Talk:United States Navy
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Navy article.|
|United States Navy is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 27, 2004, March 27, 2005, March 27, 2006, March 27, 2007, March 27, 2008, and March 27, 2009.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 180 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
This section has been removed. It is irrelevant for an enyclopedic article on the USN to point out three or four famous people who served in the USN.
MOS: Discussion regarding the use of "she" to refer to ships
There is a new Manual of Style talk page discussion that questions the practice of referring to commercial and naval vessels as "she" and "her" taking place here. One or more editors have proposed a change to the Manual of Style which would require the use of the gender-neutral pronoun "it" when referring to vessels. Please take the time to express your opinion on this matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I cannot find the talk page or topic to which you refer, so am commenting here (I am unfamiliar with wikipedia practices, so apologize if I am doing something wrong). I disagree with abolition of her/she. The US Navy Style Guide recognizes "she," for example. I believe that while an encyclopedia entry should be "above" its subject matter in the sense of being impartial in factual matters, it should not be "above" it in the sense that it is dismissive of the subject matter's traditions, and abolishing she/her crosses that line in my mind. "Philosophy" is "the love of knowledge," and in an encyclopedia I don't believe it is inappropriate to let some love of the subject matter show through.Davelizard (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Battles in the infobox
There's been a few recent edits adding smaller battles to the infobox. I've reverted them. Seems that in 200+ years of USN history that quite a few individual battles have taken place. IMO, keeping the infobox battles limited to the big ones e.g., the wars, is the best editing course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I want to delete this statement:
The U.S. Navy is no longer assuming that no other naval force will challenge them and is refocusing their missions for other than purely defensive roles.
It is sourced to this article: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/navy-seeks-rail-guns-lasers-cruise-missiles-to-improve-pacific-firepower/ which states,
we can no longer assume that no other navy will challenge us with its ships.
... which is a claim made by the author, and not anyone he's interviewing. That statement is a link to this article: http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/china-can-win-big-in-the-pacific-by-backing-down-edward-luttwak/ which talks about Chinese expansionism in the pacific, particularly the Senkaku Islands dispute. I believe the author is saying that "China is expanding and unjustly claiming the Senkaku Islands and might threaten our Navy in order to take them." I have a number of problems with what we have written in the article.
- My own understanding of the conflict regarding those islands is China is testing the US military alliance with Japan. If the US promises to back Japan, China will have no choice but to back down, because...
- The Chinese Navy is dwarfed by the US Navy. They have only one aircraft carrier, a recommissioned soviet ship, which is currently being used for training purposes.
- I couldn't verify the reliability of breakingdefense.com, or the reliability of the author Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. But I'm not an expert on verification, so they may or may not be reliable.
- The claim in our article is made on behalf of the navy, when the claim in the source is made by the author. This is misleading, at least.
"Among the first to put a nuclear reactor aboard a ship"
First, I am newish to editing Wikipedia, i.e., I have not had an account before this. In the past I have attempted to correct factual errors on a few pages, but found that these disappeared within a day or two, presumably because no one wants to listen to an anonymous contributor, or take the time to confirm that he's right if you can just roll it back to incorrect information.
I note that the article currently says "The U.S. Navy was one of the first to install nuclear reactors aboard naval vessels" which strikes me as unnecessarily mealy-mouthed, when the correct statement is, "was the first". Is this due to some controversy over what is a good enough footnote to add to it? The 2007 footnote currently on that statement rather misses the point, as USS Nautilus is the correct target. Am I missing something? Feel free to show me the ropes, or flog me with them. Davelizard (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)