Talk:Nidal Hasan/Archive 1

Redirect to section
Requesting that this page redirect to Fort Hood shooting, as opposed to just Fort Hood shooting. If Hasan had his own article, it would be pretty much what the suspect section is now, so it would make sense to redirect it there. If you think this will need further discussion, there's a discussion at Talk:Fort_Hood_shooting--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 01:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ tedder (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not the website of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). "Honest Ibe" Ibrahim Cooper and his Islamist minions will be swarming over this and other articles and come up with 1001 reasons to delete, scrub, rename etc. this article.

If Nidal Hasan is not "killed" (as prematurely announced by Lieutenant General Cone), he will be on military or civilian death row for decades. His name is also relevant because he authored a highly significant 50 slide PowerPoint overview of Islamic doctrines that will be a crucial piece of evidence in future discussions about Islam.

The article SHOULD STAY under Nidal Hasan's name. Also, someone should explain why his e-mail name was Abdulwali.hasan@us.army.mil.

WikiFlier (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the likelihood of those predictions. Where did you get "Abdulwali.hasan@us.army.mil" from? Шизомби (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Abduwali.hasan@us.army.mil is Hasan's listed e-mail account on the Army Knowledge Online white pages. I am curious where the "Abduwali" comes from, and I haven't heard that mentioned in any media. It appears to be a nickname he used, but I'm not sure what the translation is, or what the significance of that name is for Hasan. Atlantabravz (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Abdul Wali translates as "servant of al-Wali", al-Wali being one of the names of Allah. This is similar to the more common name Abdullah. As this is proper name, my guess would be that when he underwent his apparent radicalization he adopted it as a "more Islamic" name than his regular Arabic name. Just useless conjecture... Supertouch (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an fyi, he used "Abduwali" not "Abdulwali." Atlantabravz (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Article needs KEEPING: the poor guy is unfortunately noteworthy. Raises issues of war damage via stress. (Never mind the Iraqi poor guys who undoubtedly have stress too!)
 * 71.59.183.156 (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Poor guy? He allegedly killed 13 people in cold blood! I don't know about "war stress" either as he has never served overseas. Take your propaganda elsewhere. 124.184.96.26 (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Think this deserves a separate article
Maj. Hasan is certainly notable - see Seung-Hui Cho. Are there any strong reasons for not creating? Ronnotel (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is still being discussed on Talk:Fort_Hood_shooting. There are arguments against your query there suggesting that:  1) the two individuals deserve different treatment  2) the amount of information is not sufficient for its own article.  As to whether these are strong enough, please return to the discussion there and avoid working without consensus.  MJKazin (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't move the article. I'm simply correcting obvious errors that I see given that the article has been moved. If the consensus is to move it back then so be it. Ronnotel (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you're prepared for a shit-storm of irrelevent and inappropriate content. This will simply become a place to dump everything anybody ever said about Hasan. Leaving his information in the incident article allows us to only include the important relevant information, especially when he most certainly does not pass WP:BLP1E.  Grsz 11  23:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, this article has already started to be trimmed of some less-than-relevant info already included in Fort Hood shooting. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what information is to remain and how does this pass ONEEVENT.  Grsz 11  23:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm less worried by ONEEVENT than I am by duplication. If you remove the bulk of the stuff on Hasan from the shooting article, as we should if this article remains, what do we have left? Also, while I agree that there is precedent in the Virginia Tech shooter article etc., those have tended to relate to people already convicted or dead. So I'm on the fence on this one, leaning to keep it.-- JohnnyB256  Talk/Contribs 23:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * just curious, how the ONEEVENT rules apply in cases like murder. In the legal sense, each murder is a separate event I believe. Other mass murderers are given individual articles, as was pointed out above, and some are still alive.


 * Support. A great deal of biographical information on Hasan is being disclosed (and will be disclosed) apart from the shooting. The amount of pre-shooting content is certain to overwhelm Fort Hood shooting.  Hasan is going to become both the poster child for political correctness that gets innocent people killed, and a "victim" as well. patsw (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely don't support One of the primary reasons for not separating the shooter from the shooting is due to the inevitable overlap in information. Already, both pages have a section dealing with motivation. This is going to be tedious to undo... While perhaps someone might disagree with me on that, saying that Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and others have their own page. My response to his would be that each killer was responsible for numerous attacks, whereas here we have one attack and one assailant. Supertouch (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I support separate articles. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold have their own page, separate from the article on the Columbine High School massacre, and they are not only infamous for that one event, but they did not survive the event. Nidal Hasan, on the other hand, is still alive and likely to face trial, imprisonment, and possibly execution. All of those will be newsworthy events outside of the original shootings. Richard Jewell has an article, and he wasn't even the perpetrator! The Fort Hood article should be specific on the attack itself, and this article would have more information on the biography of Hasan, as it comes out and as it further develops. As for concerns about too much unsubstantiated content, that is an orthogonal risk that exists regardless of the partitioning of the articles, and can be dealt with via the standard Wikimedia methods (locking the article if necessary, etc.). Prothonotar (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Need help fixing references
Copied from Fort Hood shooting to focus on individual, such cats for palestinean arab and American muslims. Need help fixing the references which are still in the original article Bachcell (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. All you needed to do was copy the references section, and delete the unused ones which would have shown up on page preview. Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

Categories
What's with the "spree killer" and "Islamic terrorist" categories. Hello? People, the man has not been convicted. I don't like some of the "murder" and related categories either. -- JohnnyB256  Talk/Contribs 00:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What does a conviction have to do with anything? Some editors on here do not want to acknowledge the facts of this- it was based upon his religious convictions. The guy was screaming "Allah Akbar" as he killed people!!!! Regisfugit (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We can't call people murderers if they haven't been convicted. That's not how things are done in the courts of the U.S. or in Wikipeda. -- JohnnyB256  Talk/Contribs 00:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So if I'm following your rule about calling someone a murderer, I can kill someone, not be convicted and therefore not be a murderer? Yeah, makes tons of sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.172 (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The guy allegedly yelled that. In time, it might be proven (it certainly seems possible), it may not.  You might consider reading about facts to understand what they are and what they are not.  Editors that recognize that the category doesn't belong here yet aren't opposed to it being added in the future should it become appropriate; please read Assume good faith also. Шизомби (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed all of the various "murder" categories as well (four of them). I can understand why someone put them there, however: A) They really are not all that useful or important, and taking them down for now is no great loss; B) More importantly, whatever our own feelings and opinions about Hasan and the information surround this case, at this point in time he is still a suspect, not someone definitively associated with mass murder and the like. We need to err severely on the side of caution here, and these kind of categories are not really appropriate until a confession, guilty verdict, etc. is out there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree and "spree killer" seems to have a non-applicable technical meaning. Rich Farmbrough, 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC).
 * The definition in Spree killing talks about multiple locations, but I notice that the Luby's Cafeteria massacre, like this one taking place in Killeen, Texas, is considered a spree killing, as is the Virginia Tech one. This one appears to fit the definition too.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the guy is a) the only official suspect and b) obviously a spree killer with no information to the contrary, we don't have to wait for a trial 3 or 10 years from now to determine that he is a spree killer. WP is not a court of law, it's verifiable information, which we can certainly verify his spree killer status, even if it's only 99.99% certain, that's ok as long as the uncertainty or legal status is disclosed. Bachcell (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He is on a list of alleged spree killers, and that is fine. But a category of "killers" or "murderers" just isn't right prior to conviction, or unless he issues a public statement saying "OK, I pulled the trigger."--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On "Circumstances preceding"

 * Major Hasan's purchase of the semiautomatic pistol (an FN Five-seveN) allegedly used in the shooting had been made in "Guns Galore," a store in Kileen, TX, on August 1, 2009, shortly after he arrived on duty at Ft. Hood (July 2009). It is appropriate to incorporate information regarding his expenditures on this weapon, the many extra magazines which were found on his person when he was examined by the Army medic who was first to initiate his medical care on the scene of the shooting, and the large amount of 5.7mm ammunition with which those magazines had been loaded. These are all strong indicators of premeditation.


 * It is reported that Major Hasan had been issued a concealed carry permit in the state of Virginia in 1996, according to Roanoke County Circuit court records.


 * The provenance of the .357 Magnum revolver that Major Hasan was also carrying is of interest. In reports published thus far, there is by no means any clear indication that this revolver was fired by the suspect during the incident. The pre-existence of Major Hasan's Virginia CCW permit(1996) is likely to explain his carriage of that second handgun as well as facility with the semiautomatic pistol more recently acquired. 71.251.131.163 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary style


Major Nidal Malik Hasan, MD was a 39-year-old U.S. Army psychiatrist at the time of the shooting. In July 2009 he had been transferred to Fort Hood from Washington's Walter Reed Medical Center. He is currently the sole suspect in the shooting. Hasan had come to the attention of federal authorities at least six months before the attacks because of Internet postings he may have made discussing suicide bombings and other threats.

Early life and education
Hasan described himself as being of Palestinian descent. His parents emigrated to the United States from al-Bireh, a city in the West Bank territory north of Jerusalem. He was born in Arlington, Virginia and raised in Virginia.

Hasan attended William Fleming High School in Roanoke, Virginia. He joined the Army immediately after high school and served 8 years as an enlisted soldier while attending college. Hasan graduated from Virginia Tech with a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and went on to medical school at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. After earning his medical degree (M.D.) in 2001, he completed his residency in psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. In 2009, he completed a fellowship in Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry at the Center for Traumatic Stress.

According to some sources, Hasan is single with no children. However, David Cook, a former neighbor, said two sons were living with Hasan around 1997 and they attended local schools. Cook said of him, "As far as I know, he was a single father. I never saw a wife." According to military records, Hasan was unmarried.

Circumstances preceding the attack
Hasan had come to the attention of federal authorities at least six months before the attacks because of internet postings he appeared to have made discussing suicide bombings and other threats, though authorities at the time had not definitively attributed the postings. The postings, made in the name "NidalHasan," likened a suicide bomber to a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his colleagues and sacrificing his life for a "more noble cause." No official investigation was opened.

According to retired Colonel Terry Lee, "He said maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor. At first we thought he meant help the armed forces, but apparently that wasn't the case. Other times he would make comments we shouldn't be in the war in the first place."

During a psychiatry fellowship at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Hasan told students "I'm a Muslim first and an American second," according to a fellow student interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, Air Force Lt. Col. Val Finnell. Finnell said that while other students' projects focused on topics such as water contamination, Hasan's project dealt with the "whether the war on terror is a war against Islam."

Hasan gave away furniture from his home on the morning of the shooting, saying he was going to be deployed on Friday. He also handed out copies of the Quran, along with his business cards which listed a Maryland-based phone number and read "Behavioral Heatlh [sic] - Mental Health - Life Skills | Nidal Hasan, MD, MPH | SoA(SWT) | Psychiatrist". He was to be deployed to Afghanistan, contrary to earlier reports that he was to go to Iraq, on November 28. According to Jeff Sadoski, spokesperson of U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, "Hasan was upset about his deployment". Hasan's cousin, Nader Hasan, a lawyer in Virginia, said that Nidal Hasan turned against the wars after hearing the stories of those who came back from Afghanistan and Iraq. Noel Hamad said, however, that the family did not know he was being sent to Afghanistan. "He didn't tell us he was going to deploy," she said.

Faizul Khan, the former imam of a mosque in Silver Spring, Maryland, where Hasan prayed several times a week, said he was "a reserved guy with a nice personality. We discussed religious matters. He was a fairly devout Muslim." Fox News interviewed employees of a local strip club who claimed to have seen Hasan at their establishment in the month prior to the shooting.

According to his cousin, Nidal Hasan was a practicing Muslim who had become more devout after the deaths of his parents in 1998 and 2001. However, his cousin did not recall him ever expressing any radical or anti-American views. The cousin claimed that Hasan had been harassed by his army colleagues because of his Middle Eastern ethnicity. Said the cousin, "He was dealing with some harassment from his military colleagues. I don’t think he’s ever been disenchanted with the military. It was the harassment. He hired a military attorney to try to have the issue resolved, pay back the government, to get out of the military. He was at the end of trying everything." Hasan's aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, Virginia, corroborated his cousin's account, stating that Hasan sought discharge because of harassment relating to his Islamic faith. An army spokesman could not confirm the relatives' statements, and the deputy director of American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs released a statement calling the reported harassment "inconsistent" with their records.

Kamran Pasha wrote about an account from a Muslim officer at Fort Hood who claims to have prayed with Hasan on the day of the shooting and that Hasan "appeared relaxed and not in any way troubled or nervous". The account also tells that the officer believes that the shootings may be been motivated by religious radicalism, based on his heated debates with Hasan, who was said to have attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque led by controversial imam Anwar al-Awlaki. Hasan had attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001, at the same time as Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, two of the September 11 hijackers. Anwar al-Awlaki an American-born scholar now living in Yemen was the imam in 2001, while a third hijacker attended his services while in California, and has apparently issued a statement in support of the shootings. The imam was a spiritual adviser to the hijackers, and Hasan has been reported to have deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings Awlaki has been called "one of the principal jihadi luminaries for would-be homegrown terrorists," Awlaki's lecture on "Constants on the Path of Jihad" is similar to an Al Qaeda document, and is a "bible for lone-wolf Muslim extremists."

Emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki were examined by the FBI, which concluded further investigation was not warranted, and that the emails did not suggest any threat of violence.

ABC news reported that U.S. officials were aware that Hasan had attempted to contact Al Qaeda.

Possible intervention
Addressing the possibility of missed opportunities to have intervened in the case of Hasan, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, said, "Was enough done? I don't think that anyone would have ever expected a psychiatrist trained to help others' mental health would be the one who would go off himself, unless there's more to it, and that’s what they’re looking for." Anti-war activist, Sergeant Selena Coppa, said: "This man was a psychiatrist and was working with other psychiatrists every day and they failed to notice how deeply disturbed someone right in their midst was."

Hasan's alleged extremist beliefs were apparently a cause for concern amongst some of his peers. While at USUHS, Hasan was disciplined for "proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues." Another incident was a lecture expected to be of a medical nature which turned out to be a diatribe against "infidels." Army doctor Val Finnell complained to superiors about Hasan's statements. Finnell said, "The system is not doing what it's supposed to do. He at least should have been confronted about these beliefs, told to cease and desist, and to shape up or ship out."

Recent events
Hasan was promoted from Captain to Major in May 2009. Before being transferred to Fort Hood in July 2009, Hasan received a poor performance evaluation. While an intern at Walter Reed, Hasan received counseling and extra supervision.

Hasan was placed under guard in Brooke Army Medical Center's intensive care unit and his condition was described as "stable". News reports on the morning of November 7, 2009, indicated that Hasan was in a coma, he was taken off ventilation on the 7th.

On November 9, Brooke Army Medical Center spokesman Dewey Mitchell announced that Hasan had regained consciousness, and has been able to talk since he was taken off a ventilator on November 7, but it is unclear when investigators will begin questioning Hasan about the shooting.

Here's a copy of (now removed) information from the parent article, just in case any details were left out here. —  C M B J  16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Scrubbing of political correctness
Be wary of people removing any mention of political correctness. NPOV means including all major controversies, not scrubbing them. PC is mentioned all over RS, not to mention various blogs, left and right, and it is unimaginable that a statement from a classmate of Hasan that PC is a problem should be scrubbed and called "irrelevant". That's like saying radical muslim beliefs are not relevant. Bachcell (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole PC point was mentioned in a David Brooks column today. I added a reference to it in the other article, but I don't know if it's still there. It should be added here as well.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Grsz11 (talk | contribs) (→Retrospective analysis: one non-notable individuals opinion is irrelevant) Finnell is all over the RS, he's all over both the person and the shooting, how can he be deleted from here as non-notable? We had quotes from SEVERAL people from mainstream media critical of political correctness, and he deletes the whole footnoted bunch, several times, and then calls it an edit war. This is simply POV pushing, censorship and unjustified deletion of referenced edits. If the information is truly not relevant (the gas mileage of a VW bug) or flat out wrong (Hasan is a jew), you can delete it. Otherwise edit it. 00:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lt. Finnell has stated his belief why no action had been taken on the warning signs: "The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit".Fort Hood Suspect Warned of Muslim Threat Within Military
 * Have you ever read WP:UNDUE? Your POV here is evident and you need to refrain from introducing it as legitimate in this article. We don't simply include everything anybody ever said about him. Ofcourse it will be reported by the media, they will listen to anybody willing to talk. That does not make this individual a notable opinion in the issue.  Grsz 11  00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, the above editor is now canvassing to bring editors to this thread to support his POV. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, read the table at WP:CANVASS.  Grsz 11  00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your message was in no way neutral. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didnt say it was. Nor was it mass posted.  Grsz 11  00:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please post diffs to the edits to which you object? I'm not clear on what was removed. JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed this bit. Why is Finnell relevant here? He's not. It is simply an attempt to include the PC argument that has been pushed and rejected elsewhere.  Grsz 11  00:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the above-mentioned request by Grsz11: While I don't have a big problem with the paragraph where Lt. Finnell talks about the PC climate prior to the attack as a follow up to what the *Retospective analysis* already has Finnell saying about not persuing more of a premptive investigation into Hasan's psyche, the opinion of Brooks concerning the news coverage is not relevant. It's merely commentary on the commentary. WP:UNDUE certainly applies to that. For the record, that's reflected in the edit I previously made here (→Retrospective analysis: PC of media coverage is not relvant; mv PC blinders leading up to the shooting after Lt. is identified). --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly with removing/excluding Finnell and Brooks. Both are relevant and by no means fall afoul of UNDUE. Can you explain that point? As for Brooks, he made that point in a column today. Yes, it is a commentary on other commentaries. So? It has a bearing on this article and the Fort Wood article. I am mystified as to the reason to exclude. I just don't see it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While Brooks' opinion may be relevant to the event (i.e., Fort Hood shooting), as that is on-going and cumulative, this article is a biography, and Brooks' opinion of the news coverage is about news coverage of the event, not biographical information about Hasan himself. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It could probably be restored to where it was before the entire wholesale section with several instances was reverted. The term "political correctness" is still effectively scrubbed from Fort Hood shootings, despite the fact that the term appears widely in the RS as well as (mostly conservative) opinion pieces. This section should be restored to conform to NPOV since it call for inclusion of all notable controversies. Bachcell (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are some places to start: Nidal Hasan: It's Not Islam, It's a 'Military on the Brink'? "entirely dismissing the role that radical Islam played in Hasan's crimes. "
 * http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/11/nidal-hasan-its-not-islam-its-a-military-on-the-brink/

Suicidal Political Correctness David Limbaugh Tuesday, November 10, 2009 "I'm not sure I believe Casey is more concerned about the ethnic or religious composition of our armed forces or overblown threats to it than the actual murder of its innocent soldiers."
 * http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/11/10/suicidal_political_correctness

PRUDEN: Fatal reluctance to see evil By Wesley Pruden "What worries Americans is how political correctness trumps the judgment of so many of our leaders"
 * http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/10/pruden-fatal-reluctance-to-recognize-evil/?feat=article_top10_read

November 11, 2009 Blind Diversity Equals Death by Michelle Malkin How did Fort Hood happen, obtuse Washington asks. Simple: Blind diversity equals death.
 * http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/11/11/blind_diversity_equals_death?page=full

LOU DOBBS TONIGHT Obama's War Plans; Fort Hood Investigation; " Tonight, many are asking whether political correctness is to blame for the lack of action on the part of the military leadership"
 * http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/11/ldt.01.html

George Stephanopoulos tells us that Obama probably thinks Hasan is a terrorist.
 * http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/has-president-obama-been-convinced-that-hasan-was-a-terrorist.html

Time Magazine is 50/50 on whether he's a terrorist.
 * http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1938415,00.html

President's statements and details of investigation
The article needs much more about Hasan's contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical U.S.-citizen Islamist in Yemen. see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120287913 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.71.120 (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey characterized Hasan's attack as terrorism. see http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/11/09/mukasey-says-fort-hood-attack-was-terrorism/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.71.120 (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The President said Nov. 10 that Nidal Malik Hasan will "be met with justice in this world and the next" see http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN10330004  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.71.120 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. According to the Reuters article, he said "the killer" will be met with justice, etc. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nidal Malik Hasan is the killer.96.231.71.120 (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pat Robertson, a popular broadcaster in Virginia, said the U.S. military overlooked Hasan because of politically correct views of Islam: "Islam is...a violent political system bent on the overthrow of governments of the world and world domination." 96.231.71.120 (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From a guy who called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez! Шизомби (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Article on Hasan's fundamentalist beliefs relative to his mosque
This is VERY good, from a muslim woman. Indicates Hasan took a very, very hard line.22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-07/major-hasans-hidden-militancy/full/ No one in the mosque responded with concerns about Hasan’s extremist views. Rather, when he had distributed the newspaper article, Akther said, a member of the mosque yelled at him, charging him with causing “fitna” in the ummah


 * Interesting article. BUT, is 'The Daily Beast' regarded or known as a source of accurate, well sourced verifiable information? If this article is true it will probably come out. But this doesnt seem a very food source. Just my opinion. (ps SIGN your entry please!)
 * --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

allegiance?
Who wrote his allegiance is to to the U.S!? Unnecessary, questionable, and lowering the quality of Wikipedia, would someone with the power please delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.167.82 (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and I removed it. The inclusion suggested he was acting in his military capacity or as an agent or ally of the U.S. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

inconsistent information
According to he was promoted to Major in April 2008, not May 2009; so which is it? --Outsetopen (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mosque
Please see (if interested) the efforts to keep mention of this and the 9/11 connection out of the mosque article here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mass deletions
The mass deletions of sourced data is unacceptable. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. See also the mass deletions just now of sourced data from this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still more deletions, which I've reverted. Whoever is doing this should desist, and discuss any problems that he has with the article on the talk page.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is WP:BLP. A lot of the claims are clearly attempts at guilt by association. While some are appropriate, others are a stretch.  Grsz 11  20:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's association, not guilt by association. Can you please be more specific as to which provision of BLP is supposedly violated?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop using that as a justification. If the source is reliable, there are no BLP violations. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Use of an RS does not necessarily mean there's no BLP violation, but I just don't see one here. One other deletion I saw, perhaps in the Fort Hood article, referred in detail to associates of the cleric and was guilt by association, but not what was deleted here. His association with the cleric is unquestionably significant, notable and widely reported.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then reread WP:BLP. That is how it works. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * user:Qworty appears to be using BLP across many articles to similarly remove without discussion entire sourced sections such as mentioning links to the mosque in virginia, anti-american statements of awlawki, that awlawki is associated with a university run by a guy on US and UN terrorist lists, is linked to other people investigated by the FBI, or that even a FN Five-sevengun was used in connection with the shootings. Attempts to restore these sections are immediately and repeatedly reverted. He appears to be of the opinion that under BLP nothing can be be written in WP that is damaging to Hasan unless he has been given a trial and convicted. I see people get confronted and banned in hours merely for infractions as minor as FOX news as a source ore merely editing against "consensus" but no one seems to have bothered this fellow with as much as a protest.Bachcell (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's more than just that editor. The disputed text should be discussed here, and that has not been done.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific text

 * Hasan's connections with al-Alwaki may be notable; al-Alwaki's connections with other individuals are not appropriate here. This isn't Alwaki's biography.  Grsz 11  22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"'Hasan had attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001, at the same time as two of the September 11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, and about the same time as Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was convicted of providing material support to al Qaeda and conspiracy to assassinate President George W. Bush,[28][29] though it is not known if Hasan ever encountered them.[30]'"
 * I think it is sufficient to say that he attended Dar al-Hijrah while al-Alwaki was there, and his admiration for him. However, alleged connections with terrorist, which "about the same time" suggesting they are stretched connections, are not appropriate here. If we have to qualify the section with "it is not known if Hasan ever encountered them" then it is not appropriate.  Grsz 11  22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Al-Awaki's connections with other individuals are notable only to the extent that they identify why he is important. However, Hasan's attendance at the mosque at the same time as two hijackers is very important. The others are debatable, but I have no problem with that. I don't see how we can exclude relevant facts that have been so widely reported and are an essential part of this man's story. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the list should stop at the hijackers - there were many prosecutions for terrorist related offenses in that area that could - but shouldn't be named here. Such as: Ali al-Tamimi, Virginia Jihad Network, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali and others I don't think have Wikipages... Supertouch (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think its notable that this fellow--whose shootings were accompanied by his Allah Akbar cry--attended a mosque also attended by these terrorists; in fact, one of the single most important aspects of his background that we know so far.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reminiscent of this ... After 9/11, the FBI released a handwritten 4-page hijackers' letter found in three separate copies at Dulles, the Pennsylvania crash site, and in Mohamed Atta's suitcase. It included a practical checklist of final reminders for the 9/11 hijackers. One notable excerpt: "When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers."  --Epeefleche (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the Most Intellectually Corrupt and Dishonest Articles in the History of Wikipedia
'''NOT A SINGLE WP EDITOR KNOWS THE MOTIVES OF THIS GUY. NOBODY.'''

And yet the article as it stands strongly suggests that Hasan took orders from a radical imam at a Virginia mosque, where he mighta/coulda/shoulda/woulda palled around with some 9/11 hijackers. Not only does the introduction bleat out this pure sophistry, but this entire UNPROVEN guilt-by-association charade of a thesis is then repeated even more breathlessly in the body of the article. Yes, this is one possible explanation for Hasan's actions, though a highly unlikely one.

There's no balance at all in the article right now. Rather than Hasan taking his orders from some cave in the Middle East, it is far more likely that he snapped because he was about to be deployed and had been unable to get out of it. This possible motive, however, has been buried way way way waaaaaaaaay DEEP into the article.

Where's the intellectual honesty here? Where's the balance between possible motives? Nowhere, that's where.

Instead, what we have now is extreme right-wing POV-pushing posing as logical brain activity. It isn't. It's just bias and assumption trying to create links between facts, in an WP:OR fashion, in order to arrive at a conclusion for a motive that, at this point, is unknown to any of us editing this article.

And don't sit there with your pious faces at your computer screens, please, dogmatically chewing the words "Reliable Sources." There are just as many RS out there for other theories of motivation, not just the ones you right-wingers want to use. I've never seen such intellectual dishonestly on Wikipedia before, and that is really saying something.

You take some unrelated RS, put them together in the way you want, in order to push your right wing POV all over the article, and then you sit back and congratulate yourselves, thinking that you are 1) Building knowledge, 2) "Knowing" things about Hasan, and 3) operating with intellectual integrity. Nothing of the sort is happening here.

There are many editors on WP who DO have integrity and they should speak up now so that we can build consensus for an article that is balanced. The way it reads now is just ridiculous. Congratulations to all of you right-wing mind-readers manipulating and specially-arranging RS to build up your little theory that Hasan was a cool-minded Islamic terrorist, rather than a frazzled man who lost it and went berserk.

So where are the other editors? Let's take this article back. If certain people want to go on and on and on in the article about a particular mosque and two or three people out of tens of thousands who attended there over the years, and then REPEAT all of the same stuff throughout the article, pretending that they know this guy's motives and state of mind, the least the rest of us can do is use RS that suggest other alternatives, so that the article will read in a balanced way, and not like some frothing talk-show appearance by Dick Cheney. Qworty (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The guilt by association bit seems particularly unbalanced. Kevin (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's true enough that that Hassan snapped because he was ordered to deploy, but IMO it would be misleading to focus on this angle. I am not happy the the conspiracy mongering either, but soldiers get deployment orders every day. Not many respond by going on a shooting rampage. This motive is not something that anyone could reasonably have predicted. Readers want to know, could anything have done to prevent this tragedy? The FBI knew about the Hassan's messages to Awlaki. His fellow shrinks know of Hassan's stated desire to cut off infidel heads and pour oil down their necks. But it appears that everyone involved was too afraid of being accused of discrimination to take any action. Kauffner (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be misleading to focus on any one angle at this point in time. Presenting the various alternate theories of his motive is fine, but long mentions of connections to 9/11 terrorists lends undue weight to the organized terrorism theory. What is happening with this article is the same as the media typically does when there is no new information: dredge up every conceivable connection to satisfy the demand for new content. It might be a suitable method for a news organisation, but not for an encyclopedia. Kevin (talk) 09:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's time to apply a little 'Occams razor'. A lot is being read into a little published information. The truth may be something wild no one knows yet. Or it may simply be Hasan was wacko all along and just 'waiting' for a stressful incident (his first deployment) to crack. As many White caucasian (& other enthnicities), christians (& other faiths), do without conspiracy theories following. As Qworty says We Do NOT Know. Its about 6½ days. The truth is out there, but it will take time to find it. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the mass deletions are much, much more suspicious for being contaminated with POV. If we do apply Occams razor than we have the ideological background of Hasan, his identification with Iraqi muslims, his red light slide at the ,ilitary physicians conference, his unusual wearing of ghalabia on the day of the terror attack. So if it looks like a duck, quack as a duck and walk as a duck-then it's a duck. It's true that we need to wait to end of the investigation to have the formal final stamp that the DNA is also of a duck-however, president Obama himself already implied that this is a terror attack motivated by the religious believes of the sole "suspect" (he isn't only a suspect). Anyway, removel of information on his visits in the mosque, his backgroung and opinnions-is the most blatant POV one could imagine.--Gilisa (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. We put evidence presented in the RS in the article and let the reader draw the conclusions. Verifiable statements should not be deleted simply because editors worry that it will cause readers to reach a conclusion prematurely. Wiki is not part of the legal process and doesn't have to wait on a jury verdict. Kauffner (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the "if it looks like a duck, quack as a duck and walk as a duck" argument sounds like original research to me. The news media have been speculating and to include speculation in an article without some indication that it is speculation seems unencylcopedic to me.  It has not been demonstrated that this was an act of political terrorism, so the statements should have appropriate caveats, particularly as this is a biography of a living person.  Ketone16 (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP is to present a reference of verifiable information. It is not on a mission to whittle down the output of the RS to one person's version the truth, which is often what institutions like Fox or the New York Times do. It attempts to present a space where all sides can help create reference usable by all. The fact that many right-wing blogs and websites immediately called it terrorism is worth including once it was mentioned and condemned by others in the RS. NPOV doesn't mean banning biased points of view, as long as the existence of the views are substantiated, and all points of view of a controversy are presented. To simply remove any attempt to connect Hasan to his imam, or the persons or organizations Awlawki in turn is associated with (i.e. a guy on US and UN terrorist lists who was in afghanistan with bin laden who runs a graduate degree version of the al Qeada training camps the US targeted with cruise missles) is in itself promoting an unbalanced NPOV if it removes information rather than presenting counter-arguments. Bachcell (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (from abover) Congratulations to all of you right-wing mind-readers manipulating and specially-arranging RS to build up your little theory that Hasan was a cool-minded Islamic terrorist, rather than a frazzled man who lost it and went berserk. Qworty


 * He was a a frazzled man who lost it and went berserk on a lone wolf radical islamic jihad after getting spiritual guidance from a man who called on muslims to kill US soldiers. Even Hasan's own Powerpoint presentation predicted that someone was likely to do what he eventually did. IMO of course. The only people without integrity are the ones who continue to state "there is not enough information to discern a cause or motive"

Bachcell (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Believing that this had anything to do with the guy's religion is like believing in the theory of evolution: We just don't have the evidence yet.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, there's undeniably a mountain of evidence. Sure, his name alone isn't good enough to reach a conclusion, but it's a good start, and Awlaki's boss leads straight to Bin Laden and is mentioned all over the 9/11 files. If Awlawki can be proven to be Hasan's spiritual mentor, he could be held liable for provoking the shootings, just as the other imam was held liable for the first WTC bombings. It is entirely possible Awlawki was speaking in code to Hasan, and certainly no code was involved in his endorsement of the shootings, or his earlier calls for all Muslims to kill US soldiers. What's the difference between telling Hasan to obey Islam and that his interpretation of Islam is that all Muslims should kill US soldiers when they can and simply sending him a message "get a gun and shoot everybody on the base"? I don't know why no authorities have pursued this. There are piles of people like who have the courage of people like Liebermann and McCain to call it an act of terror. (and people like POTUS, Napolitano and Casey who don't have that courage). It is not up to WP to supress viewpoints which are different to one POV (that there is NO information that points to it being a terrorist act) from another POV (it's a an act of terror). As long as either side is verifiable, and either stated by a notable person, or stated by a non-notable person but condemned by a notable person, it should not be summarily erased. I believe it is completely preposterous to state there is no evidence or that it is "not a terrorist incident", but as long as notable officials and columnists make such statements, they should be here. What keeps getting cut out is any mention of al Queda (come on folks, Awlaki, 9/11, Iman University, they're all linked to AQ) or political correctness (do a search on "Hasan" and "political correctness" and see the mountain of news articles) Do we have anybody else that believes NPOV means balancing ALL notable controversies, not simply eliminating individual POVs that an editor disagrees with? There are places to present one "correct" POV, but WP is not it, and should not be in a position to pronounce which side is wrong, or should be supressed because it is or could be wrong.Bachcell (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Kindly reread my comment. Then consult a dictionary for the meaning of the word "irony."JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't make clear if you were a godless evolutionist or a wacko young earth creationist. Bachcell (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What a bunch of babbling nonsense. Please go back to reading your Quran now Justwaitin (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed Qworty took the time to read all 3,093,737 articles on Wikipedia! I just wish I knew which one is THE Most Intellectually Corrupt and Dishonest Article in the History of Wikipedia. Шизомби (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Al-Awlaqi
I've removed the biography of Awlaki. This is a biography of Hasan. In any case the biography of Awlaki was sourced from a book published by WorldNetDaily. Needless to say that is not a reliable source. ~YellowFives 13:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit - in which you removed Awlaqi's info - I agree that it is too long, but at least a sentence or two are necessary to explain the significance of him in the article. Supertouch (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't remove such large sections from the article without discussing it first. Now, for the issue itself, the article is about Hasan and mentioning Awlaki is important for understanding the ideological background from which Hasan came. I can't see how the sources provided for Awlaki fail to meet the request for reliable sources. --Gilisa (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't see how WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, then you should read WP:RS. ~YellowFives 14:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Supertouch, if you look at the content I left still in the article: "In 2001, Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia.[32][33] During this period, it is believed that Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour (two of the September 11 hijackers), and Ahmed Omar Abu Ali (who was convicted of providing material support to al Qaeda and conspiracy to assassinate President George W. Bush), attended the same mosque, but it is not known whether Hasan encountered them.[34][32][33][35][36] Anwar al-Awlaki, now living in Yemen, was the imam there at the time, and has issued a statement in support of the shootings. The imam was a spiritual adviser to the hijackers, and Hasan has been reported to have deep respect for Awlaki's teachings.[37] After the attack, Awlaki praised Hasan for the shooting; on his personal website, he encouraged other Muslims serving in the military to 'follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal.'[38]" you'll see it still explains his significance. Awlaki was an imam at Dar al-Hijrah mosque, and Hasan attended it. ~YellowFives 14:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with YellowFives (or maybe Supertouch - somewhere in the middle). Let's stick to the subject, i.e., biographical info re Hasan. Readers can easily click on the wikilinks provided to get the extended picture and all the nasty details re the people with whom Hasan associated. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no problem of sources. Other sources that state the same and meet wiki criterions are very easy to find-such this one of the Washington Times. Use it instead of removing large chunks. Also, the present source is citing a book, so the question is whether the book say so or not--Gilisa (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad, I should have have read more closely before reverting. Whoops! I didn't mean to get in the middle of a back and forth. If it helps, I support the initial deletion of YellowFives in which he summarized the Awlaqi info that I then reverted. Supertouch (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Messiah Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times is just as much of an extremist source as WorldNetDaily is, probably more so. ~YellowFives 16:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Basic points that should remain: Hasan attended Dar al-Hijrah; al-Awlaki was there; Hasan respected him/his teachings. Everything else is about al-Alwaki, and belongs on his page.  Grsz 11  15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No more reverts!!! We have a potential edit war on our hands. Be careful not to violate the three-revert rule! Proceed with caution! Supertouch (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering that this information justifies concern that the incident could have been motivated by Islamic radicalism, it is very important to keep a summary here where a user doens't have to do a bing/google search to go into details. Clearly, if the agent at the FBI would not have dismissed the danger if s/he did even a little bit of searching on Google or WP he would have known of Awlawki's alleged ties to 9/11, of his call to kill U.S. solidiers, that he was a lecturer of Iman University, and if you follow that link you'll find: "The founder and principal director of this organization is Abdul-Majid al-Zindani, who is classified by the US Treasury as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist[3], and who is also under sanction by the United Nations[4] as an affiliate of al-Qaeda. The Treasury statement mentions that some students at Iman University have been arrested for political and religious murders, that John Walker Lindh was once a student there, and that the school has upwards of 5,000 enrollees." That's what happens when you have to hop links to figure out Hasan was not just talking to his ex-Imam, he was talking with a radical cleric whose boss Zindani personally knew and gave spiritual guidance to Bin Laden, and that's why an agency (most likely the NSA, although not yet mentioned in the press) was monitoring Awlawki and red flagged it when a US soldier was getting emails back from him. It's also worth mentioning that Awlawki disappeared 8 months ago, and he's still wanted by Yemen authorities for questioning about al Qeda ties, and by the US for his possible participation in the US Cole bombing in Yemen. Although the FBI judged the "spiritual guidance" to be of a general nature consistent with the topic of his Powerpoint presentation, if you watch Nova: The Spy Factory the National Security Agency got Bin Laden's satellite phone number almost as soon as he purchased and set it up, and they were not able to find any obvious references to violenced or attacks either until they figured out all of the code phrases. Based on Hasan's actions, it's not hard to guess what sort of "spiritual guidance" was supplied by the radical Imam. The reason we still have people saying with a straight face  "At this writing, we know next to nothing of why he did it", is because of so many people doing everything possible to prevent people from connecting the dots and "jumping to conclusions" Bachcell (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Considering that this information justifies concern that the incident could have been motivated by Islamic radicalism, it is very important to keep a summary here where a user doens't have to do a bing/google search to go into details." Went to the same mosque at the same time and studied under same imam as 9/11 assholes. That summarizes it well. I think from that information the reader can jump to the conclusion you'd prefer. And if you think Leonard Pitts is getting all his information from Wikipedia, you can email him at the Miami Herald and tell him everything you think he needs to know. ~YellowFives 17:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree with YellowFives that overall the information provided in the article make it clear that Nidal's actions were terror actions driven by his radical commentary of Islam. However, I think that further elborating on Al-Awlaqi could be helpful and hence needed (and here I agree with Bachcell). More, as I see it, the connection between Hasan and Al-Qaeda may help readers to understand that Hasan don't represent nothing but the ,ost extreme ones.--Gilisa (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bing or Google search? This is Wikipedia, you click on a name and you go to that article. It's quite simply really.  Grsz 11  18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As time goes on, particularly now that he has been charged with 13 murder counts, Hasan's communications with Alwaki are growing in importance. What might have seemed tangential a few days ago is no longer tangential. BLP by now no longer treats Hasan as a non-public figure. He is now well known and receiving front page news coverage around the world. Let's stop summarily removing text concerning the cleric and discuss any changes here beforehand, pls. JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions of Terrorism/Debate on Terrorism/Debate on Motivation section
This new "questions of terrorism" section is inappropriately titled, among other things. There are lots of questions. Questions about his psychiatric health. Questions about workplace harassment. Questions about access to weapons. To single out this one sort of question for its own special section is POV and prejudicial. ~YellowFives 15:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to the preponderance of the reporting in the reliable sources. The article should broadly reflect the range of reporting. Treating all potential causes as equally likely is inappropriate as per WP:DUE. It should be clear to a casual observer that the belief that terrorism had nothing to do with the incident is a minority point of view and should be treated as such in the article. Ronnotel (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Terrorism links are in the forefront of media coverage.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I rephrased the section title and edited a bit for clarity. We don't have to say "non editorial" in referring to a non-editorial article. That's not Wiki style.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As the original editor of this section, glad to see it was reasonably received. Now that "non editorial" is gone, should "story" be change to "article" or "news story"?  Or is it good enough as is? --Firefly322 (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "It should be clear to a casual observer that the belief that terrorism had nothing to do with the incident is a minority point of view"... Actually since the FBI has not given any indication that terrorism was involved, it is not a minority point of view at all. It is thus far the official point of view. ~YellowFives 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An "official" statement from the FBI is not a prerequisite for using the term terroist prominently in the article. When reviewing the entire range of reporting on this issue, there is a preponderance of articles that describe, in detail, Hasan's intimate involvement with and outspoken support for militant Islamist beliefs. Therefore, as per WP:NPOV, the article must incorporate this preponderance in a reasonable way that gives due weight to this POV. Attention should also be paid to the view that terrorism had nothing to do with the event - but as a minority view point. To do otherwise would be a disservice to WP readers. Ronnotel (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, and it is outrageously POV to suggest that the view of the actual investigators of the case should be subordinate to ignorant speculation. This section is all about POV pushing and it needs serious work. There was nothing wrong with moving that content into the "retrospective analysis" section. 87.161.46.137 (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said the view of an investigator should be subordinate. If the investigators make a definitive statement that would of course be highly relevant. However, investigators actions and statements must be made with regard to their impact on the legal process and therefore they must be particularly conservative in what they do and say. The press, and therefore WP, operates under different constraints and must not be restricted based on what has been 'officially' released. Instead, we must be guided by the preponderance of coverage in the reliable sources. Ronnotel (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While it's correct that the FBI has downplayed the conspiracy angle, the fact remains that terorism is a major part of the public debate over this rampage. We can't stick our heads in the sand about that. I haven't seen it, but I understand from the article that Hasan is on the cover of Time magazine with "terrorist" superimposed. Sure, we need to be neutral in discussing these issues, but we should not underplay it. This is a major, national news story that is No. 1 on the evening news shows for the past week. Yes, we need to keep BLP in mind. We have to be careful not to put on judgmental categories, for instance. But as time goes on, this gets to be a bigger story and the terrorism angle is given increasing emphasis in the news coverage.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This section is obviously in violation of WP:STRUCTURE: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure ... A more neutral approach can sometimes result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other. Be alert for arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor one particular point of view ..."
 * It should be renamed "Debate over motivation" and include the other points of view, instead of presuming the anti-FBI side deserves to have its own section. Or the whole thing should be folded back into "Retrospective analysis" like it was earlier. ~YellowFives 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Debate over motivation" sounds good to me.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both "Retrospective analysis" is a WP:Synth section. "Debate over terrorism" is descriptive and in alignment with the preponderance of WP:RS, while "Debate over motivation" is prescriptive (also WP:Synth). --Firefly322 (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to add a bit of balance to the section, but it was removed with the claim it is too old. Yes, it's 5 days old, but is one of limited official statements available. The statements were identified as "Early official statements", so I see no reason as to why they are not appropriate. Something is needed to balance the obvious POV.  Grsz 11  03:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me quote YellowFives "obviously in violation of WP:STRUCTURE"? That arcane statement is awfully close to WP:wikilawyering to me.
 * Joseph Lieberman's quoted analysis is not official enough? --Firefly322 (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What "obivous POV"? Are you saying Time Magazine's cover story is WP:POV? --Firefly322 (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am saying it is unbalanced in favor of the terrorism POV, and you have removed all references of other opinions. You even took the Lieberman quote and flipped the view there. My editing of his quote now reflects both opinions, and a revert of that will only prove my point.  Grsz 11  03:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How is clearly describing the current debate over terrorism a POV? A revert will prove your point? It sounds as if you are determined to game the system.  So far you have not answered any of my points, just changed topic or ignored them. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "How is clearly describing the current debate over terrorism a POV?" Don't debates typically have more than one side? Shouldn't both of those sides be stated in order to achieve a neutral point-of-view?  Grsz 11  04:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They are. The section starts off (or used to) with Time Magazine's Nov. 23, 2009 cover's title of "Terrorist?". The question mark tells us that the label terrorist is in question. That seems extremely precise, balanced, and from a very reliable source.--Firefly322 (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier reports such as the Nov. 7th story in the New York Times is radically different from a later, today's, Nov. 13th New York Times article. In fact, the later article makes the earlier article seem head-in-the-sand wrongheaded. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw the same sort of image used at a radical Christian site (except I think it said "Islamic terrorist?"). That doesn't balance the POV, especially when the only information taken from that article is the terrorism POV. I haven't read the article (shame on me), but aren't there other opinions presented?  Grsz 11  04:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide link to the "radical Christian" site. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So in general, you're saying wikipedia editors should second guess Time Magazine? --Firefly322 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I say anything like that? What I did say was the title itself reflects no POV, but only using one opinion from its article does. As for the site, I don't recall. Needless to say I'm not a regular visitor there.  Grsz 11  04:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't verify what you are claiming, then I can't trust your judgement as an editor. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Where did I say anything like that?" Why are you having me read your juxtaposition of Time Magazine with an unverifiable "radical Christian" site if it's not to secondguess Time Magazine lead title of "Terrorist?" ? --Firefly322 (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, and if you can't WP:AGF, maybe nobody should trust yours. The site is irrelevant to any argument here, but whatever. I never said anything about the title, just the content of the article as included here.  Grsz 11  04:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am assuming WP:AGF and await verification. Trust but test. That is how it works in the real world.  If one doesn't back up trust with testing when building, the structure will break down.  Only takes a small error to create the next Galloping Gertie. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So far, I've not gotten upset of your inclusion of an outdated New York Times article (which even the New York times is pushing back on. Again see Nov. 13th New York Times article). I realize that this article topic is moving fast, so maybe you hadn't read this latest article in the Times.  Anyway, I think I'm being patient and WP:AGF. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can seriously place workplace harrasment on the same level as terrorism for a motivation. Lot's of people get harrassed at work, very few go on a shooting spree. Those who do get harrassed on go on a shooting spree because of it, normally don't shout God is Great. Nor is their attack preceded by months of anti-american, anti soldier, and pro-jihadi statements. To turn this around, as being the fault of his co-workers for "harrassing" him, seems boyond the pale to me. Sure there are questions about his mental health and other issues, but right now there is no evidence to suggest this was anything other than a pre-meditated terrorist attack by a Muslim extremist (everything from his power point presentation, to his Allahu Akbar pronouncement at the time of the shooting, indicate the most likely motive is Terrorism).

Anwar Al Aulaqi is linked to al-Qaeda
Anybody seen this before?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603267_pf.html February 27, 2008: Report: US Finally Decides Imam to 9/11 Hijackers Is Linked to Al-Qaeda The Washington Post reports that US intelligence has finally determined that Anwar Al Aulaqi is linked to al-Qaeda. Al Aulaqi was an imam at two different mosques attended by hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, and Hani Hanjour, and he has been suspected of assisting the 9/11 plot. An anonymous US counterterrorism official tells the Post, “There is good reason to believe Anwar Al Aulaqi has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States [after 9/11], including plotting attacks against America and our allies.” However, the US apparently did not ask Yemen to extradite him when he was arrested there in 2006, because there was no pending legal case against him. He continues to reside in Yemen and apparently still has not been charged with any crime. [Washington Post, 2/27/2008] He also does not appear to be on any public wanted list.

File:Hasan presentation.png: PD instead of Fair-Use?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but shouldn't File:Hasan presentation.png be actually PD-USGOV instead of fair-use? Provided it is from the slideshow he made, and that it was used in his presentation at a symposium of U.S. Army physicians, technically speaking, since he created it in his official capacity as a US Army Doctor, it is automatically Public Domain. Or am I not seeing a hidden little glitch in the rationale?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you're right.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. If someone else has a chance, the other 49 slides still need to be uploaded. Merging them into a single PDF would be ideal. —  C M B J   02:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Motive section: The Context of His "terrorist" acts
1. His "terrorist"/"terrorism" -- ie, it is very likely to be trying to intimidation by terror or violence -- has to be put into context as to why someone would create terrorism. In addition, was it terrorism -- ie, intimidation of others -- or was it more a personal act -- trying to gain fame without considering others. Of course, the inclination is towards the former, but whether or not he wanted his acts to be a general protest rather than trying just to get general fame has to be investigated/analyzed at least to some (better) extent.

2. If he did do "terrorism" -- IE, trying intimidate of others through violence--, the "motivates" section needs work:

2.a: Was his terrorism against the war or was it against all of American government. IE, "I love the Koran and being a Muslim, but I don't want to under Islamic rule": the "rule" part here might refer to individual rules or customs or it might refer to Islamic government rule. And on the other statement, "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam": the "to establish an Islamic State" might refer to trying to change America's state/government system or it might refer to Afghanistan and/or Iraq.

2.a.I.conclusion: Was his "terrorism" against Iraq and/or Afghanistan War(s) or was it against the American government system?

Sp0 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"speculation as to motives" section title
Titling the section “Speculation as to motives” assumes Hasan’s guilt and is, therefore, heavily POV and a serious WP:BLP violation to boot. The section itself consists of people using the term “terrorism” to describe the acts that Hasan has been accused of. I don’t see how labeling it as such (Accusations of terrorism) is a POV problem. -- Irn (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. We have to finesse this somehow.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed the order of paragraphs and made the setion title "Reaction to statements and overseas contacts." That's clunky and awkward I know, but more neutral I think. Let's see if we can think of something better.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Theorizing a Terrorist Motive
I was asked, on my talk page, to expand on the problems with theorizing a motive for Hasan. In order to help with this discussion, I'm posting my reply here.

The objective fact is that nobody yet knows what motivated Hasan. Therefore, any attempt to guess about this is nothing more than POV-pushing. There are right-wing editors who want to blame a certain mosque, or al-Qaeda, or certain clerics for the rampage. But we have no direct evidence for any of this. All we have is irresponsible guessing and speculation.

Just because a guy attended a mosque doesn't prove a thing--thousands of people have attended a mosque or listened to a certain cleric, but only ONE of them started blowing soldiers away. So the odds don't look good at all for that particular interpretation.

Also, if we're going to theorize and pretend we can read Hasan's mind, then we must cover ALL of the possible motives, not just the right-wing fantasy that he was taking orders from a cave in Afghanistan. And these other possibilities include the fact that Bush's unjust war drove this psychiatrist over the edge, especially as he had to listen for years to horror stories of returning soldiers, and so naturally he didn't want to deploy. That is much more likely than his taking orders from bin Laden.

Finally, this "politically correctness" argument in terms of the Army does not sound realistic at all. Hasan was called a "camel jockey" and other names by his Army buddies, was constantly harassed, and even had his car vandalized. How in the world is that political correctness??? The Army is already hostile to its Muslim members, and it could use a lot more "political correctness." The shootings didn't happen because the Army is too inclusive. But there is evidence that this tragedy occurred because the Army didn't do enough to understand Hasan and what he was going through. Qworty (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We certainly mustn't theorize about a possible terrorist motive. I'm with you there. But the theorizing that is reported in reliable sources, such as today's New York Times, is an essential part of the story and must be reported. To omit would run afoul of WP:NPOV. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But then for true NPOV and balance we must use RS to report all theories--the wide variety of theories out there--not just the ones favored by conservative WP editors. Surely you must agree with me on this fundamental aspect of what NPOV and balance are all about.  Qworty (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. We need to report all theories, but keep in mind that we need to do so with appropriate weight, with less weight given to "fringe" or less ubiquitous theories. It does seem quite plain that "terrorist" theorizing is ubiquitous, but so is "lone gunman" theorizing as well, perhaps in equal or similar weight.


 * P.S. Point of etiquette. Could you please refrain from characterizing other editors as "right wing" or "conservative"? The "other side" also has to stop similar characterizing. Thanks.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think that his motive was the persecution he experienced for being Muslim, the fact that he is Muslim certainly belongs in the lede, yet this gets removed repeatedly. Kauffner (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what editors think in regards the motive. It only matters how much weight we (the editors) give to what RS's report. Since there are several opinions given by the media, maybe a condensed sentence that wraps it up could or should be added to the lead w/o further details. Those (details) belong in the article's body where they already are in part, and for sure there are more to come.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I found this 'box' on Wikipedia in relation to a similar discussion. I've crossed out what doesn't really apply. This is apparently Wikipedia word use policy. If putting this here, just as a reminder, is not appropriate for me to do, please remove it.  --220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a custom template rather than a standard one. It also confuses policy and guideline.  But certainly the problems mentioned in the guideline and the problems in the RW of the Definition of terrorism are an ongoing issue. Шизомби (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh well Шизомби. At least it may remind editors of the 'rules', which I didn't know about until I saw thas box myself. You may be interested in the data below. You asked about 'Abduwali' a few days ago. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a style guideline and isn't really applicable here, as I think that there is general agreement that we can't call Hasan a terrorist base on our own analysis. It's a question of stating what reliable sources are saying about supposed links to terrorists, clerics and so forth.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Quorty: The Army actually has a pretty good record for not being anti muslim, one reason why there are so many Muslims in the US Army. And we cannot conclude that he was harrassed just because he claimed to have been. It may be that he was, it may also be that he was expressing very radical views (as was reported) and he interpreted peoples' negative reactions to this as harrasment. You should spend some time researching the issue and speaking with soldiers before accusing the army of being clouded with anti-muslim sentiment. We also need to remember, Hassan is not the victim here. Even if he was harrassed (and right now there is very little evidence to support that idea), that pales compared to what he did to the people at Fort Hood. Harrassment does not justify murder. If it turns out that was his motivation, it must be reported, but we need to be careful about making this a "they had it coming" kind of article.LynnCityofsin (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Duty status during Army career
Did Hasan enlist in the Army Reserve? What was his initial military occupational specialty (MOS)? When was he on active duty? etc. -Jayavarman1 (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Fort-Hood warnings that al-Awlaki was targeting US Muslims online encouraging terrorist attacks
The following may well not belong in this article. But in the event that it does, or is of interest to editors, I thought i would share it ....

In October 2008, Charles Allen, U.S. Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, said al-Awlaki "targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen." This was also reported by Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry in their 2009 book Muslim Mafia, which was published three weeks prior to the Fort Hood shooting.

--Epeefleche (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"sole accused"
Why does this article repeatedly iterate that he is the "sole" suspect in the killings. Was there some doubt to that? Other articles about mass killers don't include this language. Or is this intentional to manipulate the reader into agreeing that he couldn't possibly be a terrorist, even though he shared his plans with terrorists who supported him before and after the fact? Did Jared Loughner email anyone before and say he was going to kill people? How about Seung Hui Cho? Nope? Because they actually were alone, yet it isn't necessary to reiterate that on their pages now is it? I'm accusing this article of being biased. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we do better than this?
"Maj Hasan, 40, was born and raised in Virginia. His parents moved to the US from a Palestinian town near Jerusalem, according to his cousin." That was two years ago - by now, I think the information on where his parents came from is available from someone besides his cousin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.53.53 (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Medication?
Is there any evidence to suggest he was taking any kind of medication, particularly SSRI-type antidepressants?Johnalexwood (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speculation, time will tell. It appears no mention of same so far. But if he was getting harassed etc and if he had access to drugs, which as a medical practitioner one could assume he had, it would be tempting. Many people (of many faiths) self medicate with alcohol (& other stuff) of course. It doesn't seem to have even been independently confirmed he was visiting a strip club, as was alleged. If he was doing that then, even devout, he may have been tempted to imbibe, as many Muslims apparently do when away from home in the 'decadent' west.


 * Lots of ifs, buts and maybes yes? That's my point. Far too much speculation already. Keep your 'Google' eyes open for breaking information. Example, I appear to have been the first to spot that Hasans' Powerpoint presentation was available through the Washington Post.[] As I can't edit protected articels, it was a few HOURS after I put it on the Shooting talkpage before it was entered into the article.


 * It would be very interesting if Hasan was on any medication for stress/depression etc. But, maybe(speculation again) he's just a nut job?
 * --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Combivir?


 * Here is something of interest. This is a picture taken of some of the medications found in the apartment of Nidal Hasan. The only one that I can clearly make out is Combivir. It is a medication which is used in combination with others for HIV treatment. Unlike the other two bottles in the picture, whose names I cannot clearly make out, it does not seem to have been filled out at Walter Reed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlatseg (talk • contribs) 02:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * actually having just read the Time article, this discovery may not actually be that important after all. It seems to be an older bottle possibly used by healthcare workers who may be around fluid which may contain the HIV  virus to  help reduce the risk of infection.Tlatseg (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, it is not common practice to make use of NRTI drugs in prophylaxis among "healthcare workers who may be around fluid which may contain the HIV virus to help reduce the risk of infection." The "nukes" (Combivir is a fixed-dose two-nuke combination product) are medicines with definite adverse effects, and unless an individual meets a set of criteria for exposure much more rigorous than "may be around fluid," no treatment with any of the antiretroviral drugs (ARV's) is indicated. If Major Hasan had met the exposure criteria and had been medicated as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), Combivir is a reasonable component of such a treatment program.  But how does a psychiatrist get exposed to HIV? Interestingly the date on the bottle (02Mar01) indicates that the prescription had been filled either in 2002 or 2001, while he was in medical school.  He may have suffered a "needle stick" or similar injury while in clinical training, and was placed on PEP at that time.  The empty bottle - possibly with one or two tablets not taken - just got dragged along in his personal gear since that time.  Even doctors commonly fail to finish out their antimicrobial prescriptions as they're directed, and just about everyone hesitates to throw out those unused doses.  71.125.158.230 (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The other two appear to be Clarithromycin and Benzonatate. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted this info on the 'Shooting' talk page @ 05:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC) One reason for NOT having seperate articles! I read the first as Azithromycin, the other I concur with. Be interesting (possible motive?) IF Hasan did have AIDs. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please just stop the speculation. Go here: http://www.apd.army.mil/USAPA_PUB_pubrange_P.asp and look at Army Regulation 600-110, paragraph 1-15f and paragraph 4-2. Also, look at Army Regulation 220-1, Table D-1 Note 2. In summary, HIV-positive personnel will NOT be deployed or assigned overseas, and testing is completed prior to deployment or assignment to ensure this. Let's focus on making the article better and stop the speculation. Atlantabravz (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Post-exposure prophylactic (PEP) drug therapy is undertaken on individuals who have been exposed to HIV infection in some significant way (the classic "needle stick" case) but who are not HIV-positive. If Dr. Hasan had undergone PEP treatment in 2001 or 2002, and never seroconverted to show "HIV-positive," the regulations you cite don't limit his eligibility for deployment.  71.251.136.251 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, my remarks about speculation were directed at the anon IP who started down the road with "IF Hasan did have AIDs." As far as the possible exposure angle, the articles that are linked within the discusssion page are saying basically the same thing you all are saying. Find a way to include it in the article and make it better using factual cites as already exist, or else it should just be dropped. Since many healthcare workers do it, I'm not sure it is even relevant right now. Atlantabravz (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Nidal Hasan was apparently an Obama transition task force member
Thinking Anew—Security Priorities for the Next Administration: PROCEEDINGS REPORT OF THE HSPI PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TASK FORCE, April 2008-January 2009, APPENDIX C: Task Force Event Participants

The Executive Summary of that document says that Presidential Transition Task Force members included representatives from past Administrations, State government, Fortune 500 companies, academia, research institutions and non-governmental organizations with global reach. Appendix C is a list of task force members.

Page 29 in the PDF page numbering is page 21 by the document page numbers, which is the beginnning of  APPENDIX C: Task Force Event Participants (Participant titles as of the event date).

Page 32 in the PDF page numbering is page 29 by the document page numbers. That page lists the following individual as a Task Force Event Participant: Nidal Hasan Uniformed Services University School of Medicine (Participant titles as of the event date)

I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to decide whether or not this information belongs in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional documents of interest may be found via a PDF-specific Google search for "Nidal Hasan" and "Nidal M Hasan". Here are a few examples:
 * UCIS-approved H-1B petition
 * Executive nominations received by the Senate June 4, 2002: To be major general
 * USUHS graduations
 * Prayer Center of Orland Park
 * Committee for Peace in Iraq
 * Director of AMAN (1, 2, 3)
 * Hammond Community Hospital
 * Congressional Record—Senate S7798
 * Congressional Record—Senate S4984
 * Further research should be conducted before considering any of the aforementioned links for implementation. Because several documents spoke of a Nidal Hasan in California and a Dr. Nidal Hasan in Illinois, extra caution should be exercised in order to avoid presenting misinformation. —  C M B J   04:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just adding some information: My guess is that an assertion supported by citation of either of these sources would be challenged. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=115230 Shooter advised Obama transition], November 06, 2009, WorldNetDaily.
 * Latest Bagger Rumor, that Fort Hood Shooter worked for Obama transition, is false, The Daily Kos, November 10, 2009.
 * Evidently both of those articles missed the mark. Media Matters for America reports that "there is no evidence that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events." —  C M B J   15:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ROTC
Back when information about Major Hassan was in the Fort Hood shooting, there was unclear information whether he was a member of ROTC while at VTech. Has there been any futher clarification on this point? Furthermore, as I had brought up there, do press releases (or media notifications) from VTech considered reliable sources, especially given that press releases have been shown in the past not to be reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

College and medical school graduation dates
The article states that Hasan graduated from Virginia Tech in 1997 but the cited reference leaves it unclear as to whether he graduated in 1997 or 1995. Likewise there is a dispute about whether he was a member of Virginia Tech's ROTC program (see the preceding section of the talk page). Ketone16 (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Hasan earned his MD in 2001 but the reference 15 shows a graduation year of 2003. Mo Enzyme (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If Dr. Hasan had graduated USUHS in 2001, this means that his postgraduate education - a psychiatric residency and a one-year fellowship to gain his M.P.H. - took eight years to complete. No way. Psychiatric residency programs are set up for an average of four years' duration leading to specialty board certification by the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology.  This is yet another proof demonstrating that the stated date of Dr. Hasan's graduation from medical school (as 2001) is an error, and that he did, indeed, graduate in 2003 (as stipulated in his practitioner page on the Web site of the Virginia State Board of Medicine). 71.125.158.230 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional information courtesy of The Roanoake Times confirms that Hasan had graduated from Virginia Tech in 1995 (not 1997) and from the USUHS F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine in 2003 (not 2001). The New York Times confirms these as the correct years of graduation.  So when is this information going to be corrected in the pertinent Wikipedia articles? 71.125.136.27 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a little update. The graduation years for college and medical school are wrong. The correct years are 1995 and 2003 respectively, as per citations listed above. These are Wikipedia-sanctioned "reliable sources," including Dr. Hasan's hometown newspaper and The New York Times.  Are these dates ever going to be corrected? 71.251.133.248 (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made the appropriate date changes Trelane (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

More data, supposedly Hasan's "Official Military Record"
Maj. Nidal M. Hasan's Official Military Record Mark Hosenball

The following version of Maj. Nidal M. Hasan's official military record was released to NEWSWEEK by U.S. Army headquarters at the Pentagon:

NAME: Nidal (AbduWali) M. Hasan
RANK: Major DATE OF RANK:
 * Captain May 17, 2003;
 * Major May 17, 2009

PRESENT AND PAST DUTY ASSIGNMENTS:
 * Walter Reed Army Medical Center (Psychiatry Intern/Resident/Fellow) from June 2003 to 7 July 2009;
 * Darnall Army Medical Center (Fort Hood, Texas) from July 2009 to present

FUTURE DUTY ASSIGNMENTS THAT ARE OFFICIALLY ESTABLISHED: He was on orders to deploy to Afghanistan as an Individual Augmentee to an Army Reserve unit to provide behavioral health support.

AWARDS AND DECORATIONS:
 * National Defense Service Medal (two awards);
 * Global War On Terrorism Service Medal;
 * Army Service Ribbon

DIRECT COMMISSION: 22 June 1997

MILITARY AND CIVILIAN EDUCATION:
 * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University at Blacksburg, Va., where he studied Biochemistry in 1997;
 * Uniformed Services University of Health Science in Bethesda, Md., where he studied General Medicine in 2001;
 * Combat Casualty CRS (AMEDD) in 1997 and
 * AMEDD Officer Basic in 1997 Basic Branch where he was commissioned as a Psychiatrist

DUTY STATUS AT ANY GIVEN TIME: He has never been deployed

Source: blog.newsweek.com Can't comment on the accuracy of this. Just FYI. The AbduWali has come up before though. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At the time of Hasan's Officer Basic course in 1997 and his commission in that year, how could he have taken "AMEDD [Army Medical Department] Officer Basic" to be "commissioned as a Psychiatrist" if he hadn't yet even attended (much less graduated from) medical school in 1997? Something's screwy here. If he entered medical school at USUHS in 1997 - to graduate in 2001 (which is definitely inaccurate; Hasan graduated in 2003) - he would have received on entry to the school a Medical Corps commission as a second lieutenant even if he already had a line commission in another branch (all students in the USUHS medical school remain at the O-1 grade throughout their matriculation, as you can't have differences in rank among the student body), but he would not have been commissioned "as a Psychiatrist." 71.125.158.230 (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Traitor
Major Hasan has been refered to as a Traitor in multiple sources: Where, if anywhere, does this belong in the article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion, this should be placed in the Reaction section - if you are going to write only one sentence claiming him to be a traitor citing the above sources as references then it should simply be added as is. However, if you want to add the above quotes as text, I would suggest a separate paragraph at the end of the Reaction section, or perhaps even a separate Subsection under the Reaction section called Traitor. Supertouch (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've done as you suggested. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blogs, a wargaming site, and student newspaper opinion pieces written by NN people? Sigh. Шизомби (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Without prejudice to adding something on this point back if someone notable with expertise says this, I'm removing this per Reliable sources and Notability. It would be more to the point if he were at least charged with it by the government or convicted of it, but that's not necessarily necessary. Шизомби (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this removal. I think that for something as inflammatory as this we need much better sourcing. I also didn't like the way it was phrased, which struck me as original analysis.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I will grant what I am about to write is WP:OR, however he did swear an oath as an Officer of the United States Army of allegience to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. His "alleged" actions did give the enemy aid and comfort, and thus an act of treason, therefore he's a traitor. OK, enough of this synthesis. I will see if I can find more references. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of us, or almost any of us, would dispute what you're saying. However, we're in a position similar to the jurors who are going to be convened in his trial. We are bound by strict rules as to what we can include in the article. This whole "treason" business is very inflammatory, seems to border on name calling, and doesn't seem terribly central to the issues unless he is formally charged with treason. If not, I'm not very enthusiastic about including a section on that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional references:
 * --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am not looking to include anything major, just a sentence. I understand the need not to give any of this any undue weight, but if it can be verified by reliable sources, there is also no need to not have a little mention regarding it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading the sources, I am of the opinion that this simply isn't notable. Basically the sources mention (sometimes only in passing) that some people have called him a traitor. Yeah, so what? Many people have called him many things. If President Obama calls him a traitor, that would be notable. If the U.S. Army or the FBI calls him a traitor by charging him with treason, that would be notable. I'm afraid what pundits, or even the victims, are calling him just isn't notable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. While there are more notable people addressing the terrorism charge, and terrorism is the subject of some articles about this case, and there is widespread discussion of it, "treason" is addressed in more scattered mentions in passing by people that don't appear to be notable. We could make a list of all the people calling him a "low life" too, or whatever.  Possibly a non-notable person discussing it in a reliable source might be worth including if they had some kind of expertise and their discussion was substantive, and their discussion became notable.  Treason mentions "In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions."  Thus, the odds of it seem unlikely.  The 2006 treason conviction of Adam Yahiye Gadahn might be a precedent in some way, but in that case it doesn't appear there was anything else they could have charged him with.  In this case, they've got 13 or 14 counts of murder, many more injuries, etc. so whether they'd bother with treason, who knows? Шизомби (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The San Francisco Chronicle, NPR, Austin American-Statesman and San Antonio Express News are all reliable sources. I am not attempting to give undue weight here, but reliable sources have described the subject of this article as a traitor, even if its not a majority view it is a view held that has been verified.  So I am not seeing how a single sentence mentioning it could hurt the overall article.  Furthermore, it is a view held by some and should be represented in the article, even if briefly. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An additional reference:
 * --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Townhall.com is a blog. I'd agree some of the sources you found are reliable ones, i.e. we can have a reasonable degree of confidence that they accurately reported what the people they quoted really said.  That's not the sole measure of inclusion.  The reliable sources are not themselves making the charge.  The people quoted don't appear to be notable, most of them appear to be expressing understandable anger by calling him a name in passing, not advancing an argument.  See e.g. "Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments" in WP:NOR.  "Several people called Hasan a traitor" is not significant at this point.  WP:SYNTHESIS may also be a problem here, and also WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, as you said.  "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents [this is not currently possible]; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."  When the charge is being discussed more to the degree that the terrorism one is, with similarly notable people making it, that would be the appropriate time, and definitely if he actually is formally charged with it by the government.  Incidentally, I am curious now as to why so few treason charges have been made; that would be interesting to know and perhaps add to Treason if there's anything to be found about that. Шизомби (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. While there are more notable people addressing the terrorism charge, and terrorism is the subject of some articles about this case, and there is widespread discussion of it, "treason" is addressed in more scattered mentions in passing by people that don't appear to be notable. We could make a list of all the people calling him a "low life" too, or whatever.  Possibly a non-notable person discussing it in a reliable source might be worth including if they had some kind of expertise and their discussion was substantive, and their discussion became notable.  Treason mentions "In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions."  Thus, the odds of it seem unlikely.  The 2006 treason conviction of Adam Yahiye Gadahn might be a precedent in some way, but in that case it doesn't appear there was anything else they could have charged him with.  In this case, they've got 13 or 14 counts of murder, many more injuries, etc. so whether they'd bother with treason, who knows? Шизомби (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The San Francisco Chronicle, NPR, Austin American-Statesman and San Antonio Express News are all reliable sources. I am not attempting to give undue weight here, but reliable sources have described the subject of this article as a traitor, even if its not a majority view it is a view held that has been verified.  So I am not seeing how a single sentence mentioning it could hurt the overall article.  Furthermore, it is a view held by some and should be represented in the article, even if briefly. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An additional reference:
 * --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Townhall.com is a blog. I'd agree some of the sources you found are reliable ones, i.e. we can have a reasonable degree of confidence that they accurately reported what the people they quoted really said.  That's not the sole measure of inclusion.  The reliable sources are not themselves making the charge.  The people quoted don't appear to be notable, most of them appear to be expressing understandable anger by calling him a name in passing, not advancing an argument.  See e.g. "Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments" in WP:NOR.  "Several people called Hasan a traitor" is not significant at this point.  WP:SYNTHESIS may also be a problem here, and also WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, as you said.  "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents [this is not currently possible]; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."  When the charge is being discussed more to the degree that the terrorism one is, with similarly notable people making it, that would be the appropriate time, and definitely if he actually is formally charged with it by the government.  Incidentally, I am curious now as to why so few treason charges have been made; that would be interesting to know and perhaps add to Treason if there's anything to be found about that. Шизомби (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Townhall.com is a blog. I'd agree some of the sources you found are reliable ones, i.e. we can have a reasonable degree of confidence that they accurately reported what the people they quoted really said.  That's not the sole measure of inclusion.  The reliable sources are not themselves making the charge.  The people quoted don't appear to be notable, most of them appear to be expressing understandable anger by calling him a name in passing, not advancing an argument.  See e.g. "Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments" in WP:NOR.  "Several people called Hasan a traitor" is not significant at this point.  WP:SYNTHESIS may also be a problem here, and also WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, as you said.  "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents [this is not currently possible]; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."  When the charge is being discussed more to the degree that the terrorism one is, with similarly notable people making it, that would be the appropriate time, and definitely if he actually is formally charged with it by the government.  Incidentally, I am curious now as to why so few treason charges have been made; that would be interesting to know and perhaps add to Treason if there's anything to be found about that. Шизомби (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if this is from "unreliable" sources, if it shows up often enough, it's still notable as even "fringe" ideas are notable. That Hasan still hasn't been charged with treason or terrorism, despite the obvious evidence of his motivation by his own writings and Awlaki's completely accurate assessment of why he "spiritually" approved and blessed the "operation". When the most "reliable" source is the FBI which concluded that there was no evidence of any motivation, and no contact with any known terrorists such as Awlaki or organization such as Al Queda who Awlaki as working with at this time, this is a major weakness of WP rules regarding which sources are reliable which bias it towards official conclusions, no matter how inept. Bachcell (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to put this anywhere else, and it's as germaine to this heading as any other; At the end of the heading it says that he wasn't charged with terrorism or treason. Should we also say that he wasn't charged with wire fraud, or grand theft, or providing an alcoholic beverage to a minor? I understand why those particular words were put there, but I still don't agree with it. I'm changing it now, because it's a relatively minor thing. Johnny Wishbone (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Name in Arabic?
Would it be possible to include the spelling of his name in Arabic? I know he was born in America, but his name is Arabic. I have heard multiple pronunciations of his middle and last name. If we include the Arabic spelling of his name, it will clarify exactly how one is to pronounce the name.

99.129.146.161 (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really make sense. The pronunciation of names in America, even by the people whose names they are, does not necessarily (and often doesn't) follow the pronunciation in the language of their ancestors' family of origin.  In order to render the name in Arabic we'd already be making an assumption about how it is to be pronounced, so the Arabic itself would not clarify anything.  If you want to see how these names would be spelled in Arabic by people who were given the names in Arabic, see Malik and Hassan (name).  If his did follow the Arabic, then it would probably be mal-ick and not mal-eek, since the vowel would be short since it comes from a diacritical mark and not a letter.  I don't know how people would come up with different pronunciations of Hasan.  And then there's "AbduWali," which is odd, I don't know if he really spelled and pronounced it that way or that was another typo.  Abdul Wali or Abd al-Wali would seem more common; the L is elided in some names like Abdul Rahman which would be pronounced and could be rendered as Abdur Rahman or Abd ur-Rahman, but not with a waw as far as I know. Шизомби (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's really a sytle question. I don't see the harm if it is consistent with Wiki style. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem to be consistent stylewise to render it in IPA for English if we had a source for how he and his family pronounced it. Arabic would only make sense if a document turned up in which he used it that way, or on the Arabic language Wikipedia (which is indeed linked from the left sidebar to fa:نضال_مالک_حسن).  I have no idea what the style guide for the Arabic Wikipedia is as to how they decide to render English names of Arabic or non-Arabic origin into Arabic.  This has already been discussed at Talk:Fort_Hood_shooting/Archive_3. Шизомби (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a transliteration of his Arabic name: Niḍāl Mālik ḥasan. The letters with a bar over them are long vowels and with dots underneath they are a heavier annunciation of the letter. Spelling this Hassan would lead to am ambiguity in the pronunciation as it could then be: ḥasan and ḥassaān which are two individual names. Nidal should should familiar to Westerns thanks to Abu Nidal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertouch  (talk • contribs)  20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no alif in Malik AFAIK, so I'm not sure that part's right, but otherwise yes I think that's how the Arabic name would commonly be transliterated. But that's not likely to be of use to WP readers like IPA would be.  And I'll again point out that it doesn't make sense to transliterate an English name of Arabic origin into Arabic and then back into English and assume that's how it's pronounced correctly. Шизомби (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the person who requested the Arabic spelling. From the English spelling of his name, one cannot figure out how to pronounce it. We need to include the IPA and/or the Arabic spelling to clarify. On the evening news, I heard the news anchors pronounce his name at least three different ways. It would be excellent if Wikipedia could set the record straight.99.129.146.161 (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support the IPA for English, if we had a source for how it's pronounced, but I'm not sure how we'd find one. And if we had it, then an .ogg of it would be a useful addition too (moreso, since the number of people who know IPA probably isn't that large?).  I remain skeptical about including the Arabic or Arabic pronunciation, since it may or may not follow that. Шизомби (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, IPA is fine. Arabic names transliterated into English are difficult to pronounce correctly since the long/short vowels are lost, the dal, dhal, and dhad being written all as "d", etc.99.129.146.161 (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I have seen the "M" in Malik is a long vowel which would be indicated by an attached alif. I haven't heard of a person named Malik with a short vowel on the "M" which would mean king, whereas with a long vowel it means owner. Supertouch (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think you're right. I see the Arabic WP did use an alif. Шизомби (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The comments are somewhat out of order in this section - this is a response to the request for the Arabic spelling of Hasan's name: نضال مالك حسن . Here is the reference for this spelling: ::قتل الجنود سيؤثر على المسلمين The killing of the soldiers will affect the Muslims. AlJazeerah.net, November 7, 2009, retrieved November 22, 2009. I included the transliteration above. Supertouch (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor point about Major
Per Manual of Style (biographies) it appears a title should not precede a name (see e.g. George S. Patton) the way it currently does "Major Nidal Malik Hasan." It should be included somewhere in the lede, but I'm not sure where to move it. Шизомби (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you cite the precise language? I'm not finding it, but I'm a bit bleary eyed today. I ran a word search on "military" and didn't come up with anything I randomly checked Omar Bradley and found that the general was called "general" before his name. I thought that was Wiki style, but I could certainly have been wrong. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, forget about my astigmatism. I see that somebody changed the lead so that "Major" is after his name, and that is definitely a change for the better.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Slide image
Image #13 from the slideshow is Hasan talking about Hasan Akbar throwing a grenade to kill fellow American soldiers a couple years earlier...seems worth more than the current random slide we're displaying right now. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

'Muslim' in lead sentence
I'm not a big fan of putting religious affiliations in lead sentences. In this case it clearly has to be mentioned somewhere in the lead section, based on voluminous reliable sourcing. However, the way it's phrased concerns me. Can we word this to make it less part of his identification and more part of the controversy surrounding his (alleged) act? Let me emphasize: I'm not saying "take out the reference to his religion." I'm saying, can we change the way we refer to it so as to tie in to the shootings? Does anyone see what I mean? It's a semantic point.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. If he were a Christian, we wouldn't say "...is a U.S. Army Major and American-born Christian who is the sole suspect..." I think ti should be removed from the first sentence, and a sentence should be added to the second paragraph about his faith and what role it may have played in the shooting... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can discuss the wording here before it goes live? This is such a hornet's nest. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely, I wasn't going to make a change without some more discussion from other people and a consensus on the wording, especially on a matter like this... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was one of those who inserted 'Muslim', thinking it is highly relevant. I think that due to the paucity of the lead, it seems a bit out of place in one of those three sentences. However, it can and should be developed. WP:LEAD suggests it should be about 4 paragraphs... Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 10:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel it has to be inserted in the lead, for the reasons stated. IMHO.  Its highly relevant to his notability.  And to respond to Hunter's statement, if he were a devout Christian with all of these facts (substituting Christian for Muslim), I would support mention of his religion in the lead as well.  That's far more relevant to his notability than for example his title in the army, and we have that in the lead (though he left it off his business cards, in lieu of "Soldier of Allah").--Epeefleche (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I felt it needed to be mentioned in the lead section, but in a different way than it was, and not in the first sentence (see my original comment). I wasn't sure exactly what needed to be done, but I thought that the lead section needed to explain the religious aspects of his crimes. Now, unfortunately, the lead is just totally bare bones, and you get no sense of the debate raging about his motives. Perhaps one solution is to remove "Muslim" from the lead sentence, and add a sentence to the lead section saying as follows: "Hasan is of the Muslim faith, and had reportedly express sentiments excusing terrorism. His previous statements, and his correspondence with overseas Muslim clerics tied to terrorism, are being investigated by authorities." Something like this. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change
As currently written, the lead section doesn't abide by a crucial aspect of WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The part that's missing is the "notable controversies." Only today in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman had a column tying in Hasan's alleged crime with the anti-American "narrative" in the Muslim world. This is typical of the controversy that has surrounded Hasan since the killings. As I alluded to earlier, we instead identified him as a "Muslim" in the first sentence without any context whatsoever. Now that word has been removed, which I think is the right thing to do. I think that we need to keep that word out of the first sentence and add a sentence below on the controversies surrounding him, wherein he would indeed be mentioned as Muslim in the proper context. I was thinking of something like this as a second paragraph:

Since the killings, controversy has arisen concerning the motives for the killings. Hasan is of the Muslim faith, and had reportedly express sentiments excusing terrorism. His previous statements, and his correspondence with overseas Muslim clerics tied to terrorism, are being investigated by authorities. (footnotes omitted)

I think something along these lines is needed to bring the article in line with Wiki style, and I think we can do this without creating any BLP issues. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it is fine in the lead sentence, adjacent to similar info (his birthday). Seems natural enough there.  Nor do I see any consensus for a change.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Having a section titled "Islamist Reaction" is technically correct, but is misleading. Many casual readers see the word "Islamism," which refers specifically to a fundamentalist ideology of governance in the Islamic tradition, and assume it means "Islamic Reaction," which is not the intent nor an accurate depiction. Additionally, not all Islamists subscribe to the radical form of Islam that this section uses (al Qaeda and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula). Consider changing the title to "Radical Islamist Reaction" and adding the mainstream, non-radicalized Islamic reaction to the shooting.--AS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.86.66.44 (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Missed "red flag" quote inclusion?
Should the inflammatory "red flag" language, Nidal being quoted as saying infidels should have their throats cut or be boiled in oil, mentioned by the Telegraph article  Allen, Nick, "Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut," The Telegraph, November 8, 2009, retrieved November 9, 2009 be included in the article? I could argue both sides and am seeking the consensus. Luitgard (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oddly, while the article is titled and captioned "Fort Hood shooting: FBI to investigate reports gunman said non-Muslims should be beheaded. The FBI will investigate a report that Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, told colleagues that non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats," the body of the article itself doesn't mention anybody saying anything about him mentioning beheading or boiling oil, or an investigation by the FBI.  The first sentence does say "He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire," but unlike some of the other claims in the article, it's not attributed.  It's possible he said those things, and it seems likely the FBI will investigate him, but a better source for these that actually substantiates would be desirable.  A couple of the slides in the powerpoint quote verses from the Quran about people being punished with boiling oil in hell, not in real life.  It does seem like a number of problems were inadequately dealt with, be it due to bystander effect, bureaucracy, maybe even (though I doubt it) political correctness. Шизомби (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence beginning "The FBI will investigate..." is actually the first sentence of the article. That's just the style of this particular publication. As for using it, I'm not sure. I'd prefer corroboration in another publication. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to relate to some past version of the article; I can't find "behead" in the current version. Anyhow, the article linked above is titled, "Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut", but also says that he once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats. A couple of other sources mentioning his statements on beheadings are and, Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, your first link is Nick Allen again. Same guy on a second site is not "another" source.  jewishindy.com is a blog site.  It doesn't appear either of these "sources" got their information firsthand, and they aren't bothering to say where they did get it from. Шизомби (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mikel
Last year the article User:Sherurcij/Nicholas Mikel was deleted as not-notable that an American soldier had been convicted of 42 counts of attempted murder and sentenced to life in prison, after pulling a similar stunt to Hasan. I'm now thinking of re-creating the article in mainspace since nobody would ever dispute Hasan was non-notable. Would I be right in my extrapolation, or do people here agree Mikel was not notable? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Nicholas Mikel I don't know. I dislike encyclopedia articles being sourced solely from journalism; WP shouldn't be echoing or contributing to the media circus while it's going on, and even afterwards the standards for what is encyclopedic are different than what "merits" journalistic coverage, I think.  Anyway, you might look to see what's been written about the case since that AfD.  There seems to be some regarding Timothy Griffin who apparently had a small role in the case against Mikel, which he then exaggerated for his resume in a political campaign. Шизомби (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Terrorism expert" Carl Tobias is no expert
This article refers to a "terrorism expert" named Carl Tobias for support of the now much debunked theory that Hassan was "acting alone" due to "combat stress" transferred to him by his work with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Carl Tobias is a law professor at the University of Richmond, he is not an expert on terrorism with a background in intelligence, the military, or international affairs. Mr. Tobias addresses issues of "terrorism" from his viewpoint regarding legal processes and procedures, and how "terrorism" should be addressed in jurisprudence. His quote, if accurate, is merely an amatuer opinion and not an expert opinion. Finally, evidence that has emreged as of this date has brought to light the fact that Nidal Hasan did indeed have connections to various radical groups, that he shouted "Allahu Ahkbar" ("Allah is Great!") while he fired his weapon, and that the theory of "transferred" Post Traumnatic Stress Syndrome from his work with combat veterans is an unproven "junk" psychological malady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.198.122 (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion of sourced neutral-POV edit for Duane Reasoner Jr
This section has been deleted twice, once because of an unjustified claim that he had no notable connection to Hasan, and twice because of a POV claim (in which case POV could have been corrected but the POV basically carries over from the ABC and NEFA sources) and prejudice over the particular editor to whom he issued an inappropriate blocking threat. Is there any question that Duane Reasoner's infatuation with Jihad, his reaching out to Revolution Muslim, and his statement basically supporting Hasan's murderous attack strongly supports the other evidence that Hasan's views were the same, and that it should be covered somewhere in this article rather than summarily deleted? Bachcell (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Just 3 months before the shooting, Duane's known YouTube handle responded to a video by the Al Queda-aligned IslamicRevolution TV "do you have any vids on martyrdom operations or the ruling on them." During this period, Reasoner was often invited by Hasan to eat dinner together after prayer services, although it is not known what they discussed. Reasoner's whereabouts are not currently known.


 * And I've removed it a third time, as an obvious WP:COATRACK. Your very questions above make obvious that this is also original research and synthesis "Is there any question that Duane Reasoner's infatuation with Jihad, his reaching out to Revolution Muslim, and his statement basically supporting Hasan's murderous attack strongly supports the other evidence that Hasan's views were the same, and that it should be covered somewhere in this article rather than summarily deleted? ". You are trying to make a point, and that's not what WP is all about. You have been reverted by three separate editors now. Do not restore this material without getting consensus here on the talkpage.  The reliable sources about Reasoner's direct connections to Hasan may justify a sentence or two, but not several paragraphs of material all about Reasoner himself. --Slp1 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that mention of it belongs, and that editors work collaboratively to determine the content and length of that mention.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please offer an edited version of what is an acceptable mention of Hasan's only known close associate, who clearly offers evidence of Hasan's radical beliefs and motives, and who was mentioned by the anti-terrorism NEFA Foundation. Otherwise expect the edit to be incorporated again, since you have offered no constructive suggestions. None of the opposing editors provided any specific violations of WP policy as this person is a key to understanding Hasan's motives, and was evidently a knowing co-conspirator who could have guessed, if not helped discuss hasan's plot. There is also evidence, but not as reliably sourced that Hasan himself also contacted Revolution Muslim. In view of the seriousness of the consequences of this violence information such as this should not be supressed as it is putting the importance of protecting the likes of hasan, Awlaki and Reasoner over justice for the victims of fort hood and lives of future victims of radical attacks. Bachcell (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Slp1....I gotta say, this is touchy, admittedly....but I think you're off-kilter a bit with references to WP:Coatrack...I think the above user's comments have merit. I've read the edits (and the deletes) carefully and I think the additions were neutral and encyclopedic.Buddpaul (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ....let me slightly addend my input....I think a properly abbreviated version of those edits has merit.Buddpaul (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "operation" in the Commendations from Islamists section
In the section Commendations from Islamists in the article the first sentence says: "While the west remains divided on the question of Hasan's motives, and many moderate Muslims condemned the attack, many individuals and groups supported the operation in Islamist terms." I reacted against the use of the word "operation" here. Could this be considered an operation? To me the use of such a word gives the impression that it was a legitimate act in a war (maybe Hasan himself viewed it as such) or something but I think most of us would consider this an atrocious and unprovoked act of violence aimed at innocent people so I suggest we come up with a better word to describe the mass murder. How about changing it to "...many individuals and groups supported the shooting..."? --Sardrith (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Substituting the word "operation" with "attack" seems like a neutral and accurate word choice. Supertouch (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, either shooting or attack seems suitable to me. Shooting is however the word used in the very first sentence of the article and also in the next sentence following the sentence discussed so I'm slightly slanted towards using this one. I consider both good substitutes though. --Sardrith (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One alternative would be to change those two first sentences in the Commendations from Islamists section so that they read: "While the west remains divided on the question of Hasan's motives, and many moderate Muslims condemned the Fort Hood shooting, many individuals and groups supported it in Islamist terms. After the shooting, on his now temporarily inoperable website (apparently because some web hosting companies took it down), al-Awlaki praised Hasan's actions." Any opinions on that? --Sardrith (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Trial
The article says the trial would start on October 4. Here is an article that reports on Oct 4. Is that the start of the trial, or some kind of a pre-trial hearing, or what's going on? Googling for his name reveals surprisingly little on recent developments. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word suspect
Why is Hasan called a suspect, he would more accurately be called a perpetrator. I don't think that he has denied that he shot these people. Plus if he were to have been killed during his crime, rather than seriously injured, then he certainly would not be called a suspect in the shooting. If he were to have been killed by the cops then this article would attribute the killings to him rather than just call him a suspect. When other people have gone postal and were killed by cops during the act, the media and other similar sources attribute the killings to the person who perpetrated the rampage. It seems strange that the mere fact that he survived his own rampage means that wikipedia and some media sources will now be allowed to set up the idea that there is some doubt as to weather or not he is responsible for the crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.122.176 (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you've heard of the presumption of innocence before?  Grsz 11  05:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, Wikipedia is not being "allowed" to "set up the idea that there is doubt" with regard to Hasan's guilt; rather, the presumption of innocence dictates it is proper and appropriate to refer to someone as a suspect until such time they are proven guilty in a court of law. In the interim, the court of public opinion is free to come to whatever conclusion it desires.  If you are interested, you can also read up more on Wikipedia's relevant policies on the biographies of living persons at this link: WP:BLP. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So given this presumption of innocence why is Seung-Hui Cho not called a suspect? He was never convicted of any crime. Nor was James Oliver Huberty, George Jo Hennard or Jiverly Antares Wong. WP:BLP is not applicable to the deceased. However I saw nothing regarding presumption of innocence. There was however a NPOV rule. But i'm not sure as to why this rule would be applicable in this case. NPOV stipulates that all significant views that have been published by reliable sources should be represented. However I know of no source that has formulated any other theory as to how this crime may have committed nor has he or his defense team denied that he committed the crime. If anyone familiar with wikipedia knows why would appreciate your comments. Perhaps the people at wikipedia have not thought of this and would be best served by stating the presumption of innocence rule explicitly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.197.243 (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Seung-Hui Cho, James Oliver Huberty, George Jo Hennard, and Jiverly Antares Wong are deceased. As a right, the presumption of innocence is extended only to the living, as only the living find themselves in the situation of facing criminal trial and possible conviction. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional the Presumption of innocence is a legal concept that is only applicable to a court of law. Unbiased sources are under no obligation to presume the defense is innocent, when no one has even raised the possibility that they may be innocent. However if this is the standard, why is it stated that Hasan shot at the police officer? This certainly violates the presumption of innocence, as shooting at a police officer is a crime. This presumption of innocence should be used through out the article if it is to be used. That having been said, no one has demonstrated that it is necessary in this page or in any other, when there is no doubt as to who is responsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.122.176 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The concept extends beyond the judicial system. Journalistic codes of ethics require journalists to refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt is certain.  For example, they use "suspect" or "defendant" when referring to the suspect, not "perpetrator" or "the guilty party."  Wikipedia follows the same practice.  In due time, the legal system will adjudicate the result, and the article will be updated accordingly. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Violation of the presumption of innocence
Hasan is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Why is it stated that Hasan shot at the police officer? This would appear to violate the presumption of innocence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.122.176 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Selena Coppa reference
Why is Selena Coppa quoted in the article? She's no more credible on this issue than a random pizza delivery driver. If we include her thoughts on Hasan, can I also include quotes from my mailman? 203.110.206.180 (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian American
Why does the lead refer to him as a Palestinian American when he is born and raised in the United States and was a member of the US Army? He might be of Palestinian descent but as per the opening paragraph section of WP:MOSBIO, ethnicity should not be emphasized unless it is relevant, which it isn't in this case (he didn't go on a killing spree for anything to do with Palestine). His origin is mentioned in the article, no need to have in the intro. I'll be removing it after this message, if you disagree with me feel free to justify your reasoning here. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hasan's Title 10 Status
Hello, Missclark. I clicked on the link you provided as a citation: cite journal|last=Pretrial Motions and Administrative Hearing|title=U.S. v. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan|date=27 Oct 2011|url=https://a.next.westlaw.com}}  Unfortunately, it merely dead-ends at the sign-on page for WestlawNext, so it is not suitable as a reference link in Wikipedia. I did search for and turn up a reference for the October 27, 2011 hearing at Fort Hood, Texas, which you can see at this link here. However, it makes no mention of Hasan's status changing. Can you clarify and/or explain here on the Talk Page, so we can get to the bottom of the issue? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The court-martial trial is not to determine his discharge from the military — Hasan’s defense has conceded to all evidence dishonorably discharging him from the military (this stemmed back into the Article 32 Hearing). The trial is to determine his guilt or innocence as to the criminal charges including, but not limited to, premeditated murder.  The defense has already stipulated away whether or not he will remain in the military. Missclark (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting here on the Talk Page so that we can work this out. I'm not aware of any proceedings in which Hasan was actually formally discharged from the Army, despite any stipulations that have been made by the defense to date.  Can you refer to any links or cites corroborating that he has indeed in fact been discharged? I've tried Googling "Hasan discharge" but have not found anything yet. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not finding the proceedings publicly available through a web search. Do you have access to Westlaw?  They are carrying the case and the CMR.  Most local libraries provide Westlaw access to its members.  The pretrial motions and filings are tabulated under “Trial & Oral Argument Transcripts.”  The letters and filings by his prior attorney, Galligan, were available on Galigan’s website—but he has since been released as counsel.  Missclark (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if we don't have readily available internet links to sources, it is still possible to create valid reference citations to source the fact of his discharge (if that's true) for inclusion in the article. However, we need to be very specific so that the information is verifiable.  I don't have access to Westlaw at the moment, but if you do, can you find the specific documents, filings, and orders, and cut-and-paste relevant excerpts here along with ALL identifying reference information (i.e., if a court order, the specific court, date, name of the judge, what the hearing was for, etc.)?  The information will need to be specific and definitive... but we may be able to then build the appropriate reference citations.  We would then add the information into the body of the article in greater detail first, then we would return to "correcting" the key words in the lede to reflect the status change. AzureCitizen (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you be active duty if you are paralyzed? Wonder-pedia (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In theory, yes. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Active duty?
There is no way he can still be an active member of the armed services. He is paralyzed. Wonder-pedia (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone is an active duty member of the armed services, and they subsequently become paralyzed, a medical retention board would take up the case of adjudicating whether or not they should be discharged. However, that process can be delayed, and in Hasan's case he is simultaneously facing criminal prosecution for serious crimes under the uniform code of military justice.  Normally, the Government retains the individual in the service pending the outcome of the trial. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no in theory. The second you are diagnosed with a discharging condition you are immediately medically retired, especially something as severe as paralyzation.  At minimum he would be retired and not active duty.  They do no sit and wait for a medical retention board on a diagnosis of paralyzation, unless that paralysis is merely related to a digit, which his is not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder-pedia (talk • contribs) 13:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am citing 20 years as a PA in the United States Navy. What are you citing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder-pedia (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "In theory" here refers to circumstances in which discharge is delayed for cause. If a soldier is facing prosecution under the UCMJ for serious offenses, it is normal and routine to hold them on active duty status while the case is pending, which better enables the military to continue to exert control and jurisdiction over the matter.  Thus, in theory, you can be on active duty while you are paralyzed and proceedings are pending, with Hasan himself being a likely example of that. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He is being held pending criminal charges, not pending a medical determination. Can you back up you theory? With a credibly cited source that states that anyone, not just Hasan, has ever not been immediately medically retired with a diagnosis of paralysis, pending trial or not? Not to mention he was diagnosed over two years ago. It is not possible. Are they allowing SF180 requests on him? It may be worth submitting one just to post the findings on here. And if it is denied because he’s still active then that’s the answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonder-pedia (talk • contribs) 22:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Until the criminal proceedings convened by the court martial authority are finished, the results of any proceedings from a medical determination (in this case, the fact that he is paralyzed) will not cause him to be removed from Title 10 active duty status. I'm not sure how I can make that point much clearer; are you disputing that the court martial authority has the power to do this? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonder-pedia, it does not matter “was” or “is.” It should probably stay “is” so Wikipedia does not violate his “fundamental rights” and aid in the “media bias…depriving [Hasan] of due process….”


 * The MEB is something Hasan would have to request, and I believe is only placed when there is a dispute in medical findings. They mention no dispute of his paralysis in the pleadings (for retirement, discharge, or otherwise).  Under the UCMJ this has to be raised or it is waived.


 * The only medical condition in dispute is psychiatric – which, by their own admission of his mental state, he is unfit for military service. That aside, my point was Hasan’s defense has not contested the issue of whether or not he will remain in the military.  Yes, there are statutes in place preventing “punishment” before conviction at trial but there are exceptions, and under case law discharge is not considered “punishment.”  Also, one of the exceptions is disciplinary action.  The evidence presented at the Article 32 is carried through his trial.  His status in the military is a non-issue.


 * They are rejecting SF-180 requests on Hasan.


 * AzureCitizen, no CMR assigned as of today. I have a daily alert set and will post once it is assigned. Missclark (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will standby and wait until we can get the needed info and formulate an appropriate fix for Hasan's status. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * MAJ Hasan is still on active duty. There is no procedure to "automatically" medically retire or discharge a service member. And a dismissal (as an officer, MAJ Hasan would be "dismissed" not "dishonorably discharged") can only be done through a court-martial. Here is a link to an article from July where the III Corps commander discussed how MAJ Hasan is still an officer and is receving pay (http://www.kxxv.com/story/15161482/new-fort-hood-commander). On some level it should be obvious he's still on active duty. He's being court-martialed after all. And there are numerous references to how he is still in uniform at court proceedings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.171.83 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Rasmussen poll
Opinion poll statistics have no place in an article of fact. Ricthree (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fox interview with Col. Terry Lee
Section two paragraph four refers to information from Colonel Terry Lee (ret.). The first sentence has a reference to an article from The Guardian which contains no mention of Col. Lee. The rest of the paragraph refers to a Fox interview in which some of the quoted remarks are from the interviewer, and many of Col. Lee's statements are confused, ambiguous, and admitted to be second or third hand. This entire paragraph should be deleted. Ricthree (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs more summary
Too much space is given over to the issue of Hasan's beard and the appeals. This needs to be summarized, now that Gross has been replaced.Parkwells (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Reduce material on imam
There is too much material from the imam's website, as this article is not about him, but about Hasan. It appears people are trying to create more guilt by association with Al-Alwaki's statements. This has already been covered in the article.Parkwells (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Content about emails from interview
After the shootings, a Yemeni journalist interviewed Al-Alwaki, and was in turn interviewed by an American journalist. Most of this interview did not have to do with "Islamist praise" (where it was originally put in association with Al-Alwaki) but was about Hasan's state of mind and thinking about religion, so I moved it into the section on "Religion". Also, although Hasan may occasionally have been at Al-Alwaki's mosque in Falls Church, where his mother's funeral was held, he prayed for 10 years at one in Silver Spring and could be said to belong there.Parkwells (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Schizoid links to Schizophrenia
Why does the reference to people describing him as Schizoid link to the article on Schizophrenia rather than the one on Schizoid personality disorder (which is the what "Schizoid" would normally redirect to)? Were they trying to say that he was schizophrenic and using the wrong word or something? The two disorders are different, and shouldn't be intentionally misdirected to each other.68.19.255.136 (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Incarceration
Where is Hasan currently incarcerated? I think this information should be included in the article. Rklawton (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Legal proceedings section says, "Hasan was moved from Brooke Army Medical Center to the Bell County Jail in Belton, Texas on April 9, 2010. Fort Hood negotiated a renewable $207,000 contract with Bell County in March to house Hasan for six months." That's supported by sources of 2010 vintage. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Military awards
There is a section in the article on Hasan's military awards here, in which it is appropriate to include all awards the person has received while in the service. Similar entries appear in nearly all biographies on military personnel. However, the infoboxes on those biographies normally list personal decorations rather than service medals and ribbons. As a result, I'm thinking we should keep the service medals in Hasan's biography but remove non-personal awards from the infobox. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)