Talk:Scott O'Grady

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phrasing[edit]

I recently reverted the changes made to this article by User:NEMT. My basic disagreement is rather minor overall, however I think changing the phrase, "he was shot down in his F-16 by Bosnian Serb forces" to "ejecting from his F-16 amidst anti-aircraft fire from Bosnian Serb forces" [1] detracts from what actually happened. This new statements makes it seem like the anti-aircraft fire didn't cause the F-16 to be shot down, while the CNN article indicates that it did. And while he did eject from his F16 I don't really think that is what gained him prominence, so much as his story of survival over the following days. I've reverted this once already, and NEMT has changed it back, so I'm looking for some consensus on this issue so that this article can remain in the neutral point of view and true to the facts. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current phrasing of the opening sentence follows the structure of Scott O'Grady (not his F-16) being shot down. The phrase "shot down" implies he went down with his plane and survived a crash, something which would certainly be noteworthy and would be a likely assumption to uninformed readers, considering the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Additionally, whether or not O'Grady ejected before or after his plane became critically damaged is not a matter of fact, however, his experience and mistakes casually being used as examples of what not to do in a dangerous situation for new military aviators, most notably US Marine pilots, suggests he may not have followed proper ejection protocol (most notably his elevation was far too high). In any event, my main gripe with the wording is mentioning O'Grady being "shot down," without any mentioned of his ejecting. NEMT 06:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Shot Down" Is Correct[edit]

O'Grady was in fact shot down by Serb action. That's common aviation phraseology, whether the pilot went down with the plane or not. Specifically, his F-16 was destroyed by a Russian-built SA-6 missile.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983055,00.html

Incidentally, O'Grady was involved in "The Great Galeb Shoot" in 1994 when members of his squadron downed four Serbian "Galeb" jets. Other F-16 pilots have noted that when he was shot down, O'Grady's flight was "low on top" of the undercast, leaving too little time to avoid the SAM that popped up thru the deck. Naval aviators in the area say that the site was known operational but intelligence reports failed to reach the pilots assigned that sector. Back-channel "intel" had it that the SA-6 battery was "blasted on slivovitz" for three days thereafter, celebrating the kill!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.2.134.240 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 October 2006.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parents[edit]

This website should have something about Scott's parents!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.116.108 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 March 2008

What would you like to see with regard to his parents? Do you have a reliable source for this information? — ERcheck (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

O'Grady is in the American Roman Catholics category while the article says that he studied at Dallas Theological Seminary which is Protestant. Did he convert or did an editor wrongly assume that anyone with an Irish surname must be a Roman Catholic? Greenshed (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reading the article, I had the same question. You deserve a response. There's nothing to prevent a titular Roman Catholic from attending a Protestant seminary, and many Catholics do (as well as vice versa). But DTS has historically required every student to sign a statement of faith adhering to the dispensational premillennial view; so, although DTS doesn't profess a denominational affiliation or exclude anyone on such a basis, the statement of faith (essentially a creed) would be a definite deterrent to enrollment by a Catholic who adheres to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, with its incorporated dogma of Augustinian amillennialism. Observe that the Nicene Creed, as recited in American Roman Catholic congregations, contains the following statement: "He [Jesus] will come again with glory, to judge the living and the dead, and of His kingdom there will be no end." The Nicene Creed does not say that he will come again to reign for 1000 years and then judge the living and the dead, but that he will come again to judge the living and the dead. O'Grady must have converted from Catholicism because, as an ethical person, he hardly could say the Nicene Creed and sign the DTS creed simultaneously. Rammer (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rammer be advised that only faculty and staff are required to sign a statement of faith based upon the premillennial. Students are only need to agree on 7 Essentials:

1.the Trinity

2.the full deity and humanity of Christ

3.the spiritual lostness of the human race

4.the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ

5.salvation by faith alone in Christ alone

6.the physical return of Christ

7.the authority and inerrancy of Scripture

http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/

All of which Catholics believe; Protestants also recite the Nicene Creed. ~~BrattySoul~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.158.50 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banja Luka incident[edit]

He's also involved with the Banja Luka incident before shot down and shot down 1 enemy aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiknerd (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

The Mrkonjić Grad incident article is essentially about Scott O'Grady's claim to fame. The articles are both quite short and would benefit from being merged. Scott O'Grady is a more likely search term than Mrkonjić Grad incident. DrKay (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Scott O'Grady. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Scott O'Grady. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2020[edit]

The editor claims falsehoods under the "Nomination: Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs" section. While the referenced CNN article referenced does mention his tweets, there is no reference proving falsehoods. This portion reads like an opinion piece. I suggest leaving the article reference of his tweets, but simply removing the "falsehood" claims. Derekrck1 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the CNN coverage referenced, "falsely" is used in reference to the tweeted claims four times, "falsehoods" twice, "false claim" once, and "baseless" twice. The WP:RS source is quite clear that the claims in O'Grady's tweets are conspiracy theories and falsehoods. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Election conspiracy theories[edit]

This page claims he "promoted evidence-free theories" based on an evidence-free CNN article. If you are going to claim that he promoted evidence-free theories you should support those claims with evidence or admit that you are making an evidence-free claim about his evidence-free theories. Do you see the problem here? An alternative would be to edit the section and say that he has been accused by a CNN employee of promoting evidence-free theories. Until we find any evidence, this seems to be the only way to make that part of the page accurate. Of course you could always find the evidence of his promotion of evidence-free theories and leave it the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.231.114 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THIS SECTION CONTAINS NO REAL SOURCES.It has one CNN article with a few words in quotes but no actual quotes or screenshots of the claimed tweets. The other source circles back to the CNN article. If you want to rewrite the section factually, you can write it to show what CNN accused Scott O'Grady of saying. As it is currently written, it has no sources. I will edit it according to Wikipedia's policy on biographies on living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.231.114 (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps changing the article in violation of Wikipedia policy? There is only one source for the accusations and it is only based on hearsay with no proof. 24.116.97.236 (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long standing Wikipedia community consensus has found CNN to be a reliable source, so we are unlikely to edit the article to say "a CNN employee accused Grady of promoting evidence-free theories", nor do we need to insert screenshots of O'Grady's actual tweets. The sourcing states that there was no evidence to support O'Grady's claims that Trump won by a landslide and Biden stole the election in a coup. It also uses the word "debunked" to describe the conspiracy theories. There is additional content in the NPR article and the Dallas Morning News articles to that effect. Saying that the content is "hearsay with no proof" is a misnomer; hearsay is when one person claims another person made an oral statement, which is usually disallowed by courts because they want to hear that oral testimony from the original person. Nonetheless, returning to the concern about the exact choice of wording for "evidence-free" conspiracy theories, I'd have no objection to changing it to say "debunked" conspiracy theories as an interchangeable aspect of what is stated in the sources. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 4 sources listed in the paragraph making reference to the tweets and making the accusations about them, one is a CNN online article, two are articles about the CNN online article and one is just about the election not the tweets.
Even if one accepts CNN as a reliable source, the CNN article never claims he promoted anything. It simply states that he retweeted posts that were not his own. Of the two articles written about the CNN article, one also never claims he endorsed or promoted the content of the alleged retweets (Dallas Morning News Article), but the other one does (NPR Article). So in a section with 4 sources, there is only one source (NPR) promoting the narrative of the entire paragraph. The NPR article saying he promoted the tweets uses the CNN article as a source, but changes the language of their own source to claim his retweeting was an endorsement.
This is absolutely hearsay with no proof. This is not a court of law, so we can disregard the legal definitions only applicable in that context. Even if one views CNN as a reliable source the fact is they did not provide proof. The other articles are about the CNN article, which contains no proof. The NPR article embellishes their account of the CNN article to create a narrative. The narritave of that embellished account of the CNN article turns into the entire subject of the paragraph in question.
This fails to meet the standards 24.116.97.236 (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered finding proof to support the narrative you'd like to write about Scott O'Grady? If you are so determined to include the conspiracy theories about him in his article, could you not find some evidence supporting the unsourced claims?
If you can't you should change the language to match the only source of the information being editorialized about. Finding an article about an article about an article is not evidence. You know you are wrong. 50.233.150.4 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_O%27Grady&oldid=1212059365"