This is an archive of past discussions about Ross Coulthart. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It seems like this article is only focusing on his activity on UFO/UAP related information
Considering Ross has won many awards in journalism and has a long career as a journalist, only showing career information related to UFO/UAP disclosure in his wiki entry can be damaging for his credibility as a journalist. His website barely mentions his work on UFO/UAP disclosure, and it seems like this page makes it look like his only real career work has been in this field. Because of this, this wiki page could be used to de-legitimize his authority or integrity as a journalist. 2603:3014:600:DD60:D5F7:EBFE:37D2:5AEC (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
You are welcome to suggest specific new language about other aspects of his journalistic career, backed by references to reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The article is already using a reference to a book review which outlines that Ross has had a long career working for multiple notable mainstream Television News and current affairs programs as well as major newspaper publications.
Information about Ross’s long and successful career (in which he has won all of the major journalism awards in Australia) - isn’t a fringe conspiracy. I literally grew up recognising Ross on the tv news in my country!
It really looks a lot like this article was written in a specific way to discredit Ross as a serious journalist by leaving out the bulk of his career history and only focusing on what would be considered “fringe”.
It’s also worth noting that the article quotes the book review as claiming that Ross is chasing a “Lucritive” career in Ufology.
A career on the UFO lecture circuit is hardly Lucritive and I would think that the article should reference some kind of evidence that people are getting rich from the study of Ufology before making claims that are clearly written to convince the reader that Ross as ulterior and non-pure motives for is investigation into the topic of UAP. Gonebytim (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires independent sources, especially for establishing mainstream context for WP:FRINGE topics (as UFOlogy is certainly is). Criticism of fringe ideas/authors/sources per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV doesn't need "evidence" since we are citing an analysis and attributing it to a specific source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The problem here is that whether Ross is investigating a topic for financial gain or not - is not a “fringe topic” in of itself.
it would be completely valid to cite opposing opinions to the “fringe” claim itself (ie - UFOs)
This quote is casting judgment on Ross’s motives for investigating the “fringe” topic and is factually inaccurate - unless you can provide some information on when someone ever got wealthy from quitting a lucrative professional career to pursue a “fringe” topic?? Gonebytim (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I would say that it’s completely reasonable to quote sources that dispute Ross’s claims about the UFO topic. But completely unreasonable to quote sources making unfounded claims about his motives for investigating the topic. Gonebytim (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, when an author is actively promoting ufo conspiracy theory then mainstream criticism of their views and activities can be rather blunt. As mentioned, there is no requirement for attributed sources to provide evidence to support their stated opinions. However if it helps, the critical cited source can be summarized rather than quoted directly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
can it really be considered a fringe conspiracy when senators, congressmen, fbi, etc are actively investigating it and passing laws defining non-humans? i just read this today and it was shocking. I recommend you read it too.
thank you for patronizing. but I didn't say that they did. Do you know of any other conspiracy theory that the congress has passed laws in regards to and is actively investigating seriously? Westerosi456H (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
You were arguing that Wikipedia cannot consider UFO conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories because the US Congress is hearing claims from David Grusch. Or that language about speculative extraterrestrial technology being contained in a bill means UFO conspiracy theories are suddenly legitimate? The encyclopedia simply doesn't work that way. Scientific consensus on the matter of aliens visiting earth and being covered up hasn't suddenly changed. We have editorial policies that dictate how content must be based on WP:RS sources and govern how WP:FRINGE claims are treated. This isn't Facebook. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
you're clearly misundestanding and misrepresenting what I said. You're mistaking evidence and proof. And you didn't answer the question I asked: "Do you know of any other conspiracy theory that the congress has passed laws in regards to and is actively investigating seriously? " I'm not saying this is proof but it's prima facie evidence. When lawmakers look to pass a law, prima facie there is some problems exist and you can;t dismiss it so easily. Legislation is offical public record.
this is also an interesting article from the legislation that has passed the senate: again this is not proof but it's prima facie evidence that something is happening behind the scenes.
"(4) Legislation is necessary because credible evidence and testimony indicates that Federal Government unidentified anomalous phenomena records exist that have not been declassified or subject to mandatory declassification review as set forth in Eecutive Order 13526 (50 U.S.C. 3161 note; relating to classified national security information) due in part to exemptions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), as well as an over- JDP S.L.C. 1 broad interpretation of ‘‘transclassified foreign clear information’’, which is also exempt from mandatory declassification, thereby preventing public disclosure under existing provisions of law."
Yes this isn't facebook that's why I said I don't think we should discuss it here and we can discuss it in Facebook.
As I said I'm open to discussion in facebook or whatsapp but not here.
You are welcome to suggest improvements to the article but not welcome to use the Talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX to argue that something is happening behind the scenes. Do you have any suggestions for improving the article per WP:TPG? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome to archive this talk article to address your concerns and so it doesn't cause distraction for others.
I suggested multiple times that you can discuss this with me on facebook, whatsapp, etc, so I'm not sure what you mean by SOAPBOX.
I answered your question and you didn't/couldn't answer mine. I'm always open to rational discussions if you like on fb/whatsapp/etc, if not we can leave it at that. Westerosi456H (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
