Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Number of shooters

"One gunman was reportedly in custody and another was on the loose, NBC News said. A third shooter may be involved, according to NBC News affiliate KCEN, which said the person had opened fire on the SWAT team at the base." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001 Other sources also seem to say 2 or 3. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

OK we now have two in custody and one possibly at large. We should say "Two were quickly arrested, while authorities persued a possible third shooter." Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Press conference said 2 in custody, 1 shooter dead. So 3 perpetrators. Dumbell24 (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The two suspects released

CNN just reported that the two suspected perpetrators had been released. chandler 23:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm glad no one jumped the gun to inlclude this from the Wall Street Journal:

Two other soldiers were in custody, base officials said, amid indications that the attack may have been premeditated and well-organized.'[emphasis added]

--4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of how it is added. Had soemone added "The WSJ reported that there were indications the attack was premeditated" it would have been perfectly fine, and indeed when the "media response" section is written thy may well do. That is precisely why I use the phrasing "Early reports indicated that two or three shooters were involved." It was a valid statement at the time and it would still be valid now - it seemed likely that "fog of war" had confused the issue but even if it hadn't caution in phraseology is important. In particular it is not impossible that some outlets turned to Wikinews and WP for information. Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

Fort Hood shooting _S_?

There were multiple shootings, the article photo needs to be updated to show the shootings at the theater location as well. Also the fact that the base is still under lockdown strongly suggests they don't have everyone. Mark my words "Obama owns his first terrorist attack".

Sounds like multiple shootings, change the article title? JoeSmack ^Talk 21:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, because they likely worked together. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The title can wait to be settled, it always takes a little time. Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Incidentally it will be whatever the event is generally known as. We could predict with a fair degree of accuracy, but lets not. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

This might be a BrE/AmE difference? Currently watching both BBC World and CNN, BBC has "Fort Hood shooting" and "US shooting" while CNN has "Fort Hood shootings" chandler 22:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I agree wwith Rich here though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think BrE should have shootings (plural). But that is unimportant. Martin451 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

suspect

ABC is reporting a suspect but no other major outlets are. Should we mention that ABC has reported a suspect (don't say name or info), but others have yet to confirm or agree? JoeSmack ^Talk 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

BBC have also reported http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8345713.stm chandler 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

CNN has now chimed in according to a 'law enforcement source'. Again, I don't want to be a WP:DICK and promulgating misinformation if we don't know for sure yet. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sen. Hutchinson states the shooter was from Jordan. The current article states Egypt. What source do we have for Egypt? Think this should be changed to what the Senator stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.231.194 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

I request the article be semi-protected because this article may be subjective to vandalism by unregistered or newly-registered users as it may soon appear in the news section of the front page of the Wikipedia website. Please semi-protect the article ASAP. RYAN 3000 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism doesn't seem to be an issue at this point. I'm keeping an eye on it, though, and I'm sure other admins are as well. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's started, I think semiprotection is best for now. Dumbell24 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just done anyway. It went a long time with nothing much. Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Thank you. RYAN 3000 (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead Include SHooter

"killing 13 including the gunman" http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/texas.fort.hood.shootings/index.html --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I still have 11 + 1 on my cnn source... [1]. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Me too, now. I need to update more often and type quicker. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is currently 12 killed plus gunman equals 13 killed in this and 31 listed as wounded. --[2]. Wildmandale ^Talk 20:18, 5 November 2009 (CST)

Reference formatting

This article uses very odd reference formatting. It should use {{reflist}}. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

agree, I've never seen this style before. chandler 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

eh, it's kinda old school, but it works. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. {{Reflist}} is best and should be used instead. Cirt (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Psssst. Reflist is being used currently, but that's not really what you are complaining about. Dragons flight (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the main issue is with edit warring and editing without edit summaries while doing so. Cirt (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I started it off with reflist. There were however masses of citation duplication, cites removed without the all named instances being removed, and various other problems. The style you see is essentially the same as reflist, just has the substantive content all together. It is a relatively new (about a month old) MediaWiki feature requested and already embraced by the community. Any cite problems will be in one section and cites can be commented out or re-introduced as required. Any formatting such as 2 col etc we can look at but will be easy enough to sort out when the refs are at least consolidated. We have incidentally already had several refs removed and re-introduced. Rich Farmbrough, 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Why have you edit warred up until now and edited with no edit summaries, instead of discussing this? Cirt (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, that's new-style referencing, where the text for the references is put into the References section, with only the ref names in the body of the article. Supposed to make it easier to edit; certainly easier of newcomers. In any case, the rule at Wikipedia is not to get into edit fights over footnote styles (and there are a lot, lot more), so I suggest letting it be. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I leeft you a message on your talk page. And I have been loosing about half my edits to people who override edit conflict messages. i had no idea until the edit before I left you that message that you were undoing my edits. Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

In the future, please stop and engage in discussion at the article's talk page, instead of edit warring and editing without edit summaries. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not now nor have I ever edit warred. Many of the minor edits had no summary because taking more than a few seconds over an edit led to failure, edits taking up to 4 attempts with combinations of edit conflicts, and people overriding edit conflicts. Rich Farmbrough, 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

• Any issues over the display of the refs? Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Yes well I would tweak it but I fear you would revert anyone who changes the formatting style to something that you disagree with. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing wrong using the ref name= />" format. It puts all of the long cite webs in a single place, allows for simple referencing where sources are needed many times and above all simplifies editing and version comparison without the clutter. Leaky Caldron 23:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's that big of a deal Cirt. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well we are back in {{Reflist}} land now. Thanks to whoever did that, it's a useful method. Now all consolidated and in alpha order by name for simplicity - another copy of the CNN ref had been added since we started the conversation. Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

• Please Chill Out Wikians, not a time to 'argue' when people have died. Things moved really fast on this article. Every time I tried to fix/add something I was always beaten to it. As a relative newcomer I am impresssed with how quickly this article came together, and particularly how fast the vandalism that did occur was removed. Well done all. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Location of shooting

CNN's anchors are expressing some doubts as to where the shooting took place after securing new footage from the scene. We should keep this in mind and be ready to make changes wehre required. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 23:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

12 or 11?

The New York Times [3] is reporting that the gunman killed 11 soldiers. So did the gunman kill 11, and then #12 was the gunman himself? MuZemike 23:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it, this. Netalarmtalk 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the lead say that Hasan killed 11 instead of 12, if Hasan is considered the 12th person to have died in this massacre? MuZemike 02:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested sources

I'll probably have to be away from the computer for awhile. I suggest that interested editors monitor the Military Times and Stars and Stripes websites, because those two journals are experienced in covering military topics and may include salient details that other news organizations may miss. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff. Will keep that in mind, thanks--Vishnu2011 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Official info re Nidal Malik Hasan, MD from State of Virginia:

http://www.vahealthprovider.com/results_generalinfo.asp?License_No=0101238630

Nidal Malik Hasan, MD LICENSE # 0101238630 Issue Date: 7/12/2005 Expiration Date: 9/30/2010 Status: Current Active

Primary Practice Address

Last Updated 10/13/2009Darnall Army Medical Center 36000 Darnall Loop Ft. Hood, TX 76544 Phone: 301-547-1599

Location Details

Practitioner spends 90% of time at this location.

Days that practitioner sees patients at this location: Mon,Tue,Wed,Thur,Fri

Years in Active Clinical Practice

Last Updated 10/13/2009 Years in Active Clinical Practice Inside US/Canada: Less than 1 year Medicaid

Last Updated 10/13/2009Does Not Participate in the Virginia Medicaid program Is not accepting new Virginia Medicaid patients

Virginia Hospital Affiliations

Last Updated 10/13/2009 None Reported Hospital Affiliations in States Other Than Virginia

Last Updated 10/13/2009 (Ft. Hood,TX) Darnall Army Medical Center

Medical, Osteopathic, or Podiatric School

Last Updated 10/13/2009Grad School: Uniformed Services University Of The Health Sciences F. Edward Herbert School Of Medicine - Bethesda MD Year Completed: 2003 Medical, Osteopathic, or Podiatric Post Grad School

Last Updated 10/13/2009Psychiatry WRAMC Washington, DC USA Year Residency Completed: 2007

Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry USUHS/WRAMC Bethesda, MD USA Year Fellowship Completed: 2009

Gseracaff (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Media hype

Lone gunman again. hydnjo (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory again. Шизомби (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the news, back to lone gunman. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hasan or HasSan?

Spelling check please: In the Shooter section the name is spelt Hassan in 2 places. Elsewhere Hasan. One S seems to be correct? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Has been corrected. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

State Location Map?

• As this is an 'international' encyclopædia I'd suggest adding a US map showing where in the US Texas is located. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Should be done with wikilinks to Texas and/or Fort Hood, Texas, assuming the latter has a map (I've not looked), I think. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Move

massacre is a very POV term. We must adher to a neutral point of view, thus it is my opinion that the page be moved BACK to Fort Hood shooting. HJMitchell You rang? 02:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's POV (how would it be?), but it would probably require a majority of sources labeling it as such just per regular naming policies? At the moment it's been added to List of events named massacres, which would seem to be appropriate if and only if that is how it is most commonly referred to, which could be difficult to determine at the moment, it being not a day old yet. Шизомби (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lone gunman

I object to the term lone gunman as it is highly freighted with subtext and is suggestive of conspiracy theories and coverups. See Lone gunman (as well, I don't approve of the recent move to "Massacre" without some discussion.) User:Pedant (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the word out a couple of times but got edit conflict.. .Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

Lockdown

"The base and surrounding areas were locked down, [...] The lockdown lasted about 5 hours; by 7pm local time, the lockdown had been lifted.[10]" I think there must be a better way to phrase this! Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I object to the term lockdown as it gives the impression that law enforcement in the US can or may just flip a switch to restrict movement, etc, see Lockdown User:Pedant (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that "lockdown" is the official term the military uses for such events (it was a military action to close the base). If that's the case, then I would say we should continue to use the term. Dragons flight (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lockdown is a military term. It means that the base shuts down all the gates completely, not allowing anyone to enter or leave. Cla68 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree it is an institutional term used by the base and by the schools. Further detail could be researched, and the phrasing made clearer "The base declared a state of lockdown" or whatever. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

It is the term being used by the media, so it makes sense to use the same terminology as the sources we're citing. HJMitchell You rang? 03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Name of civilian police officer

This article does not state the name of the civilian police officer who fired upon the shooter. The name of the officer is Sgt. Kimberly Munley. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/fort.hood.munley/index.html 76.23.222.83 (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the article, as it should be. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When its an American story its a "Shooting"

When its British, its a "massacre". Either change all the British articles to shooting, or change this to massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.67.77 (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What about calling it a mass murder? That would make the perpetrator a mass murderer, wouldn't it? 173.59.224.226 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to record these events when they happen, not to invent the terminology for them. If the event is widely reported as a "shooting," then that's what it should be called, here. That the UK and US have different ways of describing current events should not be a shock. -Miskaton (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. This means then that Wikipedia will be bowing to the media which is a bad idea all the way around. A shooting indicates one person down, a massacre several. Mass shooting would also be appropriate but "shooting" all alone is completely inappropriate. It's really about grammar and what is true, not political correctness nor media terms. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you agree or not, "bowing to the media" is exactly how WP operates. We don't work with the "truth", we work with what's reported. Also, if this is a language issue, since this is an American event, we go with the American word. Hence soccer vs rugby.  Aar  ►  20:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

CNN today refers to it as "Massacre at Fort Hood." Why is "shooting" a preferred title? Which is the predominant term used in news stories? Edison (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's perennial proposals (WP:PEREN) that keeps getting rejected is standardizing Wikipedia's spelling to either American or British styles. Consensus is that any attempt to do so would be impractical and result in needless edit warring. In keeping with the spirit of this decision, which has been made by the Wikipedia community, the same reasoning that applies to American vs. British spelling should probably apply to American vs. British terminology. Minaker (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not a fair analogy. Spelling is usually neutral regardless; the terminology at issue here has the potential arguably to violate NPV — specifically, the word "massacre" is emotionally loaded in a way "shooting" is not. Here, there's no problem, but this discussion suggests to me that the word shooting should be used in other incidents.atakdoug (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Atakdoug, that's a good point that, unlike spelling, terminology can make a significant difference in emotional connotation, but if anything, that just strengthens the reason for the analogy being valid. Tthe whole point of the analogy is that, as with American vs. British spelling, there will never be a consensus re. American terminology vs. British terminology, and any attempt of standardization (how do we choose which one?) would probably result in pointless edit warring. If we refer to an incident like this as a "massacre" or a "shooting" based on media standards of where the event occurred and how it is most widely reported (as is currently the case), we at least have some sort of (relatively) neutral standard. Once we delve into making such decisions based on editors' individual culture ("well in my country, they'd just call it a shooting") or, even worse, emotional reaction ("that's not just a shooting, it's a massacre!") than get ready for arguments and edit wars galore. The reason for the Wikipedia policy re. spelling standardization is to avoid conflict where no resolution or constructive outcome seems likely. By those standards, I don't see how this is any different. I personally don't care one way or another, but let's be practical about the proposal that started this discussion: Do you really think that it's plausible to change all terminology in all the British articles about "massacres" to stories about "shootings"? Or do you think it's preferable to change the terminology for this article's headline simply because "that's how the Brits would say it"? Minaker (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I support using the term 'Massacre' or 'Mass Shooting' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invmog (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the former, please don't. We've spent pages upon pages discussing the term. It always seems to get people worked up. The only definition of "massacre" we've found that won't get contested, redefined and turned into a sissyfight is "an event that's predominantly referred to as a massacre," and we can't know yet if Fort Hood counts while the referring is going on. --Kizor

"Shooting" does not always result in death. Mass murder, massacre, or genocide might be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.183.125 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So you are arguing that if all victims were shot and wounded (but not killed) and then stabbed to death - that would be called stabbing or a massacre, but not shooting? Nonsense.

Massacre is a general term synonymous with slaughter. Indiscriminate killing of large numbers of living beings (humans OR animals) with little or no resistance from the victims.

Shooting on the other hand denotes a specific form of assault on persons or objects (shooting up a mall, house or a car is still a shooting) - REGARDLESS if anyone is killed, wounded or even shot.

Just as it is a bombing when a bomb is detonated regardless if there are victims or not.

And therein lies the difference. There are no victimless massacres, nor is there a massacre with a single victim.

BUT, that does not mean that shootings or bombings must be victimless or that there is a certain number of victims that makes shooting a massacre.

Just wanted to clear things up a bit. Do what you want from here on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.187.27 (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

i think 'shooting' is fine, i am not native english spoken, but a massacre suggests preparation and execution, a situation of authority(overpower) or many instant victims, often an armed group incorporating in systematic killing and hurt. This is a spree killing, with guns, so a 'shooting' is more descriptive then a more formal term that is better reserved for organised and non-individual violence. if it'd happened on english soil i doubt the word massacre would officially be used, perhaps shooting'incident', in the usual war things like this are considered 'incidents'. massacre or better bloodbath however are typical contemporary english expressions for the kind of event (you would anyhow see the use in the media wether the linguistics fit or not).mass shooting is needlessly confusing and dramatical, in the very end such incidents will allways happen during organised war(that in herself is a massacre) and shooting is a casual word. just my2p. good question though.24.132.171.225 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

image

anyone have a useable image or something we can put up? maybe even something AP? not sure if we can use news supplied images as they come, but maybe theres a license that will allow it. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked DefenseLink multimedia but couldn't find any pictures of the readiness center. There were several pictures of the Howze theater but the events depicted have nothing to do with this shooting and would be confusing. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone comb around twitter/facebook/flicker maybe? People on base probably took shots. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on flickr as anything that pops up there will be CC. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Unless that has been a recent change by flickr that is not true. Not all images on flickr are CC. Johntex\^talk 23:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The link provided filters for things that are CC and taken after 11/4/09. In fact, CC 'video' just popped up. I'll post a new section to discuss inclusion. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

photo of the shooter at http://www.usuhs.mil/graded/gsc/documents/Fall2007Newsletter.pdf on page 4 "Nidal Hassan". Ydorb (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Weapon/s Used

"The gunman used two handguns, Cone said. He wasn't sure if the shooter reloaded the weapons during the attack." http://abcnews.go.com/WN/soldiers-killed-fort-hood-shooting/story?id=9007938

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This may help for Id'ing wounded, I don't really edit wiki at all, but thought I'd throw it in here for someone who can do this quickly to add it. http://www.kmbc.com/news/21534256/detail.html

Just another data point on this topic:

[Lt. Gen. Robert W.] Cone said he did not believe the guns used were military weapons.

[4] --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The types of weapons used should be clarified if at all possible. The reports agree that Major Hasan had employed two handguns, and the number of woundings and kills establishes that he had had to reload multiple times. The Wikipedia article at present indicates that he was armed with "a semi-automatic and a .357," the latter presumably a revolver. This implies not only an incompatible mix of ammunition but also the use of one weapon which would have been difficult to rapidly reload in the short period of time during which these kills and woundings took place. Were at least some of the wounded or dead not struck by "friendly fire" offered in response to Major Hasan's attack, the total number of victims implies facility in the use of firearms that could have come only of practiced skill in combat pistol techniques, of which there seems to be no indication in Major Hasan's past history as presently presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.151.88 (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

CNN story ( Updated 2342 GMT (0742 HKT)) http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/texas.fort.hood.shootings/index.html states "Two law enforcement sources told CNN that one of the weapons used is an FN 5.7-millimeter pistol, a semiautomatic purchased legally at a Killeen gunshop. Details on the other gun, identified only as a type of revolver, were not immediately available." May be worthy of addition to article.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION: FN FiveSeven or FN 57 NOT 5.7-millimeter. That would make it a .22 caliber. ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=9012995 "Hasan used an FN Herstal 5.7 tactical pistol."."A second gun found with him was a 357 Magnum Smith and Wesson revolver, but it is not yet clear if Hasan used the weapon during the shooting."

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

AMPLIFICATION: The FN Five-seveN is not well-characterized as "a .22 caliber" weapon, inasmuch as the version of this pistol purchased (and allegedly used) by Dr. Hasan in this episode chambers the 5.7x28mm cartridge originally developed by FN Herstal for the P90 personal defense weapon. The Wikipedia article on the round describes it quite accurately as "a bottlenecked [centerfire] cartridge with a 5.7 mm (.224 inch) bullet [which] could be most accurately compared to the .22 Hornet or the competing Heckler & Koch 4.6x30mm."
This handgun should not be confused with those chambering straight-necked .22 caliber rimfire ammunition, as the 5.7x28mm round is designed to provide much higher muzzle velocity, flatter trajectory, greater kinetic energy upon impact, and superior lethality when compared against any ".22 caliber" handgun. The FN Five-seveN is also designed to feed from relatively high-capacity magazines (20-round standard, with a 30-round magazine available), which was almost certainly a factor in Dr. Hasan's decision to purchase this handgun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.151.88 (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep I blew it! BIg Time!
CORRECTION ++ "The weapon's name refers to its 5.7 mm caliber"."The 5.7x28mm cartridge was originally created by FN"
Refer Wikipeadia article FN Five-seven and 5.7x28mm
APOLOGIES, I had never heard of this cartridge. (NEVER ASSUME)--220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Special Training

The article cited to support the "special training" seems to reveal pretty significant ignorance on the part of the congressional staffer and the reporter. I would be very skeptical of this claim, especially the implication that this training was in the context of military service. Doctors don't get "a lot of advanced training in shooting." and other articles indicated that he did not enjoy going to the range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.30.244 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I've not looked at the sources, I found the information odd as well (and I do have a significant military background). I'd vote to take it out, at least for the moment; I don't think it adds anything particularly valuable to the article (since it lacks details, which would be both useful and corroborative.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, unless Major Hasan had received training above and beyond the standard M9 training and qualification test, the statement should be removed. Or at the very least if it is kept clearly stated who made the statement. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

First time commenting on Wikipedia. Is this an authoritative source? It seems to contradict what the cousin has said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-11-05-Fort-Hood_N.htm

"U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican from Austin, was briefed by military officials and said Hasan had taken some unusual classes for someone studying about mental health. 'He took a lot of extra classes in weapons training, which seems a little odd for a psychiatrist,' McCaul said."

Neebat (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Response" section

The "Response" section is now longer than the "Shootings" section. Do we really need a quote from a Department of Defense spokesman, for example? And perhaps we could combine the items for the two U.S. Senators from Texas? (We should comply with WP:NPOV, which cautions against disproportionate space and weight.)

And the section is only likely to grow longer, if there are news stories about all the news coverage, and/or if the Army does a full investigation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's growing pretty quickly. I propose we cut the department of defense spokesman's statement, to start with. The others, being either major national figures or politicians directly concerned with the situation, seem to belong (I'm iffy on Carl Levin's statement). Ray^Talk 02:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes think of it as a cruft catcher. The shootings section will get longer as the newspapers print the gunman's moves in exact deatail, and the order in which things happened. Take a look at the Viginia Tech article to see the sort of thing that we can expect. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

The senators can be merged "both issued messages of shock and sympathy". The actual words are not important in this case. Rich Farmbrough, 02:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

I would suggest that the DoD spokesperson quote should remain, as long as it isn't duplicating an existing quote from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Secretary Gates is a former President of Texas A&M University, which is not far from Killeen and Fort Hood. If the DoD spokesperson quote is a duplicate and adds nothing meaningful then I don't mind its removal. 67.79.207.142 (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it being in the form of the list is unproductive, that format would tend to encourage the indiscriminate addition of additional quotes regardless of their encyclopedic importance (which is rather hard to judge for current events). I don't think other shooting articles have anything similar? Шизомби (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the section much more now that it's in paragraph format, rather than a bunch of bulleted items. As paragraphs, I think it's much more likely to be trimmed as needed in the future. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

10 soldiers 2 civilians

According to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001 there were ten soldiers and civilians killed, yet here it says 12 soldiers. I would correct this but editing Wiki's is still not my strong suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknowntbeast (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'tis done after we tripped over each others feet. Well I tripped, anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 03:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

War on Terrorism

Terrorism is a broad term, and people seem to be selecting narrow defintions 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 direclty 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)

Though perhaps a bit early, it does seem safe to assume that this was an ideological attack (terrorist?) most likely associated with the War on Terrorism. I'm curious if we should soon treat this article as a domestic terrorist attack rather than a shooting. I also suggest adding the War on Terrorism template to this page. Any comments on this? --Kuzwa (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As you say, it would be a bit early, and an assumption. When all the facts are in, it may well be appropriate then - although isn't the War on Terrorism template for aspects of the war on terrorism, rather than acts of terrorism? Шизомби (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, his motive was because he was unhappy about deployment and the war's unjustness. If he was a terrorist, he wouldn't of even joined, nevertheless become a Major in the Army. Unknowntbeast (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not safe to assume anything of the sort. So far we just have a cousin saying he was unhappy. Rich Farmbrough, 03:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

Agree. It does not seem safe to assume that, to me. It seems reasonable to wait for this to be stated by a reliable source. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

@Unknowntbeast: Joining the army does not mean that a person is incapable at carrying out acts of terror. According to this article it states that Mr. Hassan disapproved of the war in general and that locals should rise up against the enemy or something along those lines. If that is true then he certainly seems to be harboring anti-american sentiment, so it is quite possible that his displeasure about being deployed to Iraq and this was the hair trigger that pushed him to commit this act. Sounds like part of the ideological war that is part of the War on Terror to me.

Disagree with the above. While yes, military service doesn't preclude one from terrorist acts (see Tim McVeigh), that doesn't mean that the act was itself intended to have larger political or religious overtones intended to alter policy or instill existential fear in a large population. So no, at present it does *not* sound like "part of the ideological war that is part of the War on Terror", at least not based on the evidence currently available. The jury's *way* out on that one. How about we wait for the facts, and until then treat this as the criminal investigation into a tragic mass shooting that it is. It's not like Killeen is unfamiliar with such incidents. 67.79.207.142 (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

@Schiz: The template has links to notable terrorist attacks aswell. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, just thought I would put my thoughts out there. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Template:US War on Terrorism, right, I was thinking of the WoT infobox. Anyway, no, it's still too early, I'd think, as stated above. Шизомби (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the goal of terrorism is to promote terror (and not just to kill people), then this wasn't really much of a terrorist act. That said, it does seem more likely than not that his feelings about the wars were a significant motivation. However, it is still makes sense to wait until sources draw that conclusion. It is still possible that something else was going on here. Dragons flight (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So perhaps not a terrorist attack, but still quite possibly related with the War on Terrorism. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: On the MSNBC article it said that the senator was told by military officials the he was unhappy, not a cousin. "Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said military officials had told her that Hasan was “pretty upset” about his deployment, which she said was to be to Iraq." Unknowntbeast (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism#Key_criteria is pretty clear in stating that "terrorism" occurs only through the "Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets." To characterize an attack on active-duty soldiers as "terrorism" seems questionable, to say the least. Andrea105 (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrea, most definitions of terrorism include targeting symbolic targets as well. Case in point, a number of terrorist groups in the 60s and 70s targeted recruitment offices and police officers. Because they were trying to advance a political agenda by going after symbolic targets of authority and spreading fear of similar attacks, it was considered terrorism. Clearly an event like this spreads fear among the military that others may do something similar, and among the general population that the military is vulnerable to inside attacks. I am not saying this is a terrorist attack. In fact this event really sheds light on the need to establish and clear and consistent definition of the word. But, depending on the attacker's reasons and goal, targeting a military base can still be terrorism. If he did this to influence American opinions or shape US foreign policy, then it probably was terrorism. I think whatever we call it, it is still a shocking, tragic and terrible thing that happened at Fort Hood. Neither side should use it as a political football here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Allegedly"

While we should not prejudge any criminal proceedings, it seems overdone to use "allegedly" where we cite sources. Attributed statements of fact, are not statements of legal, moral or ethical guilt. Therefore I shall remove the word. Rich Farmbrough, 03:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

Unacceptable under any legal standards in the US and needs to stay. The only exception from this in the WikiJustice project comes after a suspect has died, and even then the article lead is marked with things like "reported by police to have killed...". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Never acceptable and is mandated by US law to be done this way. People over in the WikiLaw project don't take this lightly... I really have to ask this not be changed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no such mandate that applies to non-governmental entities (there are rules for police and such, but that's a separate issue). It's freedom of speech. What does exist however are libel laws. Saying "allegedly" can protect a publisher against a civil suit for defamation in the event that the allegations actually turned out to be false. So, publishers often choose to be cautious in their reporting to protect themselves, but they are not required to do so. In the current case, it doesn't seem to matter much. The only way it would really matter is if somehow he wasn't responsible for shooting all those people, and the odds of that kind of a mistake being made would seem to be vanishingly small. So, personally, I don't care if people say allegedly or not. On the other hand, I am also unlikely to change it from one form to the other either. Dragons flight (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Using the word does risk looking like Have_I_Got_News_for_You#Running_gags. Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

I'm not sure how it needs to be used. The lede states at the moment unequivocally "Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an army psychiatrist, entered the Soldier Readiness Center and opened fire." He may very well be, but I'm uncertain as to whether it is Wikipedia's place to say he is at the moment? The story does keep changing a lot. His nationality, where he got his degrees, whether he was a convert, whether he was alive, whether two or three people were detained and released, whether additional people were sought as suspects, etc. Шизомби (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors and newspaper article writers are neither judge nor jury, and it is utterly unacceptable per WP:BLP to make a bald statement that an accused person is guilty of murder before any trial has taken place. A news report is not a trial under U.S. law. Note that the news media also condemned two other nonexistant phantom shooters earlier, and also reported the death and later apparent resurrection of the alleged shooter. Present ref 1 in the lede just describes him as a "suspect." We are not "on deadline" and any rush to judgment is highly inappropriate and violates Wikipedia policy WP:BLP. We are an encyclopedia and not a yellow journalism tabloid. This issue has been presented at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Edison (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing looks acceptable as of this version: [5], which says "allegedly" and "according to news reports" without a presumption of guilt. Edison (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not saying he is guilty of murder, that is for the courts to decide, if he lives, and for us to report. We are saying based on WP:RS that he shot a lot of people. There is no legal, moral or ethical problem in this. Why? Because we are stating what the generally accepted and verifiable version of events is. We are remaining neutral, we are not pre-judging or prejudicing any court cases. All our information is not only sourced, it is attributed. Therefore it is understood that it is not our opinion that he shot these people but we are summarising the contemporary reporting in the matter. Rich Farmbrough, 09:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

[outdent] For the record, as may be relevant to this discussion and some others (e.g., relevance of 1 pregnant victim), because this crime involves a member of the military as a suspect and occurred on a military base, the legal jurisdiction fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is significantly different than U.S. civilian law. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Iraq or Afghanistan?

The article states that he was about to deploy to Iraq, but this article states it was to Afghanistan. Cla68 (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Stars and Stripes

There are were three references to this web site - all to different versions of the same page - i.e. made at different times but the page has changed.. I think many of our other references have had their pages updated with no history available. Rich Farmbrough, 04:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

This is common in article covering breaking news. The reference stays the same, but the story changes frequently. A given reference citation may not say the same thing at all a few hours later. Edison (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Victims section

The wording of final sentence of this section is confusing and ambiguous. Can someone rewrite or else remove it? I don't understand it, or have enough context re: the news story, so please avoid telling me to "be bold," since I don't know how to fix it myself. Thorns Among Our Leaves (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Victim incorrectly identified

The victims section incorrectly identifies the police officer as a contractor. Fort Hood police are soldiers and Department of the Army civil servants (general schedule government employees), not contractors. 24.43.246.122 (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You may be correct, but my impression gathered from somewhere was that he was a city police officer working a second job as a contractor on the base, in which case he's not military. I'm not entirely sure though, and it would be nice to find a clear source. Dragons flight (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was stationed at Ft. Hood for 3 years, and there are 3 different police/guards. There are the gate guards which work only at the gates. Then for police, there are the Military Police and the DoD police (as we called them). Unknowntbeast (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

LtGen Cone **repeatedly** referred to the officer as a "DA Civilian" in the press conference, which is not the same as a contractor. The dog I have in this fight is that I am also a DA Civilian (not law enforcement, acquisitions), I detest being mistaken for a contractor as I am sworn to defend the Constitution, not to make money for a private company. It's a personal sore subject ;-) Reffering to DAC's as "contractors" is a slap in the face. Also, Killeen police do not have jurisdiction on Fort Hood. Gate guards are private security guards with no authority to enforce any laws, only policies. They have to call the MPs if a law is broken. Only DoD police are authorized to patrol within the base, wear a uniform with a bage and drive police cars. DoD police are sworn civil servants and in fact officers of the United States government. See the article on Military Police for more detail. 24.43.246.122 (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Victims Section

The end of this section reads thus:

"Ten of the dead were soldiers. Another was a civilian police officer working as a contractor on the base, who is credited with shooting the suspect, was originally reported, incorrectly, to have been killed".

This doesn't really make sense. Too many partial edits perhaps? Please make it easier to read? Thank You!

Maybe this is more accurate?

"Ten of the dead were soldiers. A civilian police officer working as a contractor on the base, credited with shooting the suspect, was previously incorrectly reported to have been killed".
:--220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Unknowntbeast (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC):I think if you say it like that, it shows more emphasis on the soldiers and neglets the civilians. Just a thought. Unknowntbeast (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone actually read the talk page before they post? I posted about the same thing above. *sigh* Nonetheless, thank you for re-addressing and fixing the problem. That sentence actually means something. Thorns Among Our Leaves (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should hold out until a reliable source publishes a full list of those killed in the event, as well as the number of wounded. Furthermore, so that there is no preference given based on rank or military or non-military status, they should be listed alphabetically by their last name. When this information is available it should have its own section, like in this Kreutzer article. --207.114.206.48 (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Opps, forgot to sign in, that was me. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

POV

Article is looking tabloidish right now with first 2 paragraphs claiming that the suspect is the one who did the shooting; the sources, especially source # 7, do not support that level of certainty. Given the extreme level of misreporting thus far; for example that the shooter had been killed, it is extra important to be non-judgemental in the article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If they don't suspect the suspect of shooting, what do they suspect him of? As long as the article says 'suspected' or alleged', instead of 'the shooter', it's fine. ThuranX (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Tabloidish" (even when that is a poor characterization) has nothing to do with POV. Grsz¹¹ 04:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Any "Guilty" proclamation in the article must be removed and tempered by "alleged" per the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP. Edison (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing says guilty. But echoing what reliable sources say is how it goes here. They say he's the shooter, so do we. Grsz¹¹ 05:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Edison; this article was pov and misrepresentative of sources' content to an absurd degree. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Until a trial has resulted in a verdict, the article should only say "alleged" and "suspect." Period. Edison (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Innocent until proven guilty. Besides, there's the "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense. jk~ Neuromancer (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Think back to a few other recent cases where there have been "trials in the press" by law enforcement which were plain wrong. In 1996 there was the Centennial Olympic Park bombing, and authorities and news media reported that a security guard who found the bomb had also planted it. Later it turned out someone else did it. In the 2001 anthrax attacks authorities were sure a particular scientist had done it or was a "person of interest," and later paid him millions in a settlement when they decided someone else did it. After the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping authorities announced a handyman was the prime suspect. He died while being held in jail. Later a different man was caught and indicted. My point is not as to the guilt or innocence of the alleged shooter in this case, just that it is inappropriate to make statements beyond "Police reported he did thus and such," "a witness said he did such and such," " or "a government spokesman said he would be charged with..." without any assumption of guilt. Has he even been charged yet? Yesterday the military spokesman first announced there were two other shooters who had been captured, and that Hassan was dead, then announced there were no other shooters and Hassan was alive. Edison (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)