Talk:Nidal Hasan

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. I'm removing the parts of the article only sourced to it as per the biographies of living persons policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.87.121 (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Referring to Hasan as a "former" officer

Per AR 600-8-24, paragraph 1-18, "An officer who has been convicted and sentenced to dismissal or dishonorable discharge will not be discharged prior to completion of appellate review without prior approval of CG, HRC." Just factually incorrect to call him a former officer at this point, like it or not.JCO312 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's Original Research (your interpretation) of what the statute states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.199.0 (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

He's been formally discharged from the military, despite still being in their custody.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Tenses need up be updated

e.g. "Jury selection is set to start on June 5 and opening arguments are scheduled to begin on July 1."

But should probably be done by someone more familiar with the facts than myself. Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Deployment and risk assessment?

Considering the subject's apparently openly stated concerns around such deployment (and related issues), is there any documentation regarding a risk assessment being undertaken prior to the decision being taken to deploy him? I've not read through all the references but wondered if this has been mentioned somewhere. -- Trevj (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't he dead yet?

He was convicted in the middle of 2013, but is still alive to date. Why has the sentence not been carried out? The article could use some more properly sourced info on this point. 24.130.15.8 (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

See , and lots of other sources re this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't he dead yet? 2020 edition

August 2020. Don't we have better people to spend money on for free living space, food, water, and various other goods and services? If there's an appeal, where's it at? If he's used up his appeals, what's the story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.118.84 (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@66.41.118.84 when he first when on trial my only question was 'can we bring back the firing squad?' DocRocktopus (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, reading the article I wondered if there are pending appeals. Some update on the legal front would be helpful. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Who is Eric Berman and is he notable enough that it's relevant that he wrote a song about Hasan?

I spent a few minutes googling and can't find anything about him. I understand the relevancy of including relevant pop culture references, but this seems way too obscure to be notable.

"cis-identified"

What does that mean? 2607:FEA8:4C21:E100:F95F:6BDB:545:CD9F (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't figure it out. I've reverted its appearance in the article here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

"He continued to receive paychecks and have his medical expenses paid by American tax-payers."

What does this even mean? Just looks like a whiny edit made by someone angry about the situation. The taxpayers detail is barely relevant. Panyekest (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

completely disagree 50.111.195.179 (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we please change the title picture?

tl;dr: someone please change the main photo in this article to one after the shooting I would greatly appreciate if someone can change the main photo to an inmate photo (or at least not in military uniform); I would do it myself but I don't know how, ie copyright rules et al I think that pictures of his service should be included, but not the first one that comes up. I know that we should keep our emotions in check on Wiki, but I was stationed at Hood when the shooting happened; I happened to be "safe in" Iraq (my mother's words, prefaced by "I never thought I'd say this..."). One of my best friends was walking into the place with her newborn (paperwork thing, basically she had to show them the kid to prove why she couldn't deploy with us), timing was 'perfect', people were running out when she was going in so she followed suit If you read this far, thank you. I added the too long; didn't read to the beginning because I find it hard to stop once I get on this topic. DocRocktopus (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I forgot that talk pages need formatting  :/ . Please try to add the apprpriate line breaks and such in your mind? DocRocktopus (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

No, this is a good picture. 178.86.66.117 (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Mitary awards

The only 'awards and decorations' presented are all automatic for service during the period He was in. Unless someone has information this section should be removed or modified; I might actually vote for modification because any decent soldier serving for that long should have at least one medal DocRocktopus (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

His awards are nothing special. It's not worth mentioning outside the sidebar.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This family is Jordanian-American, not 'Palestinian'

Nidal Hasan's father left al-Bireh in the 50s/early 1960s at which time it was Jordanian.

His mother was born in the US.

Calling him/them 'Palestinian' is anachronistic labelling – like calling Pocahontas an "American". 2A0D:3344:291:7108:14C7:D702:7C80:CE2F (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Department of Defense

Department of War isn’t a real thing and the secretary of war isn’t a real position. ~2026-54108-26 (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Lead image

I don't necessarily disagree with @PublicDomainFan08's edit replacing the 2009 portrait with the 2007 portrait, but I think there could be room for discussion regarding which is more appropriate. Obviously 2007 is higher quality, but 2009 is the closest to when the shooting occured, and represents him at his most senior army rank as major. Would appreciate further input. Hsnkn (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

It's Department of Defense & Secretary of Defense

It's Department of Defense & Secretary of Defense ~2026-54348-34 (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

No mention of Obama's DoD purposely mislabeling his attack as workplace violence?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/nidal-hasans-murders-termed-workplace-violence-by-us ~2026-41662-97 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree this should be mentioned. It is disgusting to leave out that this was in fact Islamic Extremism, the Obama administration attempting to soften it, despite him yelling Allahu Akbar as he did it and explicitly saying he did it against the U.S. specifically due to the U.S. "killing Muslims." The only thing closer to demonstrating it would be him identifying as belonging to a known terrorist organization, which is not required to be considered Islamic extremism. ~2026-54871-88 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Due to the daily beast not being considered the most reliable of sources per WP:DAILYBEAST it might be worth getting an additional source for this. ~2026-54957-04 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

NPOV, October 2026

I keep getting reverted for adding the fact Hasan is a mass murderer in the lead. although the Infobox states it, the short description manifestly states so, and he has been found guilty of all those counts, stated literally in the infobox. This is manifestly vandalism, and has no place in reason. For those that have standalone articles here, they all state the common fact-- that they're mass murderers. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it’s sad. I think it has to do that he came into the spotlight from his execution. We may need to put a extra lock on it. It may not seem much, but it appears its painting him in a lighter picture. Even though he murdered 14 people. ButteyFelicity (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

If it is just vandalism, we don't need an NPOV discussion and we can just revert edits that remove mention of mass murder. Bremps... 06:07, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch is relevant here and MOS:CRIMINAL states "It is better to describe the specific crime itself".

The essay WP:FELON makes a compelling argument for describing the conviction instead of describing it as an attribute of the person, R. Kelly, Elizabeth Holmes, Adam Lanza are examples of this that in my opinion have a more encyclopedic tones than articles that use "mass murderer" as a descriptor.

It is something that can be discussed on the talk page but doesn't rise to the level of NPOV HappiestSisyphus (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Then the application of MOS appears inconsistent. The articles of Elliot Rodger, Adam Lanza, James Holmes (mass murderer), and Geoffrey Ferguson all explicitly call the subjects as mass murderers in their opening sentences, even when their criminal acts are described right after; You can have your cake and eat it too. This factual designation of "mass murderer" doesnt preclude a more detailed explanation of his criminal life. MOS shouldnt be understood as categorically prohibiting the descriptor--"mass murderer"--Hasan was convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder even more counts of attempted murder. The Fort Hood shooting is the sole reason he's notable. I see that other articles have different tone, but here, at Nidal Hasan, it's accurate, and completely relavant. What makes this descriptor "mass murderer" innapropriate for Hasan but not for others? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know. It shouldn’t be. He is a mass murderer. I guess it’s from trolls…. ButteyFelicity (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe those articles would be improved by the removal of those labels while retaining / improving the description of the crime. Please read User:GreenC/The Instinct to Punish, as it directly addresses what I suspect are your reasons for wanting the label.

If you disagree, please engage with the actual arguments in those two essays and describe how including the label improves the article. Stating the amount of people he killed and injured describes his crime more specifically and including “mass murderer” seems to only exist to invoke emotion which is not the goal of Wikipedia. HappiestSisyphus (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

No not really. How does mass murderer evoke emotion? It’s the classification. It’s like arguing a calling Ted Bundy a serial killer evoke emotion and throw shade on him. Or calling Epstein a pedophile and sex offender. It wasn’t like this before you know. It has been removed because he came into the spotlight again for his media attention.

“Sometimes the "punisher instinct" can go haywire if not kept in check. The Internet allows punishers to coalesce into powerful communities amplified by technology such as social media. They operate anonymously and have no checks on the degree and amount of vitriol. Punishers can sometimes act individually, such as calling a criminal on Wikipedia disparaging labels, like "murderer" or "fraudster", instead of more neutral terms.”

This isn’t really encyclopedic. Or the intent the editors use. Why do you suspect that? How is one “Punishers” by classifying what they are?

You need to think this out more. Wikipedia isn’t about evoking emotions. Its’ about stating the facts. The argument is weak, as it would do more harm then good.

“seems to only exist to invoke emotion which is not the goal of Wikipedia.” This doesn’t make sense at all. It’s like saying Nathan Larson, Payton Gendron, or Dylann Roof, shouldn’t be called a white supremacist or neo-nazi sense it evokes emotions. No it doesn’t. Because that’s what they are. We shouldn’t beat around the bush like that. The arguement is giving “Oh I don’t like that since it sounds harmful…” which is funnily enough against Wikipedia. ButteyFelicity (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

> How does mass murderer evoke emotion

To quote you earlier: "It may not seem much, but it appears its painting him in a lighter picture". WP:WORDS says we should strive to eliminate disparaging wording. Also, the page for Epstein uses 'child sex offender' and not 'pedophile'. And Bundy isn't a BLP.

In my opinion Larson, Gendron, and Roof generally work because they are describing important characteristics based on many sources to portray information that would otherwise be difficult to include in the header or first sentence. For Hasan, 'mass murderer' is not adding any new information, the fact that he is in the same category of someone like David Brom is not notable enough to be included in the header or first sentence. They are both already included in . HappiestSisyphus (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Like you said, White Supremacist and neo-nazi also evoke emotion. We shouldn’t pick and choose really. We’re keeping it. It’s been like that for the past 20 years. You shouldn’t pick and choose you know? We shouldn’t change anything based on one’s opinion. Also that essay you sent isnt Wikipedia mandated. ButteyFelicity (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I still fail to see why describing the circumstances of Hasan's crimes should ever preclude identifying him as a "mass murderer". This gives an accurate, concise classification of the sole reason Hasan is notable at all.The following sentences describe his specific crimes, They're complimentary. Moreover, the article's short description aptly identifies him as an "American Mass murderer". The MOS you cite is just a stylistic preference; Does a factual classification become non-neutral because it carries unfavourable things? "serial killer", "terrorist", or "war criminal" also carry the emotion you're arguing against. This is absurd. 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Reason why this is being undone is due to the knowledge. It does note why he is prominent- he’s a mass murderer. ButteyFelicity (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

hey, i noticed that no part of this article actually links to the article about the crime, so i reworded the first paragraph to include one, which i think should help elucidate why the subject is considered a mass murderer. i still feel a little uneasy with some of the first section of the article though - it certainly feels like some kind of bias is present, but i can't really tell which. certain things like the level of detail with which the execution plan is described don't feel very encyclopedic to me, but i also don't feel i'm an experienced enough editor to make those calls. hope someone with more experience writing neutrally can come by and fix things up! Blitzchain (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Feedback: Nidal Hasan [10] (check 782ca09d)

Check details

• Article: Nidal Hasan, citation [10], revision 1379813632
• Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20120321194531/http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0203/Fort-Hood-attack-Did-Army-ignore-red-flags-out-of-political-correctness
• Tool's verdict: NOT SUPPORTED (HuggingFace, openai/gpt-oss-20b)
• Claim checked: The Senate released a report describing the shooting as "the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001."
• Tool's reasoning: The source mentions the attack is considered by some the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, but it does not state that the Senate report described it as such.

Editor's explanation: First time trying this thing out. Not supported, and this lead is looking pretty clunky already2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Source isn't the best but it is clearly talking about this report that includes that wording in the executive summary on page 7 https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/imo/media/doc/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf HappiestSisyphus (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Ethnicity

User:Son of Man on the Clouds keeps adding 'Palestinian' before American to the first sentence. Seems to be a clear case of WP:ETHNICITY and should not be included. HappiestSisyphus (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 02:19, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

About section "Approval and livestream controversy"

In that section, there's the sentence Death penalty experts consulted by Reuters could name no previous execution broadcast to a live audience except for illegal executions by jihadists and cartels., bearing a reference (currently number 172). Does that sentence need to stay? It is quite obvious that those experts did a sloppy research, or did not provide sufficient context in describing their term of "recent years". The question HAS A LAWFUL EXECUTION EVER BEEN LIVESTREAMED OR BROADCAST TO THE PUBLIC BEFORE? as written in the Reuters source has to unequivocally be answered by yes, it's sufficient to read in our own project the article about Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo, shot dead during an execution by firing squad in Guatemala after a lawful conviction that was broadcast on TV in 1996. Thirty years ago is not too far away to not be called "recent", I think. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Section removed: Special:Diff/1381376686/1381471684. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)