Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:04, 30 November 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009 Fort Hood shooting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Texas This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving 2009 Fort Hood shooting was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 November 2009.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Back-door editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently you're ignoring what it actually said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break (terrorism cat discussion cont'd)

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

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

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

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

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

DHS head calls it terrorism and here we go again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

contradictroy sources on Kimberly Munley

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

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

NPOV audit of 8 April

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreing Policy source

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

Duane Reasoner's role in Fort Hood Shooting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please stop the POV pushing

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

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

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

1. “The Massacre at Fort Hood” Report #24 in the “Target: America” Series NEFA Senior Analyst Madeleine Gruen February 2010
2. {{cite web |url=http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/hasans-friend-proclaimed-extremist/story?id=9100187 |title=Major Hasan Dined with 'Jihad Hobbyist' Friend of Accused Shooter Called Himself "Extremist," Watched Al-Qaeda Videos By MARK SCHONE, JOSEPH RHEE, MARY-ROSE ABRAHAM, and ANNA SCHECTER ABC News |date=November 17, 2009

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Texas articles
• Unknown-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Unknown-importance Disaster management articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Unknown-importance Death articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles