Talk:USS Enterprise (CVN-65)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Commanding Officers

This article has an extensively referenced listing of the commanding officers of the ship. Those maintaining the article need to be aware that as a result of a recent discussion at the WP:SHIPS talk page, consensus has determined that listing the COs such as is done in this article is not appropriate and should be removed. The appropriate way to notate the COs is by mentioning them in the prose of the history of the ship. Instead of just blanking the section, I suggest that a stand-alone list be immediately created along the lines of List of commanding officers of USS Oklahoma (BB 37). If the list is still in this article in three days, I will remove it according to the newly-established consensus so the article will comply. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been more than a week since I have left this warning. I have now removed the section per the new consensus. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Stand-alone article created and linked. Neovu79 (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest another related stand alone article for the Big-E List her 25 deployments, start end dates, regions to which deployed (interested in seeing it as table/ not prose) Wfoj2 (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Facebook disclaimer

i'm happy to take feedback where to insert my remark, that i place here in "Miscellaneous". Someone, a Mike i think, continually deletes my "clarification" about the citing of Facebook, and its hearsay authority! regarding a grave issue involving the skipper of the Enterprise, in the present day. I make this explanation for my EDIT, Facebook OPINIONS are "hearsay." A straight-up clarification is in order: Facebook may have legions of bloggers who LIKE the skipper, all of 'em serving as his "cheering section"--BUT WHY should we be counting up the Captain's fans, particularly in the context of a wikipedia FACTUAL entry, on the topic of the CVN-65 Enterprise? This facebook insinuation IS NOT NEUTRAL! The above note summarizes an EDIT i placed. and I quote my edit:_______ "Facebook does not claim authoritative status as arbiter of standards of professional or gentlemanly behavior; and postings on Facebook internet pages should not be mistaken for objective statements of facts, adjudicated or otherwise. Facebook followers' opinions of merits or demerits should be understood as opinions, in respect of unlitigated or untried claims or charges. Apparent endorsements of character, by Facebook's public bloggers are expressions of opinions of individuals only." ______ All my verbiage could be eliminated, if the offending remark about the skipper's cheering section (biassed with "Facebook" bloggers judgmental wisdom!) were removed. The Facebook remark is irrelevant to any pertinent facts or info about the topic "the Enterprise", and is only placed there to insinuate a "judgment" in an issue that is only now being opened, long before being decided or weighed on its merits. ____________oops,i forgot the squigg'lees: here ya go: Hispanosuiza (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You were adding a disclaimer. Wikipedia does not do disclaimers like that. See WP:General disclaimer and WP:No disclaimers in articles. -fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

U23 / Training

In 2007 the German submarine U24 was able to fire some simulated torpedos, took a picture and went up directely next to the Enterprise without any noticing by the Navy until the emergence.

Here is the article (in German) [1]

and here the foto the German crew has taken [2] (at the end of the page). --91.89.125.119 (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Arabian Sea?

The most recent entry refers to her support of Operation Odyssey Dawn on the Libyan coast. Maritime News (marinelink.com) and a few other sites have reported her now supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in the Arabian Sea. I don't see this in the mainstream media (is it likely they'll think it important enough to report?) but this is this much merited ship's last deployment before decommissioning, if reliable sources come up with this (is marinelink ok for the purpose?, I'm meh on that) it should be for inclusion.--86.30.189.230 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

u.s.s,enterprise

THERE WAS AN ENTERPRISE COMISSIONED ABOUT 1956 STATIONED IN NORFOLK VA NICKED THE FORREST FIRE LATTER SHE IS A MUSSIUM IN PENSECOLA FLA I WAS ON THE U.S.S.DEMOINES TIED UP NEXT TO HER. HERBERT DALRYMPLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.144.52.112 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

dude you are not only confused you cant spell worth a damn either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.145.4 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Forrest Fire" was the USS Forrestal (CV-59), not the USS Enterprise. Todd Carnes (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for addition

This is worth including-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Navy_Jack#Modern_use

I wonder if there are good images of Enterprise with this flag. --ɱ 21:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Combat Action Ribbon - 1973 Combat Action Ribbon - 2000 Combat Action Ribbon - 2003 Combat Action Ribbon - 2003 Joint Meritorious Unit Award - 1988 Navy Unit Commendation (NUC) - 1967 Navy Unit Commendation (NUC) - 1968 Navy Unit Commendation (NUC) - 1973 Navy Unit Commendation (NUC) - 1998 Navy Unit Commendation (NUC) - 2001 Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) - 1972 Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) - 1975 Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) - 1986 Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) - 1988 Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) - 2001 Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) - 2006 Navy E Ribbon - 1974 Navy E Ribbon - 1988 Navy E Ribbon - 2007 Navy Expeditionary Medal - 1962 Navy Expeditionary Medal - 1986 National Defense Service Medal - 1961 National Defense Service Medal - 1991 National Defense Service Medal - 2001 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 1962 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 1968 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 1969 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 1975 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 1988 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 1990 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 1998 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 1999 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 2001 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 2003 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 2003 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 2003 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 2003 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 2003 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 2003 Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal - 2003 Vietnam Service Medal - 1966 Vietnam Service Medal - 1966 Vietnam Service Medal - 1967 Vietnam Service Medal - 1968 Vietnam Service Medal - 1969 Vietnam Service Medal - 1971 Vietnam Service Medal - 1972 Vietnam Service Medal - 1973 Vietnam Service Medal - 1974 Southwest Asia Service Medal - 2003 Global War on Terrorism (Expeditionary) - 2001 Global War on Terrorism (Expeditionary) - 2003 Global War on Terrorism (Expeditionary) - 2004 Global War on Terrorism (Expeditionary) - 2006 Global War on Terrorism (Expeditionary) - 2007 Global War on Terrorism (Service) - 2003 Armed Forces Service Medal - 1996 Armed Forces Service Medal - 2000 Armed Forces Service Medal - 2003 Armed Forces Service Medal - 2005 Humanitarian Service Medal - 1975 Humanitarian Service Medal - 1982 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 1975 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 1977 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 1983 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 1985 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 1987 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 1989 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 1990 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 1996 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 1998 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 2001 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 2003 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 2004 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 2006 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 2011 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 2012 Navy Sea Service Deployment - 2012 Vietnam Presidential Unit Citation - Aug/Sep 1954 - 2003 Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation - 1966 Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation - 1967 Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation - 1968 Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation - 1969 NATO Non Art 5 Bosnia (SFOR/IFOR) - 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevFred (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

These are the ribbons that should be on the page. The current display is incorrect as it has ribbons that the ship did not receive. This was confirmed the day of the Inactivation with members of the Ships Administration Department and People on the Navigation Bridge who handles the Ribbon board that is displayed from the Island. Further confirmation was done with ComNavAirLant in order to properly display the fruit salad on the Together We Served Website.RevFred (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Other nicknames?

The Carl Vinson's page has its unofficial nicknames listed- why has no one listed the "Big E's" most common unofficial nickname "The Mobile Chernobyl"?WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I was stationed on-board her for 4 years and NEVER heard anyone call her that. Besides, comparing her to a nuclear disaster site is hardly giving her the respect she deserves.Todd Carnes (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I worked with a reactor maintanance technician from no 3 plant - he called the ship Mobile Chernobyl. Regardless of the safety of the reactors - it still had 8 of them - 6 more than any other nuclear powered ship. 174.24.124.152 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've got the Mobile Chernobyl patch on my cruise jacket from 01. Nuke MM. We also called it "The Pig" and "Enterprison" Alaskanite65 (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not Second Oldest Commissioned Ship

USS Pueblo (AGER-2) is the second oldest commissioned ship, after "Old Ironside," not Enterprise. Pueblo remains in the hands of North Korea. See Wikipedia article on USS Pueblo.192.138.74.36 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I did and apparently Pueblo was commissioned in '67 whereas Enterprise was commissioned in '61. That should do the trick. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Not the orginal source for Star Trek Ship Name

"As for why did Roddenberry name the starship Enterprise, and not Yorktown or some other name, Roddenberry told Star Trek Communicator magazine in October 1989 that it was because 'I fought in the Pacific in World War II and I was downed in the area where the ‘Enterprise’ [i.e. CV-6] and others broke the back of the Japanese fleet. It was a proud name.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcal1971 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've heard the same story, but not from that magazine issue (It was called the 'Star Trek: The Official Club Magazine' back then by the way). However I'm inclined to believe that CVN-65 also played a role in changing the working name of NCC-1701 in some way, at least calling attention to its namesake predecessor. In the end this implies that the change from "Yorktown" to "Enterprise" had less to do with CVN-65 specifically and more to do with the namesake heritage.

I did make a minor change to reflect that, but it got reverted. According to the prose, the entire basis of that is CVN-65 appears in a size comparison diagram, on the wall of the 'Star Trek: TNG' observation lounge, and the timing of the change that all may not even mean anything while Gcal1971 states to Gene Roddenberry was directly quoted specifically identifying CV-6 as an influence. Would there be any objection to adding my change back with a citation of the magazine article?97.116.50.46 (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Should I assume the silence as there being no objections to adding this citation?97.116.50.125 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Decomm

The article currently says "Enterprise was inactivated on 1 December 2012 at Norfolk Naval Station, Virginia, with her decommissioning scheduled no later than 15 March 2013." (Emphasis mine.) Update, please? 24.61.4.237 (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Catapult reference/sourcing

"On 19 December 1962, a Grumman E-2 Hawkeye was aircraft catapulted off Enterprise in the first shipboard test of a nose-wheel launch bar designed to replace the catapult bridle.[original research?]" Citation for this reference should be the Naval History and Heritage Command's "United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995" by Roy A Grossnick and published in 1997 by the NHHC (formerly Naval Historical Center) . The citation is found in the chapter 'Naval Aviation Chronology: 1960-1969' under the entry for December 1962: " 19--An E-2A piloted by Lieutenant Commander Lee M. Ramsey was catapulted off the Enterprise in the first shipboard test of nose-tow gear designed to replace the catapult bridle and reduce launching intervals. Minutes later the second nosetow launch was made by an A-6A." Steeljaw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

References

JAG

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe JAG often used the Enterprise as the fictional USS Seahawk (CVN-65). 17:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Am I the only one who has a problem with the fact that this article is almost entirely plagiarized word-for-word from the US Navy's official USS Enterprise site at http://www.enterprise.navy.mil/ ? Todd Carnes (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Plagirism is a serious charge. Given that the link you gave is a portal to other pages on that site, can you be more specific, and give exact pages and text that his been plagiarized? Thanks. -BilCat (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for making such a serious charge. I withdrawal my charge. I seem to have somehow been mistaken. :( Todd Carnes (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The list of Commanding Officers should be merged into this article

In my opinion, List of USS Enterprise (CVN-65) commanding officers should be merged into this article in it's own section. Having the list separate makes the list look like an orphan and makes it difficult to find if a person is researching it. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The table could be made collaspible and default to collasped. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@EricCable: Do it. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

After a month and a half I received only one comment and it was "do it" so I've done it. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Awards

The "Awards and decorations" section indicates that Enterprise was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) with 10 stars. The accompanying graphic shows the award bar with 2 silver stars, indicating it had been awarded 10 additional times, for a total of 11 medals (a silver award star represents 5 bronze individual/subsequent award stars). The "USS Enterprise (CVN-65)" page at navy.mil shows the Enterprise was awarded the VSM 26 times. It would appear a correction is needed, and if that's the case, then the graphic will need to be changed as well. - ^theWOLFchild 19:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

https://awards.navy.mil lists 27 awards for VSM for Enterprise CVAN 65 . idk how to handle it, since some of the periods are very short, a 1 day, two 2 days, one 3 day and a 6 day period in that list. The rest range from 15 to 53 days. Maybe someone grouped them together by deployments or something like that. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dual Freq: - I wasn't sure either, that's why I posted here instead making any changes. I'll wait a few days then post at MILHIST & SHIPS as well if needed. Can you expand the link you posted? (for one it seems to a typo, but I also couldn't find anything at awards.navy.mil) Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 20:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I left off the https apparently, or just type navy unit awards into google it will be in the top five or so, unless location impacts that search. Maybe it's one of those sites that doesn't work outside the US? --Dual Freq (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Afterburn video game

• In flight combat arcade game Afterburner, players take off from deck of Enterprise.

A editor remove this, please tell why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinhhoa (talk • contribs) 09:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:MILPOP: "In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. - BilCat (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

Incorrect: Her original home port was Naval Air Station Alameda until its closure in 1997. <See history in article> Correct: Her second home port was Naval Air Station Alameda from 1965 until its closure in 1997. 71.203.65.30 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirect

Enterprise-class aircraft carrier redirects here, but it seems like it shouldn't. In every other case, it looks like the carrier class has its own page, separate from any particular ship that may bear the same name. For example, Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier and USS Gerald R. Ford. Perhaps it is because no one has written an article for the Enterprise class yet, but in that case it seems like it would be better to have a stub. The current situation is confusing. 148.87.23.18 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not if you realize that the Enterprise-class has only one ship in it, unlike the Gerald R. Fords. Yes, several other Enterprise-class ships were planned, but it's generally more convenient to have all the information in one place. Most other single-class ships on Wikipedia also have no separate class article. See Long Beach-class cruiser for another example. - BilCat (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Why was the list of commanding officers removed?

Why was this content removed? I would argue the list of CO's is relevant to the history of any ship. Eric Cable  !  Talk  12:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

There was a link added to the edit summary to explain the removal. Basically, these lists were discussed at WT:SHIPS and the consensus was to remove them. The article is about the ship, not her COs. Any notable COs from these lists (ones with their own articles) were moved into the prose of the article (if they weren't already noted there) at the appropriate point in the ship's history. Non-notable COs were simply removed. - ^theWOLFchild 20:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that, in my opinion, is stupid. Eric Cable  !  Talk  14:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you for such a well thought out and articulate response. Have a nice day. - ^theWOLFchild 14:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Building and ship comparison to the Pentagon2.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent 2019 Disposal News

• Cuadros, Alfredo (May 31, 2019). "Brownsville considered for USS Enterprise dismantling". KVEO-TV. Retrieved August 5, 2018.
• Lessig, Hugh (June 11, 2019). "Navy looking at commercial options for 'Big E' disposal". Daily Press – Newport News, Virginia. Retrieved August 5, 2018.
• Lessig, Hugh (June 17, 2019). "Public gets a say on disposal of former USS Enterprise". Daily Press – Newport News, Virginia. Retrieved August 5, 2018.

Daily Press requires subscription with a single free view. — Conrad T. Pino (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Length?

I notice that two of the sources cited in this article seem to disagree about the ship's length. The Naval Vessel Register says that her overall length is 1088 ft (331 m), while Military Today gives the figure of 342.2 m. The article uses the larger number, but I was wondering which of those is correct?

131.151.17.102 (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

On another computer. I've emailed the Navy (using the "Contact Us" page on navy.mil) and I've received a reply stating that the figure on the Naval Vessel Register is correct, as opposed to the Military Today article and the news articles cited. I'll edit this page to match the figure on the Register, but there might be other incorrect references to Enterprise's length on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.170.186 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Second and third deployments

The distance travelled is quoted as 200k nm. The conversion to miles looks correct, but the kilometer conversion appears wrong. As I don't know the authoritative distance and can't tell which of the numbers is incorrect, I'm leaving this here. 102.65.204.117 (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

History

In the paragraph beginning “ On 28 June 1996, Enterprise began her 15th overseas deployment.” The entire paragraph sites unnamed sources and at the moment is unsubstantiated. An entry like this belongs on the TALK page. The language and information does NOT belong in the article. Although I have no expertise in editing articles, even a novice can see this does not belong. I’m hopeful somebody with the proper skills can correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.68.109 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)