Talk:COVID-19 pandemic on USS Theodore Roosevelt

Article name

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 article title seems fine to me. The structure of the article needs some serious work. I suggest the Timeline section be split into multiple sections. --Cedix (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: see my comment in section below. Cedix (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thru the good work of many people (not me), the article has come a long way in the past 48 hours.EdJF (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Article Structure

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)

Documentation problems

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)

ad 1). Crozier's letter has since been sourced as original, and as a transcript with conversion errors.

ad 2). The Rocklov paper was the scientific basis for Crozier's request, at a time when between 33 to 93 people had tested positive, and most crew were still on board (paper added now). Crozier spelled it Roklov, which may be why it didn't show up.

ad 3). Partial data has been added. TGCP (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

ad 3). Disembark/evacuation data of the full crew is only vaguely included in text. Physical distancing is a primary means of mitigation, and a diagram like the others may illustrate the development. TGCP (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Viral spread diagram

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)

I have added the chart. Good work TGCP. --Cedix (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

With the hospitalization, the situation has changed. A template similar to this can be made if someone is willing. TGCP (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the subsections from the timeline

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)

MelanieN, I had added the subsection headers in the timeline section since the timeline was too long. I was hoping the subsection would make it more readable than it was. I do not have any strong objections, if you plan to remove them. I appreciate your help in improving the page. --Cedix (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I trimmed the timeline to basics and left the details in the expanded prose sections. There was a lot of word-for-word duplication. I have trimmed out some of the duplication but I would encourage you to continue doing that. Also I combined most of the duplicated references into a single reference but I may have missed some. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am done for now, so it you want to do some improving, we will not edit conflict. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Conferred with chain of command

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)

It's what the source says, perhaps others can elaborate by finding more sources. There are more aspects to be added if others are willing. TGCP (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Partially related -

I don't know if it's notable, but Modly said on March 6 and 27 "Don't give up the ship" and on April 3 "Never, ever give up the ship!". There is only a skeleton crew onboard now, so the current situation is not quite Abandon Ship, but it's close. TGCP (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, Abandon Ship redirects to The captain goes down with the ship which is sortof what Crozier did. But that may be stretching the material too much for an encyclopedia. TGCP (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post article Indirectly cited by our article under "Timeline: April" describes Captain Crozier's line of command:

"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."

Our article Unity of Command covers the issue directly at stake:

"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."

In other words, If Secretary Modly wished for Captain Crozier to be relieved of his command and admonished (the reasons for Crozier's discipline explained to him or others) in the absence of an operational emergency, he needed to instruct Crozier's superior, through the line of command, to do so. It's possible that Modly violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice in not directing Crozier's line of command to convene a hearing to determine whether or not Captain Crozier was guilty of a military offense. I won't speculate on which of these things, or any of them, led to Secretary Modly's resignation. --loupgarous (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Opinion removed from timeline

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)

The Washington Post reports a controversy among Navy officers they interviewed regarding how correct Crozier's memo was:

"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."

That, I think, is a balanced presentation of the facts in a reliable secondary sounce which describes the the matter from Captain Crozier's perspective and from the perspective of senior US Department of Defense officials aware of at least one other way Crozier could have communicated his concerns while keeping them within his line of commnand. The heading "P4" is probably advisory - it's not a line of computer code that prevents emails from being leaked, merely a request made not to leak them as a matter of military courtesy. --loupgarous (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Crozier is recommended to be reinstated

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)

Unfortunately, as with most military communications, the reasons have yet to be made public, since the investigation is still ongoing and covers not only Crozier's future but also the Navy's response to future crises as well. Wyliepedia @ 11:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Captain Crozier is entitled to receive a hearing regarding his conduct in this incident. This will probably involve facts not in press accounts, and possibly references to communications or other security measures whcih are not common knowledge. The cc: list on Crozier's memo seems to invite comment from officers not in Crozier's line of command regarding action he wished to take which the Secretary of the Navy was considering but had not yet authorized. That might be viewed as insubordination, depending on the circumstances. --loupgarous (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Under "Timeline, April, Changed "However, this is not true" to "However, this account was disputed by writers for the Washington Post

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)

On reflection, that entire last sentence needs rework. After reading the original source material (the Washington Post article cited in an ars technica article on the mattter) the whole question of Captain Crozier's email/memo is more nuanced than the last sentence indicates. The situation is more complex than whether Secretary Modly's conduct was apporpriate or not. The Washington Post article presents a mostly balanced picture of how correct Crozier was in choosing the distribution of his memo - he could easily have placed a heading on it making clear that the memo was personally addressed to its recipients and not to be leaked. I have outside concerns pressing at this moment but will return to revisit this question. --loupgarous (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Change Article Title

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)