Talk:USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents

POV push

I have reverted to a previous version as this edit introduces WP:ASSERTions that are not appropriate in Wikipedia's voice as well as unvetted WP:YOUTUBE postings. Not good. Also, here's a reminder that articles about UFO incidents are subject to discretionary sanctions. jps (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You have reverted 4 edits which are all accompanied by specific edit descriptions and sources. Have you seen them? Please let me know what your issues are with each specific edit. To help in discussion I report below the 4 edits you reverted and their descriptions. Let's proceed inline. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• [1] Not just those two [sources]. The article has 14 sources with various outlets reporting on this. e.g. POLITICO, WASHINGTON POST just to name a few.
  • Hardly matters. Our sentences is pretty much tied to the sources we immediately cite and not to the other sources. jps (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph that sentence precedes includes more than those 2 sources. We can link them all if you want but it would be WP:OVERCITE which is usually the result of edit warring. I don't think we need to go that far. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is most of those sources do not support the precise wording of that sentence. And a lot of the sources are just rehash of the NYTimes piece and so are not independent verifications. jps (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A couple of independent verifications already included in the article (with independent sources or confirmations). Happy reading, let me know once you are done you opinion of each and why you choose to ignore them: AIAAPolitico, one of the many Washington PostTIME I could go on. But sources are already in the article. Just need to read them before making stuff uf. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Shitty reporting is shitty. I stand by my evaluation. jps (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• [2] Complete Navy Spokesman statement paraphrasis
  • Unnecessary and WP:POVPUSH trying to impose a UFO report fetish. jps (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I report the exact text from the source. We can use a direct quote if you prefer (emphasis mine): Joseph Gradisher, a Navy spokesman, said the new guidance was an update of instructions that went out to the fleet in 2015, after the Roosevelt incidents.“There were a number of different reports,” he said. Some cases could have been commercial drones, he said, but in other cases “we don’t know who’s doing this, we don’t have enough data to track this. So the intent of the message to the fleet is to provide updated guidance on reporting procedures for suspected intrusions into our airspace.”). You may be inadvertently imposing your own POV without verifying the sources properly. Read the sources thoroughly before making edits. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"In some cases" — is pretty clear that it's not in all cases. Wikipedia isn't written like the script of a horror movie trailer. We don't cherrypick dramatic quotes to hype a feeling of mystery or urgency. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the diff? Please refrain from commenting before you have reviewed the material. Here is the paraphrasis we had in the article before the revert so you can compare it to the original above. Please point out exactly what passage is not an accurate representation (emphasis mine):

According to a Navy spokesman, there have been a number of reports and, while some cases could have been commercial drones, the source of others remains unknown as not enough data is available for accurate tracking, prompting new classified guidance on reporting procedures "for suspected intrusions into our airspace.”--Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG is appropriate here. jps (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

In what way? Nobody is making any extraordinary claim in the text reported. It's the prudent statement of a Navy spokesman who has been interviewed by several major sources.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't trust your "prudent Navy spokesperson" as an "extraordinary source". Find me a Nature or Science article showing that it is AMAZING! jps (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• [3] Video metadata is not available. Source is NYT (this is your original research?)
  • I have no idea what your issue with this is. What do you want us to discuss? What exactly is the issue with the metadata we are citing and what is the concern you have for this article? There is a "KISS" Keep it simple, stupid principle here. jps (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    • In deference to this, I have made the commentary even simpler which is all we need, IMHO: [4]. jps (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Your edit omits some interesting details but at least now it is factual as reported by the sources. There is no reported metadata associated with the videos and the source is the NYT as per my edit.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"Interesting details" is not a valid criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The article is factual now as you have removed the reference to metadata which was not supported by sources. As usual you could have edited instead of reverted with bogus claims if the problem were the "unnecessary details". I suggest you do so in the future to avoid all this useless discussion. I would have just pressed the "thank you" button --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• [5] Links to original videos as per WP:VIDEOLINK
  • Not a good justification at all. WP:YOUTUBE. jps (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no blanket ban on youtube videos and they should be evaluated on a case by case basis per WP:YOUTUBE. In this case I believe the parameters indicated in WP:VIDEOLINK are respected. Could you point to the exact passages that support removing those links from WP:VIDEOLINK(addendum to WP:EXT)? Those are the original links published on the "to the stars" youtube account that prompted the initial reporting by the NYT et al. Definitely relevant to the article. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to link to the charlatan To the Stars youtube account in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Source of you statement? They are the source of the video as the article states and sources confirm and verify. Does a source doubt their authenticity? Or is this your original research or personal POV?--Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That others have been duped by this racket is our concern and is why the article can exist. But we don't need to include their youtube videos. Not in anyway necessary. jps (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)