Talk:United States Navy

message: you just decided to remove that now, with no further additions or discussion? - wolf 01:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. Totally missed this conversation. Took from (https://news.usni.org/2021/11/03/china-has-worlds-largest-navy-with-355-ships-and-counting-says-pentagon). Self reverting now. Garuda28 (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, np & thanks. I agree that the statement as is might be problematic (others have edited it out as well), I just figured that if it is to be changed, then more clarification should be added. But that's just imo. This would need some input from others as well, I would think. Cheers - wolf 13:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued

message: The US navy used to have the Don't Tread on Me flag or emblem, so what happened to it? Thank you. 2601:647:4000:12E0:9DCD:7FEA:6916:BF16 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See First Navy Jack. BilCat (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's actually also the current US Navy Jack or emblem, from what I remember 2601:647:4000:12E0:9DCD:7FEA:6916:BF16 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I've noticed that on desktop view, the image for the first jack is pushed out of the naval jack section into the next section, and I wouldn't have noticed it if I wasn't specifically looking for it. This is a consequence of the Equipment section having so many right-justified images that images in further sections are pushed out even more. I know that the selection of images can be quite contentious and I'm not going to go there, yet this is a good example of the consequences of having so many images stuffed into one section. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the Don't Tread on Me Navy Emblem and flag? 

message: — Okay, thanks for looking out.  Yes, I realize some of the information (about how naval history is gathered) is less than adequately sourced.  I was in the process of finding reliable sources that cover the material in question specifically.  For now, if it's doable, I will  only include the generic information about names, ranks, addresses etc, and notable examples (Pearl Harbor) which is straight forward info, which I believe the sources provided cover more than adequately. Below is what I propose to include, with what will be left out striked out.
While at sea the principle method used for crew members to communicate with family, friends and others has always been through the naval mail system. Letters sent by crew members date back since the beginning of the navy, and are often referenced by naval historians and collectors as a supplementary source of information. Reliable accounts about naval history is usually established by historians and journalists who consult letters, logbooks, official documents and newspapers.  
Letters and other correspondence sent by commanders, officers and crew members bear names, ranks, signatures, addresses, ship's postmarks and often confirm dates and locations of various ships and crew members during various battles and other naval operations. Among the more notable examples of Naval postal history include letters sent from the USS Arizona before and on December 7 1941.Smithsonian National postal MuseumEphemera, Photographs & Military ArtworkLinn's Stamp News, April 29n 2021
::Yeah it's not that the material itself is inappropriate, it's just that it needs better sourcing and clarity of language supporting claims like "has always been..." and "the principal method". Those two in particular seem to be pretty significant claims that merit directly attributing sourcing; most of the rest of it is pretty uncontroversial. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks for your prompt reply. I'll go ahead and re-include the basic stuff, and as said, look for sources that specifically address the issues in question. If necessary, we can change phrases like, "has always been", changing it to "has often been", and "the principal method", can be changed to a "method sometimes used", which the examples themselves can easily substantiate.  If you have the time, or inclination, any insights and sources you can come up with would be more than welcomed.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've 'unearted' some images that you might appreciate that can be included in the article.  Just as an aside, people often take for granted how history is put together, and in the case of Naval History, usually don't realize that the historical accounts are primarily the product of accounts from the commanders and crew members themselves, as they provide the logbooks, dated correspondence and other such documents. This is why, imo, a brief section on this advent would do the US Navy article justice, because after all, the life force of the US Navy are the commanders and crews. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Naval postal history

message: Who is vice admiral for 53rd fleet 2600:1007:B061:6A74:0:45:7583:A901 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vice Admiral for 53 Rd Fleet