, I don't believe I altered any content that was there and changed any meanings. I would encourage discussion of issues here, rather than just reverting. Grsz¹¹ 06:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for "notable sources" that say in so many words, the FBI erred in its assessment that the communications did not indicate Hasan was talking to a terrorist, or planning to shoot other soldiers. Remember, the NSA gave the FBI the original e-mails which clearly stated Hasan was asking about "spiritual guidance" about shooting fellow soldiers, which would indicate he was contemplating such an action, that he planned to meet Awlaki "in the afterlife" which would suggest he planned to be a martyr, and had a carefully coded conversation regarding how to send lots of money to Awlaki's friends without attracting attention. These were all evaluated, and evidently discounted by investigators.

On the basis of what we now know, somebody ought to be able to conclude that the FBI erred when they dismissed the suicide bombing post, they erred when they judged the conversations were merely because of research (a common defence in child porn cases, it was just research, I wasn't looking for pleasure), they erred in not looking at the actual contents of the messages, in waiting months to evaluate the case, and did not look at the latest messages when they did get around to it, or looking into his detailed files showing poor performance, or interviewed co-workers who complained about his talking about strapping on a bomb in Times Square, condoning the Little Rock shooting, or calling the War on Terror a war on Islam. Many of these problems were reported by NPR and others. WP should certainly report their conclusions, but also the substantial evidence that contradicts such a conclusion. It is disgraceful that the consensus appears to be that Fort Hood cannot even be called a "suspected" terrorist incident. Only Hasan is identified as a suspect, Awlaki is nowhere identified as a prime suspect as Al Queda operative who participated in the events at the very least providing "spiritual guidance" on the morality of the operation Hasan was contemplating, though this is heavily implied by what is already in the article. Certainly, if an Irishman had consulted a Catholic priest tied to terrorism who advocated and condoned the killing of British soldiers, one could not conclude he had acted without any terrorist links or influence.

It is certainly not difficult to conclude now that is is certainly now an error to continue to operate under the assumption that there is no evidence of to Al Qeda or any particular terrorist since the press was generating an entire web of links, especially since every story on the Northwest Flight 253 bombing now mentions that Awlaki is a Al Queda commander, and a terrorist, and Awlaki clearly links the two cases, although the bomber was trained on-site by Al Queda, who provided his weapon and transportion. It seems remarkable that no public official has yet declared that FBI and Army investigators proclaimed an obviously false statement merely to be consistent with previous errors which had cleared Hasan of terrorist links or motives. Officials warned not to "jump to conclusions", but they did quickly jump to an erronous conclusion that did not clearly identify either Al Qeda or Awlaki as a threat until well after the bombing attempt, at least publically. That intelligence believed Awlaki was killed in an attack on Al Queda may indicate that some other part of the government believed he was a threat. Indeed, the fact the the NSA monitored Awlaki indicates the NSA had put Awlaki on their threat list even as Awlaki does not appear on any of the FBI's wanted terrorist lists, and part of the government may have put him on a kill list, even though it doesn't appear that the US has even requested that Yemen produce him for questioning, whether or not they know where his is. Bachcell (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If some sources come out and say these things, then certainly it can be incorporated in such a manner like "So-and-so stated/wrote that they felt the investigation insufficiently investigated yada yada yada." Right now it would be original research or WP:SYNTH, thus inappropriate to include. Something may come up later, we'll just have to wait and see. Grsz¹¹ 15:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources today state that the investigation did not cover the Awlaki angle, as that is being covered separately. We already had sources in the article indicating the importance of the Awlaki angle as a "red flag".--Epeefleche (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Help? Lead in related article

Can someone with a good sense of proportion who worked on this lead perhaps take a look at and trim the lead at the related article at Northwest Flight 253? The lead here worked out, whatever our respective thoughts as to its content, to be the right size for the article, but the lead at the more recent event is too long (IMHO). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the one at Fort Hood is the one that got trimmed to a stub, the 253 one does an excellent job of bringing up all of the most important points, though it could do this in a shorter fashion. The Fort Hood lead (as mentioned before) omits just about everything important about this case, and anything that remotely hints at what really happened got removed very quickly. The MOST important point right now in the light of 253 is that the official "no evidence of a link to any terrorist" and "acted alone" conclusion looks utterly ridiculous because even Obama now admits that Awalki IS Al Qeda, and IS a terrorist, but most of this coverage happened in the context of the underpants bombing aftermath. Bachcell (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bachcell, your representation of what are the "MOST important points right now" is merely your POV. There is still no evidence that Hasan received either training, supplies, financing or instruction from Awalki. The evidence suggests he simply received encouragement (as in counsel, i.e., theological justification) and then praise after the fact. And any connection to Flight 253 is most likely to be that Hasan's actions inspired Al Queda's escalation of activity. That's my POV. As to the length of the lede, somewhere in between the two sizes would probably be right. The important thing is to use summary style, maintain balance and not give any detail (or set of facts) undue weight. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere between the two sizes sounds like something we can all agree on. Help in that direction on both would be appreciated.

BTW, news reports today make clear that the Defense Dept study avoided delving into the Awlaki-Ft. Hood issue, which is being covered elsewhere ("The Defense Department review is not intended to delve into allegations Hasan corresponded by e-mail with Yemen-based radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki before the attack. Those issues are part of a separate criminal investigation by law enforcement officials.").[21]

Whatever the level of Awlaki support, numerous in the intelligence community (e.g., Reidel/Allen) have pointed out that when a military officer is communicating privately w/an Al Qaeda figure connected to multiple terrorists that should be a red flag, which it appears not to have been in the Ft. Hood matter. That's a major part of this story.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pentagon report on Fort Hood is a travesty that doesn't even mention Islam

This article appears to be severely lacking in any mention of political correctness or criticism of the official position that Fort Hood had nothing to do with Islam, terrorism, or Anwar al-Awlaki or any part of AQ in Yemen. Perhaps it needs a separate "criticism of" section since any independent mention of criticism of the official POV is quickly reverted. It appears that outside of the Obama administration and DOD, the entire worldwide press (even in Iran) is pretty much convinced it was a radical jihad operation.

This from a telgraph blog http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamescorum/100023177/pentagon-report-on-fort-hood-is-a-travesty-that-doesnt-even-mention-islam/

Bachcell (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that we're all aware of your personal opinion on the matter, do you have concrete, legitimate suggestions addressing the article? Grsz¹¹ 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a few different opinions on the issue. Hope that helps. Grsz¹¹ 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Army Investigating Scott Moran and other Whistle Blowers

There is big side of the story that appears to be a massive CYA operation that is being covered in the press, but largely supressed in this article. The Army's official conclusion is still that Hasan acted alone without the help Al Queda or people like Anwar al-Awlaki who gave his spirtual blessing, or Duane Reasoner who the Jewish Defence.org believes probably steered Hassan to Awlaki's YouTube lectures http://jewishdefense.org/reasoner.pdf Even a senior white house official anonymously told Fox News he believed it was an "act of terrorism" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/15/time-obama-official-calls-fort-hood-massacre-act-terrorism/

From NPR: Army Doctors May Face Discipline For Fort Hood by Daniel Zwerdling

 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122778372 

only one supervisor, Maj. Scott Moran, actively tried to kick Hasan out of the psychiatry program. Now sources involved in the investigation say Moran is one of the officers who is in big trouble.... "They're attacking the wrong target," says Gary Myers, a lawyer who is representing Col. Charles Engel, another psychiatrist whom Myers says is under investigation.

There is a massive pattern of the government being largely successful in officially downplaying any connection between Fort Hood and Al Queda including the president, the Department of Defence, the Army, Homeland Security, and the FBI even as the mainstream press has pretty much contradicted these conclusions by laying out the of Awlaki and Al Queda in Yemen for Fort Hood. Perhaps a criticism section would be the best way to cover the huge disconnect between these official reports compared to the press and opinions which have pretty much concluded that Fort Hood was just another terrorism operation managed from Yemen. Bachcell (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Back-door editing

Given Bachcell's attempt to back-door Terrorism categories into the article, I think we may need to discuss this again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it time to get rid of this now, since the "underwear bombing" the US government has evidently placed or is thinking of placing Hasan's spiritual advisor on the question of shooting US troops, Anwar al-Awlaki on a kill list? Even white house staff are anonymously calling it a terrorist incident. Is there anybody who seriously believes it should not be categorized as at least an alleged incident given that nearly the entire RS press is acknowledging this? It should not require an official FBI determination since they appear to be among the only organizations with this "not a terrorist link" position. Bachcell (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT add categories relating to terrorism. We may know more at a future time, but as for now, it is inappropriate to make these sort of assertions. See WP:RS and WP:V.

So, you want to brand this as terrorism based on anonymous accounts, and your belief that the government is maybe, possibly, perhaps going to put al-Awlaki on a kill list? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think that's a pretty fair description of much of his work here. I've removed it again. Grsz¹¹ 14:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus for the categories. This has already been discussed and it has already been shown that the categories are supported by reliable sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking the archives, following extensive discussion, consensus would appear to be against having the terrorism categories. _wjemather^bigissue 18:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are conveniently ignoring the RS's. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are conveniently ignoring that you have yet to establish a consensus. Present the RS's, and let a discussion happen. See if you can change people's minds that way, instead of Bachcell's attempts to just shove it in there without discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeating what was said in a prior discussion on the subject, you are also cherry-picking sources to suit your personal POV, while giving scant regard to those that state that this was not a terrorist act. _wjemather^bigissue 19:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources have already been brought up, and most are already in the article. These include numerous U.S. Senators, the former U.S. Attorney General, terrorism experts, military leaders, what more do you want? To say it is not a terrorist act is a fringe view, I cannot think of anyone notable that has made such a comment. Please enlighten me. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not going to hold your two's hands anymore. Present a conscise argument based on those reliable sources, and see what the rest of us think. I'm not going to dig through the article to try and figure out what you want us to believe. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So then you're just too lazy to read the article. I'd like to discuss with a serious editor that's not too lazy to read the wikipedia article we are trying to discuss. I'd also like an editor to use RS's to dispute my claim that "To say it is not a terrorist act is a fringe view." Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm You just refuse to get it. The onus is on you to provide the information. If you don't want to seek consensus, fine. You won't have consensus if you don't bother trying. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're not going to read the article then don't comment. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read the article, but I can't read your mind. Given your attitude, I doubt I'd want to anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

US senators are not reliable sources for this. All they are doing is offering their view - which may or may not be partisan depending on what their opinion is. A reliable source for terrorism cannot be based on subjective opinion. This has been gone over many times - what's changed for you to be pushing this once again? Just get a RS saying it was terrorism and share it with eveyone here. Remember, verifiability, not truth is what matters. Leaky Caldron 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made my point quite clear. The only reason to remove the category would be because of fringe views unless it is not a fringe view that the act was not terrorism, which has not been brought up. Is this your position? U.S. Senators are not the only reliable sources mentioned in the article. Please read it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since the last discussion in that any potential link to terrorism remains speculation (no matter who has said it) based on vague reports of correspondence with al-Awlaki. _wjemather^bigissue 20:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Those reports are fact. If you can't dispute my claim then you must restore the category. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No evidence has been found to verify the various claims by people who's opinions are already well represented in the article. There is more than enough of the speculation within the article to balance the "was it"/"wasn't it" debate, but a category by definition requires a fact. A confession, terrorist charges or other substantive PROOF is required to add the Category. Leaky Caldron 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no actual solid evidence available to attest as to the contents of any correspondence. All the sources and quotes you are pinning your argument on are purely speculation and opinion and are cited as such. They should not be misrepresented as fact. _wjemather^bigissue 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a legal definition. Proof has been provided by the former U.S. Attorney General and numerous lawmakers. Any opinion that it is not, is a fringe theory. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't and as a very experienced editor you should know the difference between a FACT and an OPINION. A former U.S. AG has no more specific, unequivocal evidence than anyone else. He is uninvolved in the criminal investigation and is basicaly offering his VIEW on the matter. As said, all these views are included in the article. Until something else emerges from the justice dept. the status quo is appropriate. The evidence and current consensus does not support your view. Leaky Caldron 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no distinction on wikipedia between fact and opinion because nothing can be certain. That's why fringe views are not supposed to be given undue weight. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If anything this article gives undue weight to those claiming it as a terrorist act. You are clearly blinded by your own POV, so further engagement with you on this seems certain to lead to more frustration and would be pointless. _wjemather^bigissue 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I might be wrong. Prove me wrong. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And I find labelling the official position of law enforcement authorities, government agencies and the President as a fringe theory really quite bizarre. _wjemather^bigissue 23:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the official position? Does it deny terrorism? Please provide a source. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the sources, they have not called it an act of terrorism – a position which you have labelled a fringe theory. To pre-empt your next comment, show me a source that says they have. _wjemather^bigissue 23:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Senior Administration Official – Fort Hood Shootings Were “An Act of Terrorism”. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read anything past the headline? _wjemather^bigissue 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) “It certainly in my mind was an act of terrorism as far as the tactic that was used there.” The senior administration official later seemed to walk back from that strong language, calling the shootings “a terrorizing event” and the tactic used “a terrorist tactic.” Unattributed and partly back-tracked is hardly conclusive proof of the official position is it? Depends what your interpretation of "terrorism" is. Leaky Caldron 00:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are comments from the reporter. It's pretty clear what he said. To say it is NOT terrorism is a fringe view. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

@WSS: You are entitled to your view and interpretation of facts but what I have inserted above in quotes are the "quotes" of the "Senior Administration Official" in the blog source you provided. They are not what the reporter said at all and I would be grateful that you do not persist in suggesting that I am misrepresenting what has been officially quoted. Read the source for yourself and you can see who said what - it's your source - not mine. Leaky Caldron 12:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 03:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The FBI is certainly not a reliable source. It is well documented that they dismissed every red flag. Even after the shooting, and re-reviewing conversations with Awlaki, who nobody have problem classifying as a terorrist, they have not changed their conclusion that Hasan had no connection to terrorists (like awlaki) or terrorist organizations (like Al Queda of the Arabian Pensinsula). Does that fact that Awlaki himself and his father deny that he is a terrorist associated with Al Queda mean that WP can't print that everybody else thinks he is a terrorist? There is not a consensus when there is substantial disagreements as in "consensus over global warming" or "consensus over health care". All consensus means that one side can overpower the other side. If the FBI states that Hasan did not contact terrorists, but also contacted Awlaki, if it can be established that Awlaki was working with Al Queda at the time, then the FBI is in error. If the president, Homeland security, and the Army base their conclusion of non-terrorism on the FBI conclusion, then any statement that this is not a terrorist incident is also demonstrably in error. It is not up to WP to determine which is correct, so a terrorism category can be applied to non-proven cases, especially when it is extensively documented that it was certainly investigated by the JTTF terrorism task forces, which makes it of interest to terrorism categories even if it was a false positive. Given what we now know about Awlaki, it is nearly impossible to conclude that the FBI is not in error. 04:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've not joined the fun until now. Without yet expressing a view, I offer a few observations. All are IMHO. If seen as valid, they may help frame the discussion further, and avoid some of the red herring tangents.

1. To put him in the cat, and to say blanketly in the text "he is a terrorist", are two different things. The requirements to be in the cat are, by its terms, less stringent. With much of the conversation above, it's unclear which issue people have in mind when they are typing.
2. The term will always be subjective. Indicia may include an assertion by a person that x is a terrorist, an assertion by a government, an assertion by a terrorism expert, an assertion by the person himself, an assertion by a person who claims to be a handler, a conviction in a court of law. All are subjective. And we do not require that the person be charged as a terrorist, or be convicted as a terrorist, to be deemed a terrorist--that much at least is clear.
3. Whatever it is that we require as indicia that the person is in fact a terrorist, that indicia will appear in an RS. That the indicia appeared in an RS is what must be verifiable -- not the fact that the person is indeed a terrorist.
4. A terrorist is one who commits, or seeks to commit, an act of terrorism, or is a member of a terrorist organization. Wordgames shouldn't be allowed to obfuscate that.
5. A government may choose not to charge someone as a terrorist for reasons other than whether the person is a terrorist. This is just one of a number of reasons why "charged as a terrorist" would not be an appropriate criterion.
6. Common definitions of terrorism refer to violent (typically unlawful) acts which are intended to create fear, are perpetrated for an ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of civilians. Clearly, determination as to the "intent" is often made by the circumstances. #The reports of correspondence with al-Awlaki are not "vague," as mis-characterized above. As even a quick reading of the article will make evident to even the most hurried reader.
7. It has now been confirmed that al-Awlaki has been put on now on a targeting list signed off on by the Obama administration,[22] so Bach was prescient on that point (while two days ahead of the public RS announcement).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also been silent. At this point, I think concluding that this was a "terrorist" act is clearly WP:SYNTH. Al-Awlaki's connection to this event has really been exagerated. There is still no evidence that Hasan received either training, supplies, financing or specific instruction from Awalki. The evidence suggests that Hasan simply received encouragement (as in counsel, i.e., theological justification) from Awlaki and then praise after the fact. And any connection to attributed to Flight 253 is most likely to be that Hasan's actions inspired Al Queda's escalation of activity. I've not seen a single official source that says that this was terrorism. It is after all (for these purposes) the U.S. government that has defined (and redefined) the term. I mean, is all treason terrorism, or just treason committed by Muslims? --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Then apparently you ignored the link I provided above. Also, it is spelled al-Qaeda. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you're ignoring what it actually said:

"Asked if the shootings were a 'terrorist attack,' this official (who was briefing on background) told reporters on a conference call: 'It certainly in my mind [i.e., his personal opinion] was an act of terrorism as far as the tactic that was used there.'

The senior administration official later seemed to walk back from that strong language, calling the shootings 'a terrorizing event' and the tactic used 'a terrorist tactic.'"

(emphases added) --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion -- that's what I was referring to in part in my # 4 above. First, "in my mind" means in the mind of the official, it doesn't mean to me in his unofficial mind. Second, while the reporter does use the confusing "seemed to walk back" lanaguage, making it a bit murky, the official's language doesn't seem to "unterrorize" the event at all -- terrorists are those who commit terrorizing events, using terrorist tactics.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny that he bolds what the reporter states. The reporter didn't make the statement. The official was quite clear that it was "terrorist" in nature. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with quoting the conclusions or opinions of anyone if they have been published in reliable sources (provided they are relevant and not taken out of context), but taking what has appeared in reports and then drawing presenting your own conclusions based on what (is believed) constitutes terrorism is the very definition of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. _wjemather^bigissue 08:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? It's becoming hard to assume good faith when someone definitively states that something is "an act of terrorism," a "terrorizing event" and a "terrorist tactic," and then a user proclaims that he is not saying what he said and that to say otherwise is original research. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As stated, if it is presented as the quoted opinion or conclusion of a given individual, not taken out of context, and appropriately sourced, then there is nothing wrong. Politically and semantically, there is a clear difference between the phrases you list and directly calling someone a terrorist. _wjemather^bigissue 09:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

William: which of these definitions would you prefer to rely on Definition_of_terrorism#United_States? Leaky Caldron 09:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (terrorism cat discussion cont'd)

• Conversations w/al-Awlaki; Factors that support officials statement that act was terrorism -- Some more observations, since what the article reflects hasn't always been accurately reflected above. The reports of correspondence with al-Awlaki are not "vague," as mis-characterized above. As even a quick reading of the article will make evident, to even the most hurried reader. Intelligence agencies intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki between December 2008 and June 2009.[23] In one of the emails, Hasan wrote al-Awlaki: "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife." "It sounds like code words," said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. "That he's actually either offering himself up, or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind." Hasan also asked al-Awlaki when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.[24] Charles Allen, former US Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, said: "I find it difficult to understand why an Army major would be in repeated contact with an Islamic extremist like Anwar al-Awlaki." A fellow Muslim officer at Fort Hood said Hasan's eyes "lit up" when gushing about al-Awlaki's teachings.[25] Some investigators believe that Hasan's contacts with al-Awlaki are what pushed him toward violence.[26] Al-Awlaki said Hasan arrived at his own conclusions regarding the acceptability of violence in Islam. Hasan's business card contains the acronyms SoA(SWT).[27][28][29] According to investigators, the acronym "SoA" is commonly used on jihadist websites as an acronym for "Soldier of Allah" or "Servant of Allah".[30] The cards neglected to mention his military rank. A review of Hasan's computer and his multiple e-mail accounts revealed visits to websites espousing radical Islamist ideas, a senior law enforcement official said.[31] In the shooting, Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" [32][33]. Given all that, I can understand why the official said the shooting were certainly a terrorist attack in his mind, that they were a terrorizing event, and the tactic used was a terrorist tactic.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Same question as above, which of these definitions clearly makes this incident a terrorist attack, Definition_of_terrorism#United_States? Leaky Caldron 10:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If not for the hour, I would happily parse them. Don't have the time right now, I'm afraid. So will just make the point that we are not trying him in a court of law; we have an official in an RS saying that in his view it was an act of terrorism, and that is verifiable. All of the other discussion in my entry above consisted of indicia that were consistent with the conclusion reached by that official. But it is his conclusion that I would look to. Also, for the cat, it is not necessary that he be a terror--Epeefleche (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)ist to be included in the terrorism cat. The standard is looser there then for stating in the article "x is a terrorist." It need only relate to terrorism.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As clarified earier, my use of the word vague refered to the contents of the correspondance, not whether it had actually occurred. I did not mis-characterise anything, what I wrote originally was simply (and evidently) not clear enough. You are cherry picking the sources, quoting out of context, and presenting your conclusion. That is original research. _wjemather^bigissue 10:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Even in my short paragraph above you can see evidence of some of what is in the emails, and experts views on it and the fact that Hasan is in touch with an Islamist such as al-Awlaki. I put them in the paragraph because you seemed not to see them in the article; do I have to repeat them? As far as cherry-picking is concerned, it must be cherry season -- the above has 11 citations, there were perhaps nearly as many that I left out, and of course we could gather many more that support the same propositions. These aren't quotes out of context -- what was the context? They were all from articles and parts of articles either discussing what happened, what analysts thought, or what his intent may have been. As far as original research is concerned, I'm not sure what you mean. These are a bevy of RSs. I'm not synthesizing anything -- I'm just saying that the conclusion of the official that in his mind this was terrorism seems understandable when you look at all the indicia. That's just a between-us aside, though. What we hang our hat on is his statement, which IMHO is completely without ambiguity as to his view. --Epeefleche (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

DHS head calls it terrorism and here we go again

Is this sufficient to add the cat? She is responsible for defining such stuff in the GOV.Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC) http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/24/ft-hood-attack-publicly-called-terrorism/

I'm always wary when someone uses an ellipses in a quote. It's way too easy to manipulate things that way. And so far, all the sources I've been able to find either use that edited version of her statement, or just don't quote her at all. I'd like to see the statement in context, before moving forward on that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• My 2 cents, for what they're worth: Wikipedia has to have objective criteria for such things, in line with the encyclopedia's neutral point of view philosophy. Our current criteria are that it is sufficient for the incidents to have been alleged to be terrorist in nature in reliable sources. US Senators, Congressmen, and various current and former government officials, as well as other authorities of note, have opined that this act was a terrorist one. That must suffice for inclusion under the current criteria. We cannot be in the position of picking sides as to which authorities are more or less "correct" on hot-button political issues. If somebody wants to change the inclusion criteria altogether, we can discuss that at the relevant page, but the new criteria must also be objective and defensible under WP:NPOV. Ray^Talk 02:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree w/Ray. As to Hand's point, where material comes from an RS, we assume good editing practices ... that in the use of ellipses the reliable source is in fact reliable.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not sure to what criteria Ray is referring, but it seems like the height of naivety to suggest politicians of all people are reliable sources (indeed, I thought at first Ray was making a joke). Statements by politicians and senior officials should be treated like op-eds - reliable as to the opinion of the person making the claim (at least on that day!). As Secretary of Homeland Security, Nepolitano clearly has an incentive to drum up the threat of terrorism - particularly while in a meeting regarding the DHS budget! While I personally think the shooting was an act of terrorism, we need a consensus of actually reliable sources saying so before we pick a side. If you think about it, precisely as long as the word is being analyzed and debated (among reliable sources) we should refrain from forcing one view on the reader. Rather, we should explain why there is controversy and what the various parties think, and allow readers to make up their own minds. Fletcher (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, until trial, years after an event and arrest, most everyone who is in the know (which would be terrorists, intelligence agencies, and those they inform) has a POV which could, if they are not honest, inform what they say. But (leaving the terrorists themselves out of it) those with the most information with regard to the facts will be intelligence agencies, politicians (and organs, such as the U.N.), and prosecutors--and those they inform. I believe that Hoekstra was the first to break the news, for example, of Al-Awlaki's involvement with the Christmas Day Bomber.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If possessing information makes one a reliable source, why wouldn't you ask the terrorists themselves? The reason you don't is that they have an incentive to spin the facts - but so do politicians and many other government officials. We should always look to see how such statements are reported in reliable sources, and the more a statement is a matter of opinion rather than fact, the more it relies on judgment and values rather than objective information, the more we should look to other sources. Fletcher (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO, there are decently objective definitions of terrorism, but those are not the current criteria here. The criteria for inclusion in the category or the list of terrorist incidents are simply that the statement has been labelled as terrorism in some reliable source, and was perpetrated by a non-state actor. Those criteria are not ambiguous, and cannot be considered prejudiced. If you don't want to use those criteria, we must have a rational alternative. Simply shooting things down on a case-by-case basis is a recipe for introducing political prejudice into our category/list structure. Ray^Talk 16:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The article listed above does not label the shooting a terrorist act, but discusses the use of the word by Nepolitano and other government officials. Indeed, this very article makes clear the use of the word remains somewhat divided along partisan lines, which is why, according to the article, it is notable that Nepolitano was willing to use it. In my view we would want several strong sources noting it as terrorism, not one source noting the word is still controversial. Fletcher (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

contradictroy sources on Kimberly Munley

source#3 and 19 of the article are contradictory as one says kimberly missed hasan, and the other says she took him down. i want a straight story.

Wikidrift (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV audit of 8 April

Upon reviewing the article today, I notice that a number of NPOV issues had been introduced into the article, I also noticed a number of overlinkages and redundancies which I have now cleaned up. That is not to say, however, that the article is now fully NPOV.

Among the changes are the resizing of two portraits: The default (220 px) is meant to apply to landscape images, and the correct corresponding image size for vertically orientated images is closer to 175px. To display them any larger would give them greater prominence - given the potential NPOV minefield of the subject matter, I feel the Awaki image of default size would give rise to undue prominence.

Jane Harman's comment about Awlaki being "#1 terrorist" is a jingoistic soundbyte which has no substantive value except to be picked up by the media and I feel is also unencyclopaedic. Also, as it applies specifically to Awlaki, it is of only peripheral interest to the article.

Using this source to say "It is believed that al-Awlaki either inspired or instructed Hasan to commit the Fort Hood shooting" to me, rings alarm bells, as it has definite WP:A problems. The source article itself uses the weasely formulation which was merely copied as a supporting viewpoint. Such sloppy journalism should NEVER be cited, in my view, as it easily misleads. It doesn't belong in the body of the text, and even less so in the lead. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Images. Though it can be varied in user preferences (for users who do not like the wikipedia guidelines), the default thumbnail width is 220 pixels. While an image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, there are standards for varying from the default -- but those are for: a) lead images, b) images where detail is relatively unimportant (for example, a national flag), c) images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual, and d) images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image (arguably, for example, the al-Awlaki image, where his face is the most relevant part). I don't see a reason for varying from the default expressed which falls into any of these categories. I think that varying from the default without an appropriate reason is a an NPOV issue--while no doubt it was not Oh's reason, clearly a pro-Awlaki editor would wish to make his picture smaller than the default. Being on guard for POV issues means toeing the line with wikipedia guidelines with special scrupulousness where POV issues abound, in my opinion, and for the aforesaid reasons I would stick with the default thumb size.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is a mix of landscape and portrait images in the article which makes problematic the systematic defaulting of all images sizes to 220px. Setting the short edge at 220px effectively renders portraits 33% wider on a single axis - just measure out the linear length of a horizontal and a vertical image, and you will see what I mean. In terms of area, the portrait image would be 75% larger than its corresponding landscape counterpart. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Harman quote. I'm not sure I agree with the deletion of the quote of Representative Harman, the Chairwoman of the United States House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment that Al-Awlaki is the # 1 terrorist in terms of threat to the U.S. First, she is an unusually good position to have information with regard to him that the general public does not have. Second, she clearly calls him a terrorist -- an issue of note, given his interactions with Hasan. Third, a simple google search will show that all manner of RSs quote her saying that. Our job is to report that which is relevant that RSs report. With all due respect to Oh, its not IMHO his position to say "well, this sounds jingoistic in tone to me, so (my words: even though every RS in the English speaking countries has reported it), I'll delete it". That is IMHO just the sort of POV editing that we have to guard against.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that she didn't say what was cited here, but I just have an issue with the use of such a jingoistic quote. I'm sure she said a bunch of other stuff which can send the same message but in an encyclopaedic fashion. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• She is Chair of the Terrorism Risk Assessment Committee in the House. If she says he is terrorist number 1 in terms of threat, that seems notable to me. Just as of the FBI were to say he were one of their top-10, that would likewise be notable. Just as when Homeland Security says color orange, or red, that would be notable -- even if we think colors are silly, or jingoistic. I don't see any of those as deserving of deletion--they would be among the most notable statements from those with access to terrorism risk information that we could hope for. Perhaps you are saying that if she had said "he is the terrorist I think poses the greatest risk" that would be ok, but her saying "He is probably terrorist # 1 in terms of threat against us" is not OK to reflect, and we have to delete it ... but IMHO that's a POV call, that leads to deletion of clearly relevant RS information that belongs in the article. Non POV doesn't mean she can't have a POV, of course, but just that relevant RS information should not be deleted (or included) because of the POV of the editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't arguing about the notability of that aspect, but that it seemed unencyclopaedically jingoistic for an ordinary politician. Her position does, however, change things wrt the quote. Her post is not at all particularly prominent in the article, nor her own biography, so that should be remedied. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• ABC News deletion. The deletion of the ABC News ref and corresponding text as to the highly relevant issue of whether Awlaki inspired and/or instructed Hasan is unfortunately a third area that I see differently than my esteemed colleague. It is clearly relevant -- highly so. It is clearly an RS -- that is not challenged. Oh deleted it, however. The reason given, is his estimation that it is sloppy journalism. I'm not sure how he could know that, without independent research. I thought the rules were clear that where an RS reports a matter that is highly relevant, we reflect it. Again, deletion smacks of POV, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's not as if the piece was an editorial, or academic research where it can be attributed to the author. My problem with that passage, as I said, is the total lack of attribution of the statement. There is nothing within that source article which says where that assertion came from; as it's a news piece, such lack of attribution makes it an opinion of the piece itself, and is undoubtedly sloppy. I do not subscribe to the view that just because something is cited to a RS, it is automatically NPOV. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I had understood the relevant wp guideline as being "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I don't believe you are challenging that ABC News meets that. I'm not aware, that once you have an RS reporting a fact, it need indicate to the reader its source -- or else it is to be deleted. That seems to me too easy a cover for POV deletions, not supported by wp policy (at least any such policy of which I am aware).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, I'm not contesting ABC News being a RS or not; even reliable sources have their lapses. Were it a fact, I would have no issue. It is not; only an opinion, sourced but an unattributed one at that. That's why it fails, absolutely. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Foreing Policy source

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/22/the_lwot_nsa_under_fire_gitmo_gears_up_for_khadr_hearings It has report on Fort Hood half way down the page; Probably already in here with another source. But i like posting Sources for people to use. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Duane Reasoner's role in Fort Hood Shooting

The following edit RS-sourced edit was removed over objections that it was a coatrack and synthesis, and before that over the unjustified objections that it was not connected to the shooting, despite that all of the coverage of him is in fact in connection with Hasan and the shooting . Is there any objection to any suitably edited mention of Duane Reasoner in the article? Reasoner was certainly a ji-hobbyist, and there is no evidence that his views were any different from that of Hasan, so any evidence of Reasoner's views would reinforce the theory that Hasan also advocated Jihadist violence and was likely to act on that advocacy. I would appreciate any specific criticisms, or suggestions as to a more appropriate place to put these edits, or objections to creating an article on Reasoner himself as there is enough source material for this person himself if inclusion here would be a coatrack? Bachcell (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The NEFA Foundation highlighted that one of Hasan's few close associates was Duane Reasoner Jr an 18-year-old Muslim convert who evidently shared and discussed many political views, attended the same mosque and had frequently dined with Hasan. He had characterized himself with tags as "extremist, fundamentalist, mujhadeen, Muslim." After the shooting, he told a British reporter that he felt "no pity" for the victims of the Fort Hood massacre. The Reasoner avoided reporters by driving onto the Fort Hood Army base with his security pass, which evidently he retained despite his public reluctance to condemn the killing of soldiers being sent to kill Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the previous two years on Reasoner had chosen favorites on his YouTube account 14 different videos by Anwar al-Awlaki as well as those featuring Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, the "blind sheikh" now in prison for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and Adam Gadahn. He had and posted a picture of the U.S. Capitol in ruins, Osama Bin Laden's head above a White House in flames captioned "Osama caliphate", and the White House flying an Islamic flag captioned "Nation under Islamic Law."

A terrorism expert opined that Reasoner was a "jihad hobbyist" often who radicalize themselves by ingesting hardcore jihadist Web content. Such "Ji-hobbyists" rarely become operational but are widely celebrated when they do. Adam Gadahn is an example of a American convert indicted on treason charges for his role as media advisor to al-Qaeda.

Although there is no evidence Reasoner had ever discussed the topic of attacking soldiers as Hasan had consulted with Awlaki, just 3 months before the shooting, Duane's known YouTube handle responded to a video by the Al Queda-aligned IslamicRevolution TV "do you have any vids on martyrdom operations or the ruling on them." Reasoner was often invited by Hasan to eat dinner together after prayer services, although it is not known what they discussed. Reasoner's whereabouts are not currently known.

The very source you are citing has many things that call into question even mentioning it here; it discusses what Reasoner did that was not shooting related, what Reasoner said after the shooting, and what a terrorism expert opined about Reasoner that was not shooting related. Also, straight from your source: "Although there is no evidence Reasoner had ever discussed the topic of attacking soldiers..." and "...although it is not known what they discussed." Duane Reasoner doesn't appear, based on the sources you cite, to have had any role in the shooting other than you synthesizing that he did. Making "favorites" on YouTube is not the same as a source saying that he had an actual role based on evidence. Wiki's policy is verifiability, and there is not much that is verifiable other than Hasan (the one who has been charged) and Reasoner knew each other, and thus far there is no evidence that Reasoner had anything to do with the actual shooting. Atlantabravz (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And to clarify, my most recent article edit summary should have read that it doesn't belong in an article about the shooting instead of "Hasan's BLP". I have noticed that you are dead set on adding this Reasoner person to each article that mentions anything about the shooting and I got my edit summaries mixed up. Regardless, I stand by the above discussion point that better summarizes my position. Atlantabravz (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that mention of it belongs, and that editors work collaboratively to determine the content and length of that mention.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bachcell is infamous in using WP:OR to support his WP:POV. If I spoke with John Lennon once, that doesn't mean I can play guitar. Grsz¹¹ 01:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Version at [34] Grsz¹¹ seems substantial to me. It is based on fact (what Reasoner actually said). Although if he is notable enough to quote in the first place is another issue. Grsz¹¹ 01:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the POV pushing

This event has been established as a terrorist incident. Please stop pushing the POV that it is not. Such a view is a factual inaccuracy.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummm ... I have no idea what the context is for your comment. We already reflect that in the article, don't we?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the recent activities of OHConfused, who ironically claims to be against political censorship.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Looking at the article, I see a number of references reflecting government official recognition of the act as one of terrorism, as well as recognition by others, though it is true (in Oh's defence) that the government officials were slow to reflect it as an act of terrorism at the outset. I think on re-reading the article editors will see what I see. If not, I can certainly try to help by providing the specific references if that would be of assistance. Doesn't seem like something we should be edit warring over.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not the only case of removing descriptions of terrorism and replacing with spree shooting. Only a few parties maintain that the shooting was NOT related to terrorism: Bachcell (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC) : Revision as of 17:34, 8 November 2010 (edit)Dr. B. R. Lang (talk | contribs)(changed massacre type from 'spree shooting" to "Islamic terrorism")← Previous edit Revision as of 18:50, 8 November 2010 (edit) (undo)Wjemather (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 395575370 by Dr. B. R. Lang (talk)per endless talk page discussion)Next edit → - | type = Islamic terrorism + | type = Spree shooting

• Whilst elsewhere, someone has shown me this article, which would indicate that I was incorrect in my revert based on an out of date article. Someone should update it properly, rather than simply try and tag an article without underlying justification in the article. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds logical. Good result all-around. Everybody happy, I assume. Best to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Happier. A retraction of that personal attack would be nice, but I might be barking. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, let me smooth things over from my end at least by saying that I understand the misunderstanding on all sides acutely, and apologize if I offended anyone (though I don't think I did ... here ... in the last few minutes).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If we're now classifying this as an act of terrorism the first paragraph could do with re-writing to reflect such. Reference 8 is also rather confusing, I can't see how that upholds the views of the sentence it's attached to in any way. Reluctant to make the change without being confident, and especially in light of these discussions! --Twirrim (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that there was no such mention in the article was the principal reason why I took issue with the initial tagging. The cart was put a long way before the horse, and definitely needs to be rectified. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This article needs serious work. As someone involved in researching Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism, it appears to me that the editors do not grasp accepted definitions of the term. This was an act of terrorism. The vast majority of experts agree on that, and whether or not the US Government classifies it as such, makes not a lick of difference. Beyond that, one does not need to be part of a broader movement or connected to other terrorists to be a terrorist (as the opening of the article implies). Lone Wolves are a well known type of terrorist, as is the leaderless resistance concept. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There are cites in the article both for and against. The IP comment way back on the day after the shooting which said

Terrorism is a broad term, and people seem to be selecting narrow definitions to demonstrate that he was or was not a terrorist. The issue here is motivation and intent. Terrorism is the use of or threat of violence against symbolic or innocent targets to sway public opinion or intimidate governments into a course of action. As more information comes out it seems like we may want to classify him as a lone terrorist. He clearly wasn't part of a network or connected directly to the Jihad movement. But he did have sympathies with global jihadists, felt that Muslims should rise up against western occupiers, and clearly he was trying to make a statement by killing US soldiers on their own base (highly symbolic targets) because he objected to the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

seems as pertinent today as a year ago. Without intent we are guessing - and regardless we really should be able to provide consistent authoritative citations (i.e. from terrorism experts, not politicians or mass media) before we characterise this as terrorism ourselves. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

We aren't just guessing. He screamed allahu akbar as he fired, and for months leading up to the attack, he was expressing sympathy for terrorism and expressing extreme views. Also a number of notable terrorist experts like Bruce Hoffman have labeled him a terrorist. I think he is a lone terrorist, but he is also a good example of leaderless resistence. Where he is someone who sympathized with and was likely radicalized by propoganda from groups like Al qaeda, and he acted in an almost sponteneous way in response. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Since when does religious motivation imply terrorism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.58.225 (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

this is stupid of course this was a terrorist attack why are politcs clouding facts here... AGAIN. 68.82.143.169 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Finch

I have no sympathy for the dirty terrorist & Muslims, but the fact of the matter is that this was a Military target just like the USS Cole bombing. An act of terrorism is a cowardly type move made to kill innocents for the purpose inspiring change out of fear, thus another cowardly move will be made by the public and meet there demands. Any intelligent terrorist will realize that any acts of terrorism against the United States will only be met with the strengthening of our resolve to eliminate them. So they must gain the support of all the Arab & Muslims nations of the world on there side if they are to have a chance to defeat Israel. They have also realized that the only way to gain support would be to vilify Muslims within the United States so that they are jailed and persecuted on the sole purpose of there faith of Islam, just like what happened to the Asians during WW2 in the United States. So now the terrorist only chance of survival now is to VILIFY there own people and FAITH of Islam to a point that would allow violent acts against Muslims & Arabs to be tolerated. This would most definitely put the entire Arab and Muslim world on the defensive. This is why he refuses to shave his beard, to take the stand and act the fool in the media's eye & public in the hopes that acts of violence against Muslims accrue in the United States, people don't realize this, but he still has the power to cause much more damage acting the fool, and even more damage executed as a martyr. This is what must be done, he should be forcefully clean shaved to Military standards, and then have American Made Chicken & Dumpling's and Apple Pie shoved down his throat for REHABILITATION purposes. He should then stand trial and get LIFE in prison, thus spending the rest of his life pisssing and poooping in a diaper that he must try to change himself. To help the United States fight the war on Terror, the media must show him arriving at his trial in the wheel chair clean shaved, with lipstick, blush, and barrettes in his hair, this will strike fear into the hearts of all terrorists around the world, not Muslims. This was not an act of terrorism due to its military target, but his true target was the Arabs and Muslims of the United States, so it is then very clear, THIS IS A CLEAR ACT OF TERRORISM. User:Rct._Tsoul 17:24 18th August 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Veterans Group

The Veterans Group section of the article appears to be completely irrelevant. The group's letter, (which is unavailable at the link provided) has nothing to do with the case. Hasen was providing mental health care not receiving it nor had he ever been deployed much less multiple time.

If we want to included Veterans groups in the section here are link to the two largest groups in the US.

American Legion: http://www.legion.org/troops/3417/legion-responds-fort-hood-tragedy

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW): http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/VFW-Grieves-Over-Fort-Hood-Tragedy/

JustinRJoneZ (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Those definitely should be added, they would add balance to the section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In trying to be bold I've removed the previous statement it add no encyclopedic value to the article. I've added the statements from press releases for the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. I believe that as both are short and were intended for public release their inclusion is fair use. If a more experienced editor needs to make changes, please do.JustinRJoneZ (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Listing the victims' names

Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, we don't include lists of "victims" who are otherwise non-notable on Wikipedia. Unless there are very strong reasons to include these, they will be removed again. --John (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. wp:NLIST also requires a standalone notability for each individual and we don't have such in this case.TMCk (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The content is verified using reliable sources. The subject of the list is notable, that is victims of the Fort Hood shooting, are notable and has been covered by multiple reliable sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, CNN, USA Today, and others. If one believes that there shouldn't be a list, and the section regarding the victims be done in prose form, that is a compromise I would be willing to support.

I oppose the wholesale removal of the content that was reverted boldly, in this edit.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I support keeping the list, but it could probably use some changes. Either way, the articles at Columbine High School massacre and Virginia Tech massacre should be consistent with this article. Both of those articles list the deceased victims, and the Columbine article even lists the injured victims and tells where they were hit with bullets. If the Fort Hood list is removed, those lists should be removed as well; if the Fort Hood list is not removed, then it should be edited and improved so as to be in line with those lists. ROG5728 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

None of these lists should be kept; we do not operate by precedent however, and this current discussion should focus exclusively on the encyclopedic arguments for keeping this list. None have yet been advanced. --John (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Those individuals in the list would need to have some notability outside of this incident or for the least have had played a major role in it. Being the victim of a lunatic only makes them notable as a whole, as a group, but not individually. Going by policy and guidelines mentioned above, the list doesn't belong in the article. Don't know if there is already one but if not we can add an external link which lists all the victims.TMCk (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the policy that was referenced (WP:NOTMEMORIAL) is speaking with regards to not memorializing a non-notable individual by creating an article about said individual; it is not speaking with regards to lists, and it never mentions lists. As for the guideline that was referenced (WP:NLIST), it says that "...the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines..." In this case (and the same goes for the Columbine and Virginia Tech lists), the entries clearly do have enough importance to be included in the text of the article, so they pass that guideline. In fact, a number of the Fort Hood victims (both deceased and injured) are mentioned in the article text as it is, because of their notable actions in the incident. So to recap, the policy that was referenced does not mention lists or support their removal, and the guideline that was referenced actually supports keeping the list, not removing it. ROG5728 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to ignore the example given at NLIST: "For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with verifiable notability."
As for those mentioned in the prose, those seem to be notable enough, the other ones aren't. Just saying they are doesn't make it so. Where are the sources that show notability, not just that they exist(ed)?TMCk (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The school example wouldn't really be applicable here because a list of all alumni for a given school would be massive and redundant. In this case we're talking about a small group of people killed in one major incident -- the 2009 Fort Hood shooting. The deceased individuals need not all be independently notable in order to warrant inclusion in the list, and WP:NLIST makes that clear in the following quote: "On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable." In other words, so long as the individuals are associated with a notable school position (or in this case, individuals killed in a major event) they need not all be independently notable. Basically, the individuals' high degree of involvement (in this case, their deaths by gunfire) would make them noteworthy in the list automatically.

The question we should be asking ourselves is what does this list contribute to the article? At the moment, admittedly not a whole lot; but it could easily be improved with a column for notes on each individual (a number of the victims would be deserving of notes detailing their actions/awards/etc. in the incident), and then the list would certainly be important to the article. ROG5728 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I support keeping the names, so long as they are properly sourced and stated in reliable sources. Silverseren^C 10:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? --John (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated by ROG5728 the subject of the list, that being the victims of the 2009 Fort Hood Shooting, are notable as a group, and as previously stated, as the group itself is notable all members of said group, although not independently notable are listable. Furthermore, as stated above, all individuals can be verified to be members of said group by use of reliable source content; additionally some of those individuals have received significant coverage by multiple independent sources that may have them pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO, however since they are primarily notable per WP:1E it would make sense to redirect an independently created article here ... or as is it was, have a list of those individuals.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Mmm. Here's an exercise that may help you to think about this issue. Would an article entitled List of victims of the Fort Hood Shooting survive AfD? If not, why not? --John (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be of the opinion, as it would be seen as a WP:SUBARTICLE of this article, that it would end up as a Merge & Redirect to this article, as this article does not yet meet WP:TOOLONG, even though I am of the opinion that the subject clearly passes WP:GNG.

That being said I would not be opposed to such a spinout if need be. However, the more appropriate section to spin off would be the section regarding Investigation and prosecution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove list of victims, none of them are notable and normally we use the fact that they have individual wikipedia articles to show notability. The need to have a list of non-notable victims appears mainly in American mass murder articles but there appears no reason why they should be an exception to the norm. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The victims need not be independently notable to be in a list. They each were part of the small group of people killed by gunfire in the incident; that makes them worth listing. We went through that already. ROG5728 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay.

It's not just the names, which give some clues to a variety of backgrounds, but also their ranks and ages, showing readers another dimension of the event.

It's interesting that MilborneOne says this is common in American mass murder articles. That appears to be true. (Not just American mass murders either; the Haditha killings article has an entire sidebar.) I see no reason why it should be wiped out in this case. The article is not yet too long, and this doesn't take too much space.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I am still not getting why people think being mown down by a spree killer makes a person notable. It seems to go directly against WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NLIST. By this logic, articles like The Holocaust and September 11 attacks would become awfully long, with lists of names attached to them. I really don't get it, unless it is some kind of emotional reaction to the tragic event. Wikipedia just doesn't do this kind of thing. Plenty of other web resources out there do, but not us. --John (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The individuals, as a group, are notable as they have received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, and all such members of the group (in this case) have been verified by usage of reliable sources. As stated above, notable groups can warrant their own lists, even if individual members of the group may only be notable for one event or not notable outside of the group. Now, if those lists, get to large for the parent article, I would not be opposed to a spinning out of those list as sub-articles. However, for this notable group, there is not yet that need.

For instance there are list of fighter aces, although many individuals are not independently notable outside of the list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fighter aces are inherently notable, victims of mass murder are not, though they are important. --John (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We are all entitled to our own opinions, and we are all entitled to disagree with opinions that we may not share in common.

I am of the opinion, as are others, that the content should remain. There are others who are of the opinion that it should be removed. From my count, three are for removal, four are for keeping. That being said Wikipedia is not a democracy, and there doesn't appear to be a consensus. From my experience, when there is no consensus for deletion the content remains.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe an RFC is the next step to get some more opinions on the issue.TMCk (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility is that one can leave a Please see template at the WikiProjects which cover this article. This would meet WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There are seven separate wikiprojects that this article has been tagged by, this should bring sufficient additional editors to the conversation, if others believe that is necessary.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to start an RfC. Where there is no consensus, the default is that the material is removed. --John (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That is completely wrong. Stop misreading and misquoting policies. The WP:Verifiability policy has nothing to do with the issue we're discussing; all of the material in the list is reliably sourced. Since it was your removal that initially changed the article and caused this discussion, it is your job to achieve consensus for said removal; otherwise, the content remains. ROG5728 (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I must agree with ROG5728, WP:BURDEN does not apply here. The content is verified by multiple reliable sources, and thus why it was not removed in the first place.

Although the three who support removal have cited the policy NOTMEMORIAL, the content is there due to the policy V, and adhering to what is one of the core content policies (WP:CCPOL) is supported by four. Thus, after restating our current situation, we are still left with no consensus to support removal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

date format

I observed that recently a mdy format was applied to this article, is there consensus for this to be the case? I have seen ymd, and I have been using dmy, in the reference citations in this article. Is there a consensus for this article to be tagged mdy? I prefer dmy myself, given that this is a military article and that generally the US military uses dmy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• You might have been referring to one of my edits where I may have changed a date or two into mdy. You are right in that all dates (not only the reference section) could be in dmy format. I would have no objection. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 17:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Act of terrorism or workplace violence

An editor is removing sourced edits that balance the point of view from some government agencies that the attack was a workplace violence incident. Neutral point of view needs to permit presenting balanced presentation of ALL points of view. The lede previously made no mention of any officials who stated that it was terrorism. Surely there is no rule banning statements by senators and congressmen and victims that they believe it should be classified as such. Redhanker (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Senator Joe Lieberman labeled the shooting "the most destructive terrorist attack on America since September 11, 2001. Michael Scheuer, the retired former head of the Bin Laden Issue Station, and former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey also called the event a terrorist attack. However in November 2009, after examining the e-mails and previous terrorism investigations, the FBI had found no information to indicate Hasan had any co-conspirators or was part of a broader terrorist plot. One year after the Fort Hood shooting, the motivations of the perpetrator were not yet established; government agencies still had not officially linked Hasan to any radical terrorist groups.[7] The Defense Department currently classifies the attack as an act of workplace violence, not an act of terrorism which would treat injuries and deaths as if they were in combat with respect to medals and medical care. [8]

As late as 2012, the Defense Department still classified the attack as an act of workplace violence, despite the suspect's ties to terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, Al Qaeda and militant Islamism. A group of 160 victims and family members see similarities in the reluctance to classify the Attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi as terrorism. They have asked that the Fort Hood assault be declared to be terrorism, which would mean that injuries would be treated as if they were in a combat zone. Rep. John R. Carter and Rep. Michael T. McCaul wrote in support: "Based on all the facts, it is inconceivable to us that the DOD and the Army continue to label this attack ‘workplace violence’ in spite of all the evidence that clearly proves the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terror" [8]

I restored a portion of the text you added (although not in the lead). "Official" or not, the text is sourced and I agree it's not an NPOV violation. It should be noted somewhere in the article. It doesn't "slant" the article. ROG5728 (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Opinions don't make the above people right in calling this terrorism, and the investigation has found no evidence of ties to al-Qaeda. All the opinions are not worth repeating here just because politicians are trying to get some press. Hasan's work colleagues were alarmed for some time about his inappropriate behavior and comments, and social dissociation, describing it in psychiatric terms; it sounds as if he were mentally ill, and may have attached that to Islamic ideas, just as other mentally ill people kill for other religious or ideological reasons. I don't recall if medical evaluations were ever done for Hasan, and will look at the sources. It seems they should have been, to see if he was even competent to stand trial. Parkwells (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Politicians and others express ideas about terrorism from political points of view, so their opinions don't count more than investigative agencies. In the political frenzy, Lieberman apparently decided to abandon his earlier caution (see article), when he recommended that people wait for the investigation to be concluded before trying to label the shootings as terrorism.Parkwells (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

incomprehensible sentence

""According to the responding nurses, the blood loss inside the building was so heavy they were unable to maintain balance, and had difficulty reaching the wounded to help them.""

what the heck does this mean?

you find it in the sixth paragraph in the section "Soldier Readiness Processing Center shootings" can someone reconstruct that sentance in a way that makes sense? or get rid of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.101.182 (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Done; please see the change. Hope this clears it up.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun free zone?

I noticed today that some sort of minor edit war has been going on for the past week over editors adding and removing the words "in a gun free zone" to the first sentence of the lede. You can see that series of flip-flopping reverts taking place here: 1 (initial insertion), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and lastly 9. After searching the article to see if "gun free zone" is discussed anywhere else in the article and finding it is not, I thought it best to start a conversation here on the Talk Page. Why do editors keep inserting "in a gun free zone" to the lede, what is the sourcing, and what is the intended significance here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been uninvolved in this so far, but reference #30 (and several others) back up that bit of info. The significance is that the soldiers were unable to defend themselves during the shooting spree. Seeing as how this was a shooting spree on a military base, it's possible some may get the idea Hasan was firing on armed soldiers even though in reality he was not (actually, that was my initial thought back when the shooting first occurred). So I do think it's probably worth pointing out that the soldiers were unarmed due to base policy. ROG5728 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the subject is not covered within the article body, perhaps it should not be included in the lead section, and rather if there is reliable sources, which there appears to be. It should be mentioned in a neutral way that soldiers on the base were not allowed to carry firearms, and it should be stated (with references) about the Army's policy on firearms at Fort Hood (and most every other base) and how it impacted the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

"Gun free zone" should be deleted as it politicizes the first line too much. "Gun free zone" is included by people who oppose gun control to (implicitly or explicitly) suggest that this massacre wouldn't have been as bad if there were more guns there. No need to politicize the introduction like that. Quark1005 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wellv if we look at the following news sources, the content can be verified. Whether it should be in the lead section is debateable, but I can see the inclusive arguement for having it mentioned somewhere within the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources (note: opinion pieces are not reliable sources for statement of fact) that state that Fort Hood was a gun-free zone. I'm removing this. Don't re-add it without referencing a reliable source. Fourfourfive (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There is not consensus for removal of the content; furthermore its removal was already reverted and it is subject to WP:BRD. Therefore, exclusion of the content, without consensus is something I would advise against.

As it is a RS request, I will re-add the content with reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The books you cited are political commentary and they are describing a U.S. military base as a "gun free zone" for political purposes so this cannot be taken as a reliable source of fact. I have edited the article to say that Fort Hood has been described as a "gun free zone." Fourfourfive (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

With the new wording all the other references which Fourfourfive believe are not RSs can be included in the article as well, as now the wording makes the "gun-free zone" statement an opinion of certain individuals.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to explain the policy and situation in the body of the article. If the issue is mentioned at all in the Lead, it could be along the factual lines of: "soldiers at Army bases do not carry arms, which are limited to the military police." I agree that "gun-free zone" is tied into the political rhetoric about gun control. This is supposed to be NPOV. Parkwells (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Mental state

With all the interest in terrorism, it's notable that the article did not include basic information about Hasan's service career, and whether he was judged competent to stand trial, despite his colleagues' very strong concerns about his mental stability while at Walter Reed. I'm adding the result of the sanity hearing, and noting that additional testimony may be introduced later. Parkwells (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Article lead problems

There are a lot of problems with the lead of the article. The basic problem is that it's not really doing what a lead section is supposed to do, it's actually been used as a discussion platform to discuss some details of the case. Please rewrite it as a summary of the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be rewritten, it is too short, as WP:LEAD says it should be an introduction and summary of the content of the article. As MOS says that it should be summarized into at the most 4 paragraphs, perhaps we can figure an outline here first. Work on it, and once it is ready, and consensus formed that it is agreeable, to move it into the article space. Also, another thing is, what stuff/content in the lead can be moved into the body of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree that Lead needed/needs more work; it ignored evidence as reported by RS of Hasan's mental state, which sounded very troubled. His patterns are typical of other mass shooters: single male under 40, socially isolated, bizarre behavior. He was also described as schizoid, paranoid, etc. The Lead is still too long; I took out content that appeared to be trying to make a stronger connection of threat between Hasan and the Muslim cleric, which internal investigation by FBI and others did not support.Parkwells (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Analysts have noted that it is people who are "lonely and detached" who may get involved with radical religious groups - there is a psychological predisposition to seek a kind of meaning in this.Parkwells (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)