This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
COVID-19 pandemic on USS Theodore Roosevelt article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The way this article reads, it would be more appropriately named Brett Crozier firing controversy. We'll give this article a few more days to develop, but if the focus of the article does not shift, then I would propose renaming the article. Banana Republic ( talk) 02:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Since it reads almost verbatim to Brett Crozier, seems that any remaining salient points should be imported into that article and then this article nominated for deletion. That or we rename to Brett Crozier firing controversy as you suggest and then re-edit the Crozier article. EdJF ( talk)
The structure of the article needed some serious work. I have split the Timeline section into multiple sections. And created a seperate section on the Sacking as it has become a major event with the resignation of Navy secretary. -- Cedix ( talk) 18:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
1) The
web archive for the SF article is missing half its content, below the Gilday section. The letter may also be missing. This also happens for the original SF article in some browsers, perhaps depending on cookie settings.
2) The Roklov paper (about
Diamond Princess) being referred to, is currently not available on the internet.
TGCP (
talk)
09:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
3) It's unclear how many people were transported off the ship, and when, particularly in the 7 days between 24 March and 1 April.
4) The article does not clarify who has the authority to change the ship's mission and head for port. Also unclear who has the authority to disembark
asymptomatic people from the ship to reduce further spread.
TGCP (
talk)
09:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is a contagion diagram if more data becomes available. Days with no data should also be displayed. TGCP ( talk) 13:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
A timeline is usually intended to be scanned easily; the subsections make that harder. In addition, reducing the timeline to a timeline is the only thing that makes sense if we are going to have an expanded prose section later in the article, as we currently do. Hope this is OK with everybody. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Modly conferred with Crozier’s chain of command.
TGCP Can you please clarify what this means. This statement might need to be copy edited to be easily understood. -- Cedix ( talk) 18:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Partially related -
Our article Unity of Command covers the issue directly at stake:"Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, his immediate commanding officer; Adm. John Aquilino, the top commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet; and Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, the officer overseeing all naval air forces in the Pacific."
"Unity of command means that all forces operate under a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces employed in pursuit of a common purpose. During multinational operations and interagency coordination, unity of command may not be possible, but the requirement for unity of effort becomes paramount. Unity of effort—the coordination and cooperation toward common objectives, even if the participants are not necessarily part of the same command or organization—is the product of successful unified action."
I have removed an opinionated statement from the timeline, which is otherwise made up purely of factual statements about the events in question. The anodyne statement that "According to a Navy officer, the letter didn't conform to Navy standards," if included in this article, must be appropriately attributed as the author's personal opinion, and balanced with other opinions which no doubt exist about the letter. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 22:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
"Crozier transmitted his email in a manner that some Navy officials found inappropriate, and nearly all considered unconventional. He addressed it to Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, his immediate commanding officer; Adm. John Aquilino, the top commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet; and Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, the officer overseeing all naval air forces in the Pacific. Crozier copied the message to seven Navy captains but left off Vice Adm. William Merz, who oversaw the Roosevelt as commander of the Navy’s 7th Fleet. It arrived in the continental United States late March 29 due to the international date line, a point that has been confused in some accounts. Crozier and each of the 10 men who received the email either declined to comment through spokespeople or did not respond to a request to speak to The Post....A senior defense official acknowledged that Crozier wanted to remove sailors more quickly but said his effort wasn’t immediately realistic.“The problem was there was no place to put them at that time,” the senior defense official said. “The governor of Guam had started working with the hotel industry to get the hotels reopened. But that doesn’t happen overnight.” The official added that if Crozier wanted to make an urgent point as a commander, the Navy has a way to do so. He could have sent a “personal for” message, known colloquially as a “P4,” to senior service leaders. That would have flagged the discussion as sensitive and important without opening it up to a relatively large group of people, the official said."
This needs to be expanded by adding the reasons. Just stating that he was recommended, without reason is not very informative. -- Cedix ( talk) 13:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Under the "Timeline, April" section, a sentence reads "On 2 April, acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly relieved Crozier of his command.[22] According to Modly, Crozier had sent the letter to "20 or 30 people" and had gone outside his chain of command.[23] However, this is not true, because Crozier had addressed and sent the letter directly to his superior, Admiral Baker.[16]
The original secondary source cited for this statement says
The secretary’s office decided to wait, and Love conveyed that Crozier could contact Modly’s office directly, the senior defense official said. Love reached out to Crozier again on March 30. Modly’s office didn’t know it yet, but Crozier already had sent his email, which left off Modly’s and Gilday’s staffs. Crozier transmitted his email in a manner that some Navy officials found inappropriate, and nearly all considered unconventional. He addressed it to Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, his immediate commanding officer; Adm. John Aquilino, the top commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet; and Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, the officer overseeing all naval air forces in the Pacific. It arrived in the continental United States late March 29 due to the international date line, a point that has been confused in some accounts. Crozier copied the message to seven Navy captains but left off Vice Adm. William Merz, who oversaw the Roosevelt as commander of the Navy’s 7th Fleet."
The Washington Post article is careful to state when points in their account are controversial, which that line in our article does not. I changed it to
"However, this account was disputed by writers for the Washington Post because Crozier had addressed and sent the letter directly to his superior, Admiral Baker"
which doesn't add much text to our article while making sure that any controversial statements are properly attributed to the Washington Post and not stated in ways that not even the Washington Post does. -- loupgarous ( talk) 16:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd suggest changing the name of the article to: COVID-19 outbreak on the USS Theodore Roosevelt. This keeps the terminology the same throughout the entire article. Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 ( talk) 21:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)