Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting/Archive 6

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

Improve sources

With so much coverage of this incident, editors have drawn from some strange sources - using Jean Cocteau against a current Army policy in the US is not appropriate, and NightBlaze Books sounds like a self-publishing firm. I removed these cites related to the prohibition at Fort Hood and other bases against soldiers carrying personal weapons on base. The section also needs an Army source explaining the policy and its intention. There seems to be an over-reliance on articles by FOX News and Texas newspapers, rather than other national sources, which affects bias in this article.Parkwells (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Remove that he was on Palestinian descent; does not seem significant compared to other facts about him.Parkwells (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead does need to be rewritten, to better summarize the content of the article.
Given the size of the article, there should be 1 paragraph about the attack, 1 paragraph about the suspect (Major Hasan), 1 paragraph about reactions, and 1 paragraph about the investigation and ongoing trail proceedings. The first two have already largely been done; work on the other two should be forthcoming.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of Duane Reasoner comments

Keep focus on Hasan; he told Reasoner he did not want to deploy, as in LA Times cite. This is more important than a 19-yr-old's thoughts on the shootings.Parkwells (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

I have reverted a good faith edit that removed the following content:

Such a charge is available to prosecutors under the [[Unborn Victims of Violence Act]] and Article 119a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.<ref name=Starsandstripes1 />

The content is verified to a reliable source, and goes well beyond copy editing which is indicated in the edit summary. The content gives context to the sentence that it followed.

Per BRD please do not remove the content without consensus to remove it on the talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

problem with the numbers

In the article it says "There were 44 casualties in the shooting. Among the 14 killed were 12 soldiers (one of whom was pregnant) and one Army civilian employee. Thirty others, including the shooter, were wounded and required hospitalization."

The math doesn't add up. 12 + 1 = 13, not 14, 30 + 13 = 43, not 44. (Uiuiui7 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

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

Casualties figures

In a recent series of change, reversion, re-reversion edits there has been disputes regarding the casualty figures in the lead section of the article. Before an edit war begins let us reach a consensus as to what the figure actually is. For reference, this is not the first time the issue has been brought up in the talk page not once, but twice before. So the source that is presently used in the lead states the following:

  • "Soldier Opens Fire at Ft. Hood; 13 Dead". CBS News. Associated Press. 5 November 2009. Retrieved 2 March 2013. A military mental health doctor facing deployment overseas opened fire at the Fort Hood Army post on Thursday, setting off on a rampage that killed 13 people and left 30 wounded, Army officials said.

The question is whether the lead should state that there are 29, or 30 wounded. Now I began looking for other reliable sources to verify what the AP/CBS News source states. What I found were differing casualty figures:

From what I can see, even more than three years after the event occurred the reliable sources do not agree with each other. So let us discuss which sources should be given weight, and what the number in the lead should actually be.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed awhile ago if you look in the archives, and the conclusion was that 30 were wounded (including the shooter), meaning 29 were wounded if you don't include the shooter. An additional 8 were hospitalized for stress but were not shot. See this reference. ROG5728 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
That is one of multiple reliable sources, perhaps we should take a census of the available reliable sources, and see what the majority state (excluding reprinted agency sources (counting AP such news agency articles only once)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It explains the other sources, so there is no need to do that. As it points out, the other sources are incorrectly lumping 8 people who were not shot into the figure. Only 30 were shot, including the shooter. ROG5728 (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that the ABC News, CNN, and Los Angeles Times, all show a consistency for 32 others being wounded, and it matches the charge against MAJ Hasan of 32 attempts of murder. Moreover, those numbers are far removed from the event, and thus IMHO more likely to be reliable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Agreed, but what do the majority of reliable sources say? It appears that the most recent sources I listed here agree on 32 wounded.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I would assume those are probably just going by the number of attempted murder charges he is facing. The most detailed source on the number of wounded seems to be the one I linked earlier because it explains how many were wounded by gunfire and why the 38 figure is incorrect. ROG5728 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
In any case, since this is a BLP, if in doubt we have to go with the lower number or explain to an extent the conflicting figures.TMCk (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
There are conflicting numbers, which is why I suggested doing a census of reliable sources, and see which sources say what.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we can add a note giving the differing wounded figures, and keep the lower number in the lead. Would that be an acceptable compromise?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to do that. The reference I linked earlier clearly explains why some of the sources give larger figures, and that is because they are incorrectly including people who were treated for stress and were not shot. As for the most recent sources, they are just going by the number of counts of attempted murder for the shooter. ROG5728 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it does, it is contradicted by more recent reliable sources. Given that not all reliable sources agree on the number wounded a word like "around" or "at least" is often used. As I said, given that the reliable sources contradict with each other we can give a range.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I've already explained several times now why it's contradicted by the other sources... they erroneously included people that were not actually shot but were just hospitalized for stress. ROG5728 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I can understand sources that were close to the date of the event having contradictory information, given the rush to get information out in the hours and days immediately after the event (which the source that ROG5728 provides falls into); however, the sources that are far removed from the time of the event still appear to contradict each other, but are higher than 29.
Please, our conversation can be calm and civil.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanatory quote, courtesy of the Austin Statesman:

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

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

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

...

Fort Hood reiterated that 30 people were wounded.

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

Like I've explained to you repeatedly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Comment

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

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

Survey

  • Support single number - I don't think there should be a range unless there is much disagreement between reliable sources. United States Man (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That's exactly the point. There IS much disagreement between reliable sources. So...just to clarify...you support a single number in spite of the fact that there is disagreement between reliable sources? ```Buster Seven Talk 05:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The accuracy of many of those sources on this entire subject has been (demonstrably) very poor, so for purposes of this discussion they aren't "reliable" sources. CNN for example said only 12 people were killed, which is completely incorrect. ROG5728 (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Lets wait until US Man explains the discrepancy before his support is included in any Concensus Tally. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support using a single number per User:ROG5728. --John (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a range ```Buster Seven Talk 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Why? You have to give a reason, as you said just above. I support giving a number because I have read and agree with the arguments of ROG5728. Why do you wish to give a range? --John (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I have given a reason in the discussion above. More than once...good reliable sources don't agree. Our reader should know that fact.```Buster Seven Talk 00:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support using a single number for reasons explained already. I suggest anyone new to this discussion carefully read this source, which quotes Fort Hood directly and explains the discrepancies found in other sources. ROG5728 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support single number per my reasoning in the above discussion.TMCk (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support range, see discussion above for lengthy reasoning.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support single number per User:ROG5728. After reading the entire section, plus the previous discussion in 2009. Markewilliams (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Range because reliable sources disagree with each other. The various numbers in the range should be attributed. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because ROG5728 says so?
It may have been past consensus (where? what archived discussion? please provide diff), however please see WP:CCC.
Again, please see WP:VNT
I have provided multiple reliable sources that have provided multiple wounded figures. Unfortunately, those sources have been ignored
I have shown how the source provided by ROG5728 has been contradicted by its own publisher in later published articles.
As for the DoD source, it is an image caption, but one published by the DoD. If the DoD believed it inaccurate they could have changed the caption. That being said, this is why a single number doesn't meet verification as there are other reliable sources that contradict that number.
I can agree to a compromise of "more than X" were wounded, giving a reliable source for each of the reported by reliable source articles (with a quote for each source), but to say X wounded would not meet verification IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I already provided the archived discussion earlier, wherein a number of other editors came to the consensus that the 30 figure presently used in the article is correct. Consensus can change, but so far it has not. Again, no one denied that there are plenty of sources using the inflated 38 figure, but their reliability is already dubious (e.g. CNN incorrectly claiming 12 dead) and the 38 figure was clearly explained by higher quality sources (e.g. Austin Statesman via Fort Hood). WP:VNT is an essay and it has no applicability in this discussion because we're not talking about using truth over verifiability, we're talking about using truth AND verifiability. ROG5728 (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Yet there is no consensus of currently active editors to only have 30 be the verified truth. The lack of current consensus, IMHO, nullifies the past consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. Previous consensus can change/be overturned if a new one emerges. So far, in discussion and RFC, it doesn't appear to be happening.TMCk (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
That maybe one interpretation, but consensus is fluid, and the past consensus is not the current lack of consensus. And even if we are to go with a single number the Austin Statesman doesn't even agree with its own 30 figure, as I showed that it now uses the "more than 30" phrase when describing wounded.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me suggest a compromise. How about this wording:

In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded at least 29 others.

For the reliable sources to verify the statement I will bundle a reference for each figure given by the reliable sources, including the Austin Statesman source which ROG5728 prefers.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Correct would be (unless you ignore the previous consensus and this RFC so far):
"In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others. Additional 8 people were treated for stress and trauma."
TMCk (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
However that is contradicted by other reliable sources used in this article, and contradicts what is specifically stated by the source preferred by ROG5728, which I quoted above, therefore it would fail verification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the current reference fails verification as well which states:

A military mental health doctor facing deployment overseas opened fire at the Fort Hood Army post on Thursday, setting off on a rampage that killed 13 people and left 30 wounded, Army officials said.

— CBS News
&

Captain Isaac Taylor, a spokesman at Fort Hood, confirmed to CBS News early Friday morning that one additional victim had died of wounds sustained in the attack after hospitalization, raising the death toll to 13. At least 30 others were wounded, according to Taylor.

— CBS News
No where does the source say that MAJ Hasan is included in those wounded figures. I will now tag the content accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The text presently reads:

In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others

.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Corrected.TMCk (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case than anyone can go and boldly change the reference to any of the verified figures, and it would totally meet verification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Not if it would go against common sense. That could be construed as bad faith or at least very pointy.TMCk (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It could be said that the current 30 figure is in bad faith as it pushes a figure that is not verified by multiple reliable sources. The content which was removed by another editor which does not show good faith of myself was verified by such sources as a report from the United States Senate, as published be Diane Publishing, the Pulitzer Prize recipient Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, New York Times, among multiple others. Furthermore, the reversion, again fails verification. It changed the infobox to a statement that reads:

30 (including the perpetrator)

This is not verified by the source provided, no where in that source does it say that MAJ Hasan is included in that wounded figure.
ROG5728 accuses me of WP:OWN in the edit summary, I could accuse that editor of the same, and it would reduce the civility of this discussion. Furthermore, TMCk says that any additional change "would go against common sense", to that I would argue that the common sense figure would be the one that coincides with the charges of attempted murder against MAJ Hasan.
Again, I have show how multiple reliable sources verify different wounded figures. Per WP:VER & WP:VNT this would mean that all figures provided by reliable sources are potentially valid. This is why my earlier compromise of "more than 29" solution would be the best solution, as opposed to my earlier range solution. This way if future editors come across the content, and find other reliable sources that are more than 29, their sources would be equally invalid, and this matter will should not arise again.
Only stating that X were wounded, as if all the reliable up to date sources, state that as being the fact would give a false impression based on what can be verified by multiple reliable sources.
I have so far shown how using established guidelines and policies, as stated in WP:NOCOMMON, how the present content in the lead section does not meet WP:VER, and how only using one source is contradicted by other reliable sources including sources that are directly attributed to the United States government.
So far what I can summarize the editors who prefer the 30 only figure have engaged in good faith, but IMHO incorrect, versions of our figure is verified, you're still wrong because 30 is the correct wounded number, and consensus has not and will not change regarding the past consensus that thirty is the only correct figure and it includes MAJ Hasan.
Now, those who oppose my view can say that I have made a mountain out of a mole hill, but faced with the overwhelming reliable sources that contradict the 30 only opinion, should incorrect information be allowed to remain?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edits don't have support. Just give it a rest. ROG5728 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

First let me say that my most recent proposal meets the precedence set by the survey of the RfC, however consensus is not based on a vote and wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is based upon the strength of the arguements presented during a discussion. Just because X says Y doesn't have support does not follow the advice given at WP:NOCOMMON. I have shown how using established guidelines and policies how stating a 30 only wounded figure fails those policies and guidelines. I have shown how my compromise of "more than X" would meet them. I have shown multiple reliable sources later than, and earlier than the source which is prefered by ROG5728 that superceeds that 30 wounded figure given by a "Wire Report" of the Associated Press, where as the strength of my sources can be attributed to actual individuals (reporters, and individual military personnel).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. The RFC disagrees with you, the previous consensus disagrees with you, and the facts disagree with you. You're not changing anyone's mind, and consensus does not require unanimity. ROG5728 (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The RfC was whether there should be a range or a single number. As a single number 30 is incorrect per multiple reliable sources.
The previous consensus was to support original research that was not verified by the reliable source that was provided.
Yes consensus does not require unanimity, however those who oppose my position are doing so by giving undue weight to a single source that does not properly attribute who the Fort Hood spokesperson is. Better reliable sources, such as some which I have provided in my most recent edit which ROG5728 reverted directly contradict that one source which ROG5728 continues to point towards, although it is contradicted by far superior reliable sources. Even the publisher of the source the Austin Statesman in later published articles (which I have already shown) uses the term "more than 30".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the RFC was whether there should be a range or the single number as currently used, and one of the editors who responded with support (John) even referenced my arguments as his basis for supporting no change. Again, previous consensus supported the version we currently have, and consensus hasn't changed. The number currently used comes from Fort Hood, whereas the numbers you've advocated come from CNN and the like, and incorrectly include people who simply suffered stress (and the 32 figure comes from the number of attempted murder charges). ROG5728 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in the RfC question is the wording "currently used" located, therefore there is no need to emphasis that. The !votes said a single number was preferred. I have shown how using multiple verifiable reliable sources in my last edit the strength of the 32 figure, or the range of different verifiable to reliable source figures out there and thus my "more than X" compromise.
The current version is not the version that previous existed, it was edited recently by another editor than myself to change from 29 to 30. That edit was done boldly, although IMHO correctly as it fixed a verification issue. However, when I changed it to another verified figure, the edit summary by the editor whom I am responding to made a claim that I was attempting to own the article.
The 32 figure also comes from Fort Hood. And that number was supported by multiple reliable sources, not including that single CNN article which ROG5728 refers to. 30 is an incorrect number, and based on later published articles by the Austin Statesman (who now uses the "more than 30" phrase) they allow room to acknowledge that their AP article which they hosted (written by Wire Report (who is Wire Report? who is this author?)) was wrong.
The weight of the reliable sources I have provided out weight the single article that ROG5728 believes contains the only valid casualty figure.
Please ROG5728, tell us why all the references that was removed by ROG5728 in this edit are lower quality by the AP article published by the Austin Statesman which appears to be ROG5728's preferred source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, the RfC !vote, as I said before, said a single number was preferred, but it did not say which casualty figured was accurate, just that a single number was preferred. It did not say that the "currently used" (before the RfC was activated) number was accurate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Since the difference between my opinion and ROG5728's opinion is based on references used, I will begin a discussion at WP:RSN whose scope is reviewing references.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The RFC was clear and so was the discussion. You failed to gain support for your "number range" so now you're just looking for something else to argue about. The article is correct right now and it doesn't need to change. As you well know, there is a massive number of sources using the 30 figure, not just one; in fact, as I pointed out earlier, the 30 figure used in the article is more widely used than any of the other figures and yields more Google results. Earlier you advocated taking a census of sources and using the most common number, but since we now know that that would destroy your argument (since 30 is the most common), here we are still arguing about something pointless and trivial. ROG5728 (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with me, but what can be verified, I have offered multiple reliable sources, and while researching and reviewing those sources, I have changed my opinion. Yes, more information, more research, can make me change my opinion. Please do not direct arguments against myself but on the references I have provided.
In doing the aforementioned research I have noticed that the 30 figure appears to be contradicted and incorrect. The Austin Statesman source, that is presently used, in the article does not verify the statements made by ROG5728 here regarding the differing figures that are not verified by the Austin Statesman. As there are multiple reliable sources that verify multiple figures, but the consensus from this RfC is a single number to be used a "more than X" solution follows the consensus and meets VER for those other figures. Failing that, from my research, it can be verified that high quality reliable sources (including a report from the United States Senate) (also posted at the RSN discussion) state that the wounded figure is 32; although it meets VER, it also fails VER because of all the other reliable sources that can verify other wounded figures (including, but not limited to, 30 (or "more than 30" as more recent Austin Statesman articles have stated)), but is a solution that has a predominance of strong reliable sources that verify it (more so than the 30 figure IMHO).
I have, in the past, offered other reliable sources that verify the 30 figure, but it is my current opinion that those reliable sources do not have the preponderance of weight of the strong reliable sources that the 32 figure has.
As, in the end this boils down to the quality of references to verify content, this is why RSN is the best forum to discuss those references.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

list of people who had gunshot wounds

To try to help solve the # problem I thought it might be useful to get concrete about this, and actually find the names of the wounded people who were shot but didn't die.

I found this which is pretty crappy http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/article/Fort-Hood-shooting-victims-847227.php#ixzz2PoWVKVPD as a source because it is unsourced. But I started from there. I quickly found the lawsuit filed by some of the survivors, which has a very detailed description of the injuries, but only people in the lawsuit, There were names on the "mysanantonio" list that were not in the lawsuit, so I went hunting for more gunshot victims. The trial reporting was very helpful at naming people, as was the NY Times article that followed up on how some of the victims were doing. I went through all those carefully and pulled out names of people reported as being shot. Couple of notes: the "mysanantonio" list included the name of Pvt. Raymondo "Ray" Saucedo; when I went looking I found that he was initially reported as having been shot but he apparently was not: http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/11/michigan_soldier_injured_in_fo.html

Also, the lawsuit names three more people who were injured, but not by being shot (some described as being pretty serious), and it names 9 people who were traumatized by the event but not physically injured.

I am truly amazed at the way numbers of the wounded are thrown around - it is no wonder that there is such an argument -- on what basis could one possibly decide with so many authoritative, conflicting sources? The official FBI report says that 42 people were injured, with no explanation! http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/final-report-of-the-william-h.-webster-commission

I guess some people might consider this table to be OR or synth, but I don't think so. It is a list, with each item sourced. Would love to find a single source with the names of all the gunshot victims but I could not. However it WOULD be OR to say that the "right number" is 32 based on the list. I have not done that. There may be more, for all I know. This is what I found with a couple of hours of searching.

For what it is worth, IMO a lot of BS is generated by people trying to claim certainty where none is available; the best thing to do would be to say that sources report numbers from ranging from X to Y. Almost none of the sources you guys are fighting about says what they are counting under "injured" -- do they mean gunshot wounds, falls, trauma? Who can say what the number you have picked "30", represents? Nobody knows. So you should not say it -- it is BS. It is too bad so many people have become so passionate about this. Sometimes things are not black and white, and when that is the case, the best thing WIkipedia can do, is to tell the grey. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC) (edited my comment - deleted "wounded" and replaced it with "people who were shot but didn't die" Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC))

I was bold, and just implemented what I wrote above. I'll leave the tag on, til folks weigh in if they are comfortable or not.Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
took the tag off last night. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


Act of terror?

There appear to be a debate about whether this is a mass marduer/ workplace shooting or an act of terrorism. Is it appropriate given WP:NPOV to identify it solely as a mass shooting in the opening sentence? Doesn't t take the side of the current administration without reflecting the vigorous dispute? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

grammar

I am no expert in English, but the sentence "If convicted, [...] he would have either been given the death penalty or life in prison without parole", in the introduction, sounds really odd. It's neither future perfect, not future simple. The correct construction, I think, should be one of the following:

Future simple tense: "If convicted, [...] he will either be given the death penalty or life in prison without parole."

Future perfect tense: "Upon conviction, [...] he would have either been given the death penalty or life in prison without parole." or "After being convicted, [...] he would have either been given the death penalty or life in prison without parole."

- Subh83 (talk | contribs) 02:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

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

Disambiguation

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

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

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

Requested Move

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

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


Fort Hood shooting → 2009 Fort Hood shooting – The recent shooting at Fort Hood means that the title should have a date to differ the two events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Whitewash

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

Removal of verified content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update Needed

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

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

FOX News bias

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

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

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

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

Terrorism categorization

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

The initial removal was stated

Not classified as terrorism. Read the article.


My reasoning for the reversion is

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


Yet the reversion of the reversion only states for rational:

not terrorism. please take to talk


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

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

Is this the other reverting editor?

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

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

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

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

Hasan has made a rather complete explanation of his motives here[3]. He does not explicitly say it was terrorism. However, to a person who with Al Qaeda ideology, it is all distressingly familiar stuff. For example,

I, Nidal Malik Hasan, am compelled to renounce any oaths of allegiances that require me to support/defend any man made constitution (like the Constitution of the United States) over the commandments mandated in Islam (i.e. Quaran and Sunnah). The Sovereignty of All-Mighty God must prevail over the Sovereignty of Man.[4]

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

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord . . . .[5]

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Fort_Hood_shooting/Archive_6&oldid=1142749571"