Talk:2009 Fort Hood shooting/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Active Shooter Incident?

I notice similar incidents are identified as 'spree shootings', including the category 'spree shootings in the United States'. Might we change the category name to 'active shooter incidents' and 'active shooter incidents in the United States'? As a law enforcement officer I rarely hear the term 'spree shooting' these days, it's all 'active shooter'. I'm probably nit-picking. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DustoneGT (talk • contribs) 05:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I read active shooter, and other than getting the general sense that it's a term coined by police manuals, I'm really not certain I know what it is. Is someone who shoots people always an active shooter? What, then does the word "active" convey that "shooter" does not? -Miskaton (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My impression from the article was that it refers to an assailant who is still actively attacking people when police are dispatched. There would be a necessity of responding differently to someone who is still active, as opposed to someone who kills select targets and then stops. But I may have misunderstood the article. Anyway, WP:NAME says we should use the names that are most recognizable and easy for most people to find, so until "active shooter" overtakes "spree shooter" in the vernacular of the general public, we should probably stick with "spree shooter." Might there be a benefit to merging the two articles, though? 61.223.205.125 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It does seem like jargon. Is the term actually being used in this case, or this an editor's judgment? Шизомби (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Metroplex

FYI, Metroplex is located in Killeen, not Temple. --12.14.130.200 (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Move

Please move this article to Fort Hood Massacre as there are confirmed deaths . Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is Texas?

I made this suggestion some hours (6+) ago:

"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)"

The relevant map seems to be at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Map_of_USA_TX.svg (thanks to User: John Broughton for pointing me in the right direction to find the map)
Let's put it this way, when I saw the map, Texas wasn't where I thought it was. Many others will be in the same position. Is there any reason this can't/shouldn't be done? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry, I missed the 'Interactive Map' at the top of the page, so my suggestion is apparently redundant.
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Impossible timing........

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, age 39

He joined the army immediately after high school, and in exchange the army paid for him to go to college and medical school.[10] Hasan graduated in 1997 from Virginia Tech, where he was a member of ROTC,[11] with a bachelor's degree in biochemistry

Given he's 39 that would mean he gratudated high school in ~88 there is NO WAY the army would give him 9 years to finish a bachelor's degree.

It's extermly unlikely he joined immediately after high school. Is there anything to actually back this fact up? --137.242.1.15 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's an improbable timeline (not impossible since he could have served as an enlisted man for some years before going to college); however both the NY Times and the Washington Post are reporting those details, and we don't really have an alternative. Dragons flight (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If we are to assume he did indeed go to college and graduate in 1997, then that puts the 2003 graduation date from Uniformed Services University Of The Health Sciences at dobut because it's a 4 year program. That would put his graduation at 2001, which was reported in several places, like fox news, even though it contradicts the VA board of medicine website.

The whole thing just sounds off. --137.242.1.15 (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I was just thinking about it... if he was prior enlisted then he wouldn't have been described as a 9 year veteran... He'd actually have like 17 years (minus 4 for ROTC). --137.242.1.15 (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

He did 8 years as an enlisted member before becoming an officer. Cla68 (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference supporting your statement? I would like to include it in the article, if it's not already there. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I found a source for the enlisted period, interesting is that the AP time lime makes more sense, joined after high school for 8 years and if he went to collage while active duty this statement would make perfect sense

"But college officials said Friday that Hasan graduated with honors in biochemistry in 1995 and there was no record of him serving in any ROTC program.

He previously had attended Barstow Community College in Barstow, Calif., and Virginia Western Community College in Roanoke, Va., according to Virginia Tech records."

Then logically he would have gone to medical school and that would put his graduation date closer to the 2001 as the right date, which seems to be the date used everywhere but the VA website. So even though he would have had like 20 years his commitment would have restarted and he'd still be looking at severing 7 years or so. Which would explain why he couldn't get out.

I'll see if I can't clear that up in the main article.--Reyals (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It now appears glaringly obvious that the current second paragraph in the "Early life and education" section of the article pertinent to Dr. Hasan is riddled with factual errors and omissions. Moreover, the boxed section regarding his "Unit" in the Army - which is supposed to summarize his various active-duty assignments - lacks information on Dr. Hasan's time in the military prior to entering medical school in 1999. The years 1988-1992 and 1995-1999 are without account, and we have no way of knowing how Dr. Hasan's experiences in those periods acted upon him in any way, particularly as they may (or may not) have figured in predisposing him to his alleged actions of 5 November 2009. 71.125.151.88 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok I put the change in. I had to leave it a bit vague because I'm not allowed to do orginal research right? But here's what's most likely. Given his graudation date from high school, the fact he served 8 years enlisted, and the graduation date from VT. I doubt he was in the ROTC; he was most likely he was simply another soldier working on his degree the face he went to a few diffrent collages also leads me to this conclusion, but I can't prove it. After he finished his degree there would have been a bit of a gap before he could get into med school, but 2003 seems like a long wait... but that lines up better with a 4 year residency ending in 2007... but again there is proof for either date; 2001 or 2003. So I left it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyals (talk • contribs) 00:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The current media advisory uttered by Virginia Tech[1] lists Dr. Hasan's entry to Summer Session II in 1992, and his completion of coursework in the Spring Semester of 1995, qualifying him for graduation at that time. "Hasan was not a member of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets, nor was he a member of any ROTC program at Virginia Tech."
CNN is currently reporting[2] that Hasan had been commissioned "as a first lieutenant in June 1997" (which seems passing strange, as newly commissioned officers customarily enter the service as second lieutenants).
Examination of information sources (both primary and secondary) for the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences clearly informs that the course of study in the USU's F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine is of four years' duration, divided into two years of purely didactic work followed by two years of clinical clerkships, and the Virginia State Board of Medical Examiners has been repeatedly cited as stipulating Dr. Hasan's year of graduation as 2003, with completion of his residency in psychiatry in 2007.
This means that there are significant lacunae in Dr. Hasan's personal history as both an enlisted man prior to college matriculation and as an officer prior to entering medical school in 1999. 71.125.151.88 (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

'Suicide Note' Link

Wikinews has this External link, http://www.scribd.com/NidalHasan And this is what it says:

NidalHasan scribbled:
There was a grenade thrown amongs a group of American soldiers. One of the soldiers, feeling that it was to late for everyone to flee jumped on the grave with the intention of saving his comrades. Indeed he saved them. He inentionally took his life (suicide) for a noble cause i.e. saving the lives of his soldier. To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate. Its more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause. Scholars have paralled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory. Their intention is not to die because of some despair. The same can be said for the Kamikazees in Japan. They died (via crashing their planes into ships) to kill the enemies for the homeland. You can call them crazy i you want but their act was not one of suicide that is despised by Islam. So the scholars main point is that "IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOUR INTENTION IS THE MAIN ISSUE" and Allah (SWT) knows best.

The oldest post (that I could find) seems to be 5 hours old, the shooting was about 14 hours ago (19:30 (UTC) is that right??).

Is it the same person?? Speculatiing, plenty of time for someone to plant a fake 'blog'??

This may turn out to be fake. So take it with a BIG grain of salt! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Soldier Readiness Center

I think we need to be more specific about what this is, Especially as it's not a wikilink to anything and seaching for it on the web only leads to this incident. All the article says is "a complex used to process soldiers before and after deployment". This is a bit vague. For example, Is it where Kit is issued or returned? Is it where medicals are given and wounded soilders recieved? Is it where admin and paper work relating to deployment is completed? Is it where predeployment training occurs? Also on a related note is this a building or group of buildings within Fort Hood or is Foor hood entirly used for this purpose? Stupidstudent (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I heard in the news

Yes- It IS where medicals are given (dental checkups were mentioned)

Yes- It IS where admin and paper work relating to deployment is completed (powers of attorney were mentioned, I imagine(personal speculation) wills too if needed

Try the Fort Hood Website, as it is up again or specifically http://www.hood.army.mil/medical.aspx and http://www.crdamc.amedd.army.mil/default.asp?page=srp_pdhra.
A few extracts from these webpages.

"The Soldier Medical Readiness Center, located in the Thomas Moore Health Clinic, provides Inprocessing, Readiness, and Outprocessing physical exams, Hearing Conservation, and other services in support of the medical aspects of military readiness. The clinic hours are Mon-Fri 0700-1600."

"Soldier Medical Readiness Center.......Bldg 2245.......254-285-6232"

"SOLDIER READINESS PROCESSING (SRP):

The mission of the SRP site is to perform administrative and medical screening services to Active Duty, National Guard, Reserve and Civilian personnel in support of deployment and redeployment/demobilization. Unit medical readiness screening is also provided for units that are not in their deployment window.

The SRP objective is to ensure that personnel are both physically and mentally fit to deploy and redeploy/demobilize. The screening process includes:

Periodic Health Assessment (PHA) for eligible Soldiers
Medical Threat and Immunizations Briefings
Pre/Post Deployment Health Questionnaires
Medical Record Review
Deployment LAB Services
Immunization Update
Dental Health Review
Clinical Health Review with licensed Provider
Nurse Case Manager Services when needed

Other – Legal, Finance and Personnel Services are provided by the Adjutant General (AG) as part of the complete SRP process.

SRP Location/POC:

Iron Horse Gym, Bldg. 37017, Old Iron Sides St.

POC:

For scheduling, contact (AG) at 254-535-2489.

For specific questions regarding the medical component of the SRP process contact 254-535-2764."
Apologies if this is too much 'cruft' --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Terrorist attack"

I removed the word terrorst from the lead as it is a word to avoid and this is a shooting by a lone individual rather than a concerted attack by a group G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I read the paragraph in WTA (which is a style guideline, not policy) and it seems the language really stems from BLP policy. That doesn't really apply to describing the attack itself. Also, just because it was only 1 person, does not mean it wasn't terrorism. If anything, there isn't sufficient evidence yet to say this is an act of terrorism, but your reasoning is very weak. Reliefappearance (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

there isn't sufficient evidence yet to say this is an act of terrorism Hence it shouldn't be in the lead. Someone else has changed it to active shooting which is a far better term G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, if there are articles from verifiable reliable sourced references stating that the event is a terrorist attacks, a statement attributing the source(s) should be included, but not given undue weight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fort Hood massacre was domestic terrorism -- just like the Oklahoma City bombing was terrorism. In both cases, the perpetrators used deadly violence to inflict revenge and to further their evil political objectives.

At the very least, the debate over what to label it should have it's own section in the article. Clearly there are heated viewpoints on both sides. Lets remember, the attacker being mentally ill (if that is the case), doesn't preclude it from being a terrorist attack. Clearly it had the effect of terrorism on the US population. What needs to be established is whether his motives and intent fit the bill. He did have clear sympathies with the Jihadist movement. So it probably should at least be placed into the context of the US War on Terror, even if the term itself isn't applied to the act.

Victims 'Error'

The last sentence of the 'Victims' section reads "Ten of the dead were soldiers, the other two civilians", (total 12) but in the last few hours another person passed away in hospital.(Reported on tv at least) Not sure if military or Civilian. All other occurences have been corrected to best of my knowledge --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Children? Prior marriage?

"A former neighbor of Maj. Hasan from Vinton, David Cook, 43, who lived on the same street with his children until about 1997, said two sons were living with Maj. Hasan at that time, and they attended local schools." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125748027248433099.html

(Hasan was 26/27 in 1997 [he was born in 1970), so these were presumably young sons. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Check your tags

Hey guys, I just visited this page and fixed several ref tags that didn't have closers or were in the wrong format. Please check your edits when you add or modify content; an entire section of the article was blank because someone forgot to include a closing tag. Don't let your desire to contribute as fast as possible lead to crappy coding. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 14:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement in the lead

Currently the lead mentions that Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire. Does such a detail really need to be in the lead?

If it is, then shouldn't it be balanced with CAIR's condemnation of the shooting?

VR _talk 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've shortened the lead generally, as the shooting section that follows had may identical details. In that process I did remove Allahu Akbar from the lead. Dragons flight (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Drum reports that an eyewitness denies hearing "Allahu Akbar." Maybe we should change "Soldiers ... reported ..." to "Some soldiers ... reported ..."

Video footage licensed CC

CC licensed video footage of the crime scene from yesterday has appeared on Flickr here. Would its upload and inclusion in this article be beneficial? Thoughts? JoeSmack ^Talk 16:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it technically be public domain as it is a work of the U.S. Government (per U.S.C Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105, see {{PD-USGov}})? MuZemike 16:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the people taking it were federal government or what, we just have their names right? JoeSmack ^Talk 17:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

PD-USGov only applies to works created by federal employees in the performance of their duties, so unless it was in some way an official video documenting the scene, it is unlikely to be PD. Dragons flight (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The introduction says that it was created by III Corps' Public Affairs and filmed by a another soldier, so wouldn't that be considered a government work created by a federal employee as part of their duty? MuZemike 19:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought so, however, is it clear whether it was taken "in performance of their duties" or if it was someone was just filming on their mobile phone for their own reasons or perhaps to sell to news agencies? If it's the former and it benefits the article, I'd advise adding it in. HJMitchell You rang? 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wearing white

It could be he was wearing it for something to do with death. However, the linked stories don't indicate the reporter who thought this was any kind of expert or what basis they had for the claim at all. White clothing is not exclusively or primarily associated with death in Islam, see e.g. the Hadith at http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Hadith/H0004P0117.aspx "Wear white clothes. They are among the best clothes you have, and shroud your dead in it." White is a pretty common color in the Middle East and South Asia not just for that reason, but because (duh!) it can be hot there and it reflects sunlight. Look at Thawb; that's not a funeral there. But this doesn't surprise me, when something horrible such as this happens, people will try to find answers to why it happened or how it could have been predicted, and they will often overreach when doing so. Шизомби (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that whole section analyzing his clothes just sounds silly. -- tariqabjotu 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that it's highly relevant, especially if it was unusual for him, as it indicates a likely change in thought. It has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources. No reason to cut it out right now. Grsz¹¹ 17:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a repository of asisine media speculation. They're speculating about his clothes, because that's what they do: research into the minutiae of a story and tell us about it, even if it's unimportant or poorly understood. There is absolutely nothing unusual about Muslims, of any nationality, wearing Arab or South Asian clothing. And there is nothing particularly usual about Muslims wearing white; as Schizombie said, white is a very popular color. I'm not saying, we should say what I just said in the article -- sure, that can be original research -- but omitting a useless, unremarkable point touted by the media is not original research or going against sources. On the contrary, it's the right thing to do. -- tariqabjotu 18:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be relevant, time may tell. But I really don't think it's unusual for Muslims other than South Asians to wear Salwar kameez (even some non-Muslims); the claim that it is an unusual form of dress and the claim about white clothing is AFAIK misinformation that did not appear to come from an expert or be backed by evidence, as I said above. Are there multiple sources? The two links are the basically same; they're CBS' sourced to Sheila MacVicar. They would be reliable sources as to this being her unsubstantiated opinion. Шизомби (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, the remark about white has remained struck, but this is still in: "A convenience store security video reportedly showed Hasan wearing a traditional salwar kameez. The garment is predominantly worn in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not in Jordan or Palestine where Hasan had ancestral ties." The first sentence is pretty close to a statement of fact and it just remains for the identification to be confirmed I suppose, though its significance is debatable. If he commonly wore it, it's of no importance; if it was unusual for him to wear it, it could be. The second statement has problems. We have no evidence regarding how common or uncommon the outfit is in Jordan or Palestine; and the articles don't claim it is not found there. Also, how common it is in those countries is perhaps irrelevant; how common is it among American Muslims would seem more relevant. Also, the use of two links that are essentially the same source makes this appear at first blush better sourced than it really is.

Шизомби (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Aren't these particular clothes always white?? I know no OR, but I've never seen any other colour. Hijabs etc yes. 'salwar kameez' no.
:--220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they come in all colors. Men's typically will have a solid color with a matching top and bottom, women's vary more. Шизомби (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Police officer shooting Hasan

Why was he shot by a police officer, presumably from outside the camp, when surely all the soldiers in the camp would have had guns?86.152.241.34 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

what about the MPs? How come the police officer got there first, and not the camp MPs?86.152.241.34 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Soldiers don't carry weapons on base, just the MP. Grsz¹¹ 18:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this article,

"As a matter of practice, we don't carry weapons here, this is our home," said Cone.

My experience is that most areas of most bases in the U.S. (and even some I've been to overseas) use non-military security guards as a way to lower costs and have more military personnel free for their main mission. Even the Pentagon, when I had an office there, used non-military security personnel to staff the entrances. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Both DoD police and MP's work together. Often times they drive different vehicles and I guess the DoD was first to responed. And Grsz11 is correct when saying only the MP's and DoD police carry weopons on post. Bringing a weapon on post is a federal offense. Also Fort Hood hasn't been called a camp since the late 40'sUnknowntbeast (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks. I'm in the UK so am unfamiliar with the way things work over there. So am I right in understanding that the officer was working with the military, rather than just an officer who happened to be passing by? Can this be made clear in the article?86.152.241.34 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the IP. I've been trying to find this out from one of the 40 odd news articles referenced but nothing so far. If I get something, I'll put it in. I've got BBC News 24 on atm but their focus seems to be the more recent Orlando shooting. HJMitchell You rang? 19:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would change it, but as I said before I am not that great with editing Wiki's. It took me a good second to figure out how to type here! Unknowntbeast (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Creative commons footage

There's CC-licensed footage on Flickr, we should get a few screengrabs, etc. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Fort Hood shooting#Video footage licensed CC above. MuZemike 19:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of wounded

I believe someone deleted my post, so I am reposting it: The first count of wounded was 31, which was yesterday. Then today it changed to 30 because a 13th person died. I had fixed that in the infobox and intro. Now it says there were only 28 wounded. Where did this reduced count come from? Let's also remember if they were wounded and were released from the hospital, the number should not decrease as they were wounded and the article should reflect the number of killed and wounded, not a currently wounded count, if you catch my drift. Unknowntbeast (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the problem of writing about an event before everything is known, it could be that the initial reports were wrong. http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-11-05-Fort-Hood_N.htm?csp=34 for example states that there were three suspects other than Hasan detained and questioned, while others are saying two. That article also says the number of victims could be due to ricochets and friendly fire. It's perhaps not enough to have a statement in the article with a media citation, possibly more information about the source of the information has to be included in the body of the article. Like, who says three? In this case, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone (assuming the reporter didn't mishear or misunderstand). Then the next question would be, what is the source of Cone's information that it was three, and so on. Current events are difficult to handle encyclopedically on Wikipedia, I think. Шизомби (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See Revision History-

19:28, 6 November 2009 Gobonobo (talk | contribs) (28,494 bytes) (most recently, army officials have said 28 wounded. FYI --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Should Hasan's name be in bold?

I reverted another editor who put it in bold, however, it is important that these things reflect consensus so does anybody have any input? HJMitchell You rang? 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

From a quick perusal of similar articles, bolding it would seem to NOT be in keeping with normal wiki-practice. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Separate article for Hasan?

I think we might want to create a new article for the suspected perpetrator of these shootings. It's not without precedent to have articles for both a shooting and the shooter (the most recent example to come to mind would be Seung-Hui Cho and the Virginia Tech massacre. Details of Hasan's background are continuing to emerge, and the story will likely continue to develop, especially as the case moves closer to trial.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.145.227 (talk • contribs)

Please let's hold off on that for now. At the moment this qualifies as a "one event" situation in terms of a biography of a living person. If an article was created, it would inevitably be taken to articles for deletion and lead to a not very helpful discussion. There is plenty of info about Hasan in this article, but right now he is only known for one thing (and remember right now technically he has still only been accused of a crime). If he survives in the hospital, goes on trial, becomes part of a larger debate about any number of issues, etc. etc., then we'll almost certainly want an article about him. There's no rush to create one right now, and in the past doing so in this kind of situation has often led to problems and protracted debates. Remember that we're an encyclopedia without a deadline, not CNN or the BBC, so there's no rush to make decisions here, and policy suggests we should hold off on a bio for now. Within a week or even a few days we might have a much better sense of how to proceed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - we're not in any rush, and WP:BLP1E argues against a separate article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Army Medical Service Corps?

The information on the primary page list Major Hasan's service/branch as the U.S. Army's Medical Service Corps (MS). As a physician, the correct branch for this individual would be the Medical Corps (MC). Were he a clinical psychologist instead of a psychiatrist, the Medical Service Corps would be correct. Can this be checked?

I've gone ahead and changed it to Medical Corps, due to "FY 2009 - AREAS OF CONCENTRATION (AOC), MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTY (MOS),". AMEDD. United States Army. 18 February 2009. Retrieved 6 November 2009.

Thank you for bringing that up. However, please remember to sign your comments in the future. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction about Scott & White

I work at Scott & White, and it's a level 1 trauma center, not a level 2. Even the linked article that sentence references calls it a level 1 center. Someone might want to make that correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.180.10 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

done. HJMitchell You rang? 22:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deployment location

"Lt. Gen. Robert Cone said today that Hasan was to be deployed to Afghanistan not Iraq as officials initially said." [5] --Pmsyyz (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. I'm sure it is or will be in another source already cited, but until it can be found. HJMitchell You rang? 22:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Errors in victims section

The second to last sentence is rendered useless by the first sentence, claiming that twelve of the dead were soldiers. Also in the last sentence, the tense is wrong, it should be "was" rather than "is". 86.143.62.235 (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the second to last sentence. The last sentence may have been changed already as there appears to be no problem with the te nse there. I'll clean up a couple of other things in that section now unless someone else gets to it first. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Still says 38 wounded in Victims. Pte. Francheska Velez was reported to be 6 weeks pregnant, worthy of mention? Another (unborn) victim? Keep up the good work, Bigtimepeace --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct abbreviation for Private in the US Army is PVT (PV2 if its Private E-2), not PTE. 208.122.241.2 (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Quran give away

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//091106/480/654eab87ff7143979b92649c0c8d15ac/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

He also gave away frozen food...unless he underlined sections of the Quran, I'd tend to think it fairly innocuous. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Hasan's MOS as enlisted man and officer

Searches through online sources available indicate that Dr. Hasan had joined the U.S. Army shortly after completing high school, and had spent perhaps four years (1988-1992) in enlisted service prior to entering Virginia Tech full time in 1992 as an undergraduate student. It appears that there may also have been as many as four years between his graduation from Virginia Tech (1995)[6] and his entry to the F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU), from which he graduated in 2003. Medical school is commonly a four-year course of instruction, and it is probably for this reason that there are reports online which had erroneously set Dr. Hasan's year of graduation from USU as 2001.
No mention is made of his commissioning date either, and it is possible that such a commission had been offered and accepted at the time of Dr. Hasan's graduation from Virginia Tech in 1995.
It may be worthwhile to obtain information on the MOS (military occupational specialty or specialties) in which Dr. Hasan was trained and functioned before he began his college education as well as during his time in the service between college graduation and entering USU to begin the course of study resulting in the award of his M.D. degree.
Such information might help to explain his facility in handling firearms during the episode on 5 November 2009. Except in Special Forces, it is unusual for personnel outside the U.S. Army's Combat Arms - such as officers of the Medical Corps - to be extensively trained or experienced with weapons. 71.125.151.88 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Other online information sources later examined have given rise to questions about the chronology of Dr. Hasan's military service and education. Neither Stars and Stripes nor the Military Times Websites yield anything definitive in this line at this time. It cannot be denied that this individual's personal service history is of great pertinence to all inquiries into Dr. Hasan's motives and methods. 71.125.151.88 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect at some point?

I think we should always use semi-protection reluctantly, and breaking news articles like this can be a way to bring new editors to Wikipedia, so we don't want to limit their ability to edit the article if at all possible. Currently this article is linked from the main page via the "in the news" section and obviously it was vandalized so I understand the reason to semi-protect, but I'm wondering if we might want to remove the protection once the article cycles off the main page or possibly even before then. Certainly vandalism will happen but we might be able to control it given the number of eyes on this page, and if it's too much of a problem we could re-protect of course. Just interested in what others think about this possibility. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't like the semi protection either. However, we get enough edit conflicts as it is without having to contend with IP vandals. Besides, the sheer number of edits being made would make it very difficult to revert vandalism as it would be "edited over" by well meaning editors who didn't see it. However, the decision's not mine to make, I'm not an admin. HJMitchell You rang? 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the decision is just up to an admin, even if an admin has to implement it. Basically it's up to anyone editing the article if we can get consensus one way or another. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. If there is a consensus to lift it, then it should be lifted, though I would advise we wait a few days. I viewed the early edit history and it looked like every other edit summary was someone using rollback, Twinkle or Huggle. I removed a post on here earlier that expressed a... distasteful opinion. If the people (mostly anons) who wrote that kind of thing here were allowed to edit the article, it'd be chaos. I wonder if any other editors have opinions? HJMitchell You rang? 01:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two conflicting interests here, the interests of new editors and the interests of readers. I think when we have to choose one or the other to favor, we should favor the readers, who want to come here and get accurate information about a story that is prominent in the news cycle. As I understand it, the featured article on the main page is left unprotected because it is already in excellent condition, so separating vandalism from good faith edits is easy, and so balancing the interests of new editors vs. readers is much less difficult. This article does not have that advantage. We need it to stay as accurate as possible, at least as long as this story remains prominent in the mainstream news cycle. After then, unprotection would make more sense. For now, we are getting good contributions from some IPs here on the talk page. I think we should make an effort to leave welcome messages on their user talk pages, so that they can feel encouraged to participate with this article and anything else that interests them. Also, there are some messages here from people who don't know to use new section headings, for instance, someone below is asking about using a consistent form of military titles. I'd answer them but I don't know what to say. But keep an eye out for these somewhat hidden comments. We can treat new editors well even under semiprotection if we are vigilant. ~YellowFives 03:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think semi-protect is a good idea for about 2 weeks. I did not deter me from joining in and expression my concerns/ideas. If there was no semi-protect, there would be major edit wars since not everyone uses the discussion section. Unknowntbeast (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally hardcore about "anyone can edit" being a fundamental, core principle on which WP is built and AFAIK so is Jimbo Wales, BUT, the goal is to build an accurate, well-researched and appropriately referenced encyclopedia, that is THE core principle which is IMO an immutable law. When 'anyone can edit' interferes with 'build the encyclopedia', then I think semiprotection is appropriate. But we should unprotect as soon as feasible, taking into account vandals and axegrinders who want to use WP as a soapbox. User:Pedant (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Normally I', one of the first people calling for protection, but with the tremendous amount of IP's on the talk page trying to help, I would support unprotecting sometime tonight. If the vandalism gets out of hand we can always reprotect. - Drew Smith What I've done 07:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspect info box

Is "Other work" a suitable label for "Alleged perpetrator of attack killing 13 and wounding 30"? The use of the word "work" here doesn't seem appropriate for the carrying out, alleged or otherwise, of an act of violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.232.111 (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've already taken it out. HJMitchell You rang? 01:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

More Dead Named

From Wall Street Journal [7]
"The slain included at least one teenager, 19-year-old Aaron Nemelka, who joined the Army last year, out of high school. Spc. Jason Dean Hunt, was 22 and had just married. Francheska Velez, 21, was an oil-tank driver who had completed tours in Korea and Iraq. She was two months pregnant with her first child. Five Army reservists were also killed, including Michael Cahill, who was 62 and worked at the processing center as a physician's assistant."
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll check the article and add in the names as appropriate. Thanks. HJMitchell You rang? 02:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure, but I think Supertouch trumped you. Keep up the good work HJMitchell. I think I need a wiki-break(fast).--220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a wikipedia expert so what format is correct to use for US military ranks. The article uses both AP format and military format. Should it be uniform troughout? Also the US Army does not have the rank Pte. as listed in the victims box. --JustinRJoneZ (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

She's listed as a Private in the news, I don't know if that's the same as PFC or not, so I simply used the term Pte. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It would make sense to use the full rank title (for example, Colonel) in prose and abbreviate it (eg to Col) in boxes etc. However, it needs to be made clear what the abbreviations stand for. As an Englishman, frankly, I have very little knowledge of US Army ranks. Could someone with such knowledge sort it? HJMitchell You rang? 03:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Army sources she is a Private Second Class or PV2 (that is original reserch)--JustinRJoneZ (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For those who don't know the "private" ranks, it is this; Private is PVT (E-1), Private Second Class is PV2 (E-2), and Private First Class is PFC (E-3). The E-1, 2 or 3 is the pay grade. There is no Pte. This needs to be fixed to the correct rank. Unknowntbeast (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Shooting Earlier than Reported Previously?

Wall Street Journal [8] Currently says;

"The shooting rampage began shortly after 1:20 p.m. Thursday, as scores of soldiers from the 36th engineer brigade, which has the motto "Stay Rugged," waited for medical exams at the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, a gymnasium-sized building at Fort Hood where troops are prepped for deployment."

"The first 911 calls to the police station on base came in at 1:23 p.m. Officers across the sprawling base sprang into action.

Kimberly Munley, a 35-year-old police officer, happened to be nearby, waiting for her squad car to get a tune-up, when she heard the commotion. She raced to the scene, according to her boss, Chuck Medley, director of emergency services on base."

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

WSJ could well be right, but see my comment here regarding this issue. Seems at least for now the military is using 1:34 as the time of the shooting, and we'll need more than the WSJ story to go against that. I'm sure this will be firmed up one way or another within the next 24 hours or so. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"Noel Hamad said, however, that the family did not know he was being sent to Iraq" Shouldn't that be Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.147.103 (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe this was fixed earlier. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite error

Nobody seems to have noticed this, but there is a cite error currently showing at the bottom of the article. My experience with the cite templates is limited- I don't like fiddly things. Could someone who knows what they're doing please correct it! HJMitchell You rang? 03:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref number 12 is defunct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.59.48 (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you see an "unused" error, please comment out the appropriate cite. Rich Farmbrough, 09:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Kimberly Munley might be wounded more seriously

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/fort-hood-officer-kimberly-munley-hailed-massacre-hero/Story?id=9014951&page=1 (abcnews.go.com): «„She fired a couple more rounds and fell back, continuing to fire, “ Medley said. Munley was wounded in both legs and her wrist during the close range gunfight, but she stayed upright and kept firing at the charging gunman.» --Alogrin (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this when looking at another source already cited in the article. However, it's probably too early to make definitive conclusions. A lot of newspapers (I noticed The Times) are running features on her in the morning so maybe more information will become available then. There was some talk of giving her her own article, though nothing seems to have come of that so far. Since this article is about the shooting, not her, there's probably little point adding this until we have something conclusive. HJMitchell You rang? 05:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with HJMitchell on this. Just as an aside, I'd say the odds are very good there will be a need for an article on Munley eventually (perhaps even more so than the shooter himself). Undoubtedly she will be lionized by the press and the general public in the U.S., and high profile television appearances, a book deal, etc. are almost certainly in the offing once she heals. I don't say this to be cynical, simply being realistic here (cf. Chesley Sullenberger) if a little crystal ballish. However I still think it's too early to create an article on her. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I concur with your aside, she probably will have an article in the not-too-distant future, after all, this guy got one; but now is not the time. I hate to say this, as it sounds very crass but, if she died (knock on wood, she won't), she'd be notable. She probably will be in a few days anyway. HJMitchell You rang? 05:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Along those lines, we might reference the statements in Active shooter:

"research has established that aggressive action, by even a solo actor, has been, and is now, the most effective countermeasure in stopping the active killer, (for victims in the same event, time, location). For example, initially solo unarmed civilians have accounted for fifty percent of mass murder aborts, (25 percent by armed citizens)."

"The sooner the shooter can be contained, captured or neutralized, the fewer the casualties incurred... "

or simply (see: Active shooter User:Pedant (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly she in justifiably 'notable', 'Reports' say she already has 2 facebook sites dedicated to her. According to her boss'

Chuck Medley said Munley, 34, is a former soldier who became a member of the base's civilian police department. "She has some special qualifications," Medley said. "She's a firearms instructor. She's a member of our SWAT team...a weapons and marksman expert."

Apparently she is quite short, but very tough, "Not one to cross" apparently. She may be less notable than an ex-baggage handler turned security manager/ celebrity because she is trained for this type of event. An artery in her leg was nicked, which is bad, so I hope she comes through. I hope she stays away from 'reality' shows!

Hasan is possibly paralysed, tough s^*t. ABC News' Bob Woodruff reported .You sow, you reap!

Maybe a senior admin should 'start' a page for Munley and protect it immediately as a placeholder or to keep control of things, so there won't be an 'editing frenzy' or vandalism like we had here. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say, that her performance during the incident is already notable enough, to deserve a chapter in this article. Google News already reports 2,208 articles with her name, though it is about 10 times less then Nidal Malik Hasan(23,201) or Nidal Fort Hood(32,371). Based on the size and the detalization in Fort Hood shooting#Suspect it feels, like he is one of victims, who under the circumstances had to do something like this. --Alogrin (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having a section on her in this article, then spinning it off to a stand-alone bio article, if crystal ballery is correct and she gets TV appearance, book deals, made for TV movies, awards, etc. If Chesley Sullenberger deserves an article for landing a stricken airplane, she deserves and article for heroism and not just waiting for a SWAT team to arrive while the shooting continues until the shooter eats runs low on ammo and eats his gun. Apparently she went in and shot it out like Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral, although they said similar things about Jessica Lynch until the facts emerged. Where was her partner, and when did backup arrive? An article too early might be AFD bait under WP:BLP1E. Edison (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Acting along German police tactics installed after Winnenden incidents

Two quick remarks about Officer Munleys brave action and tactics from a German perspective:

First she exactly followed the tactics installed in germany after the Winnenden school shooting. Before, the local police had to wait for special forces or reinforcement. Afterwards any policeman or -woman alarmed in the neigborhood of an Running amok incident is assigned to try to aussault the amoker at once, without hesitating. In the case of the Ansbach school attack this worked, ten minutes after the first alarm, two police guys from a standard street patrol entered the school and stopped the amok on gunpoint. I assume the exchange of civil police tactics has been extensively and can provide German source on that if needed.

Website of the diet of Lower Saxony Konsequenzen aus Amokläufen (consequences drawn out of amok runs, speech of the secretary of interior Uwe Schünemann),

German text

Im Gegensatz zu Geiselnahmelagen kann in der Anfangsphase einer Amoklage gerade nicht auf Zeitgewinn gesetzt und auf das Eintreffen von Spezialkräften gewartet werden. Die zuerst am Tatort eintreffenden Beamtinnen und Beamten des Streifendienstes müssen auch unter Hinnahme eines hohen, aber kalkulierbaren, Eigenrisikos unverzüglich handeln. Sie sollen durch schnelles und entschlossenes Vorgehen den Amoktäter dazu veranlassen, seine Tathandlungen einzustellen. Unter Umständen müssen Zugriffs-, Rettungs- und Schutzmaßnahmen gleichzeitig bzw. parallel durchgeführt werden.

Rough Translation

Amok and hostage taking has to be treated differently. In case of amok, there is no way to loose time. Instead of waiting for special forces, the officers coming first have to act wihtout hesitating and stop the amok runner to continue. The officers must bear the risk, which is high but calculable and important to take. Measurements of Protection, saveguarding and first help have to be done in parallel.

The training of police officers has been adaptet accordingly, the tactics will be adapted on a federal level. as well.

Last point: Dont call it a terrorist incident without real sources. I personally assume the Ford Hood incident being much closer to a School shooting then to a Kabul or Bagdad suicide attack. I would however like to express my best regards --Polentario (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)