Talk:USS Carl Vinson

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Carl Vinson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Georgia (U.S. state) Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)...
Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles.
Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category.
Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data
Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes
Map : Wikipedia requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state)
Photo : Wikipedia requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state)
Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs.
Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting
- Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention
- Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
- Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner.
- Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard

Caribbean: Haiti Start‑class Low‑importance

	Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Haiti portal This article is supported by WikiProject Haiti (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Pritzker Military Library Mid‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Carl Vinson[edit]

@SteelMariner: by my count, you've attempted to add that Vinson was a segregationist, at least four times in the past year alone. Despite those edits being removed each time, not once have you gone to the talk page to discuss the matter, as set out in WP:BRD;

B: you Boldly make an edit,
R: the edit is Reverted,
D: you then Discuss the issue on the talk page.

Along with that, the WP:ONUS is on you, as the one seeking to add content, to gain consensus for it, if the content has been opposed, as is the case here. Ship articles should be about ships, and this edit you repeatedly keep trying to add, and so prominently to the lead at that, is WP:UNDUE and does not maintain an WP:NPOV for the article subject, which is the ship, not the Congressman. (imo) - wolf 16:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with whitewashing the article. But there was never a valid reason for reverting the edit and you're not giving one now. It's important background for the namesake of a ship that all Americans pay for. Nothing more, nothing less. I'll revert your edit now. And FYI there was nothing on the talk page when you said "see tp" before the last edit. SteelMariner^Talk 18:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with whitewashing the article." - One might ask you why you are so "obsessed" with adding this edit, but I won't because it would be considered a personal attack, like your comment is. How about you just focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS, mm-kay?

"But there was never a valid reason for reverting the edit and you're not giving one now." - that's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming LA-LA-LA-LA!! while others are speaking and then claiming they "didn't give a valid reason". I gave my reasons as an opening to a discussion. The way discussions work on WP is you continue the discussion, not revert, yet again, while posting insults.

"It's important background for the namesake of a ship..." - you could propose adding it to the namesake section of the article, but that would mean an actual effort at discussion on your part.

"...that all Americans pay for." - instead of standing on a WP:SOAPBOX trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

"Nothing more, nothing less." - actually, you'll need more.

"I'll revert your edit now." - that's not how it works. Whether it's because you don't edit disputed content during a discussion, or that during content disputes articles go back to WP:QUO, or (once again) the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus to include your edit, or simply that because edit-warriors don't usually benefit from their disruption, your edit needs to come out until this discussion concludes and either you and I agree (a consensus), or you go to dispute resolution and try your luck there.

"And FYI there was nothing on the talk page when you said "see tp" before the last edit." - ok... and?

Anyways, read the policy & guidelines I've cited, as they do apply here. And read the reasons I gave for my edit (same as I gave you a month ago) and then consider replying. We can have an actual discussion and perhaps work out a compromise. In the meantime, I suggest you self-revert. - wolf 19:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is a contentious issue, and as such needs to be discussed beforehand. I'm not a fan of selective revelation either. We don't note on the USS JFK articles that he was a philanderer, etc. Are only certain bad deeds worthy of "exposure" in tangentially related articles? BilCat (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. With literally thousands of ships, if we were to start noting negative characteristics about the namesakes, where would it end? Medal of Honor recipient Joe Schmoe of USS Schmoe was also a wife-beater, Nobel laureate Suzy Que of USNS Que used cocaine, and on and on. Better to have ship articles focus on the ship. - wolf 21:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, really? Threatening to have me "blocked" on my talk page because you can't handle someone noting the fact that this ship is named after a white supremacist who believed black people shouldn't have equal rights? Power trip much? Anyway, I'll be adding a section in the morning noting the controversy behind this ship's namesake. Hopefully your emotional state can withstand it. Toodles. SteelMariner^Talk 04:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a standard notice. I didn't write it, but I am required to post it, to ensure you are aware of the policy, especially in light of your behaviour. Again, the purpose of talk pages is to have collegial discussion to try and work out any differences over content. You however seem incapable of that, considering in your latest comments you have again posted another personal attack, along with a threat to bypass any attempt at consensus and/or dispute resolution and instead re-add that content... again (talk about a "power trip").

Regardless if you add it to the lead again or the namesake section, there is an active discussion here and you have not gained consensus. There is a process to follow, including (again) WP:ONUS, which states: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." That applies here, and to you. You don't just get to add whatever you want, whenever you want. To try and do so will be considered more disruption on your part, and treated as such. "Toodles". - wolf 05:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you have a personal grudge instead of a concern for the quality of this article. My condolences, but that shouldn't be allowed to dictate wikipedia's content. I am confident my most recent addition absolutely conforms to the site's standards and has many citations, and you are welcome to file a complaint about me doing so. But I'll continue to put it in the article. SteelMariner^Talk 05:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

"Since some time has lapsed without any further reason why this shouldn't be added, I think it's safe to add this section with appropriate citations." - that's not how it works. Just 'waiting them out and then sliding the edit back in' two months later does not negate the previous discussion, any related policies or guidelines, or the need to discuss the issue in a collegial manner, to try and work towards a consensus. - wolf 07:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]