This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 |
I'm told that the flag that draped President Reagan's coffin throughout its journey belonged to the USS Ronald Reagan, and was taken down for his funeral and ultimatly presented to Nancy Reagan for safe keeping. Can anyone confirm this? TomStar81 03:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I moved this off the homepage because it is poorly written, seems somewhat unfounded and doesn't belong even if it is true because it seems minor of international (or national) note. If anyone besides the wikipedia who put it there disagrees, put it back. -- Daysleeper47 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I'll be darned...That's definately the Reagan- you can tell by looking at the island superstructure (longer than a normal Nimitz-class carrier to place the aft radar mast on the island as opposed to its own freestanding structure.) However, the number and type of planes claimed to be visible on the flight deck is highly suspect- seeing as CVW-14 includes only 4 squadrons of Hornets (2 squadrons of legacy F/A-18C's and 2 of the newer F/A-18E/F's), there's no way there were 72 Hornets on deck at that time. In addition, the hangar bay isn't nearly large enough to accomodate every single aircraft carried onboard; during our homeport change from Norfolk to San Diego we left port with a detachment approximately half the size of a regular airwing. While transiting the Straits of Magellan, all the aircraft were pulled down to the hangar deck for protection from the extreme weather conditions often encountered that far south during the winter time. As anybody who was onboard at the time will recall (including the Discovery Channel documentary crew that filmed our cruise), the hangar bay was virtually impassable during that time. Tspencer227 11:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Tspencer227
Shortly after I added this section, a video was released by the IRGC which documents the incident, the video can be seen here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGwFzzIe5EQ I think it's relevant to note the threats that face America's carrier groups in the Persian Gulf.
The Following are excerpts from an interview with General Yahya-Rahim Safavi, General Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which aired on Channel 2, Iranian TV on August 27, 2006:
General Yahya-Rahim Safavi: "A few months ago, the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, which, to the best of my recollection, was carrying on deck 72 F-18 planes, and which was escorted by several warships, was circled for about 25 minutes by one of our unmanned planes. The unmanned plane filmed and transmitted the footage. Later, its commander ordered all the planes to be removed from the deck of the aircraft carrier. He even gave an order to hit the unmanned plane, but they were unsuccessful. This unmanned plane returned safe and sound to the coasts of the Persian Gulf.
[...]
Obviously, what we did was a response to the fact that more than five unmanned planes were sent into Iran by the Americans or other foreign occupation forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We got hold of those unmanned planes. They did not take responsibility for this operation. [Our operation] was a response to their sending unmanned planes into Iran. This is customary, and we did not violate any international law. However, we have shown them that they are very vulnerable. Even their aircraft carriers and other warships are vulnerable." Middle East Media Research Institute
The fact is that this is total fabrication - the date claimed is interesting in that the Reagan and her stike group were not even in the gulf at the time!
The Youtube link is broken as it has been removed for a Terms of Use violation. Does anyone know what was on the video? Righteous9000 ( talk) 13:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know what port the Reagan is in when that picture was taken?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.58.61 ( talk) 16:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this article need a section about it getting "killed" by the swedish submarine HMS Gotland? 217.210.224.224 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The USS Reagan has been sent out on a few missions during its "lifetime." I think there should be some more talk about those, and some more descrptions. Happyme22 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm planning on working on that as soon as I have time to get all my notes together for dates, places, etc where we were- I was on the ship for a little over 5 years, from the pre-commissiong days through her first deployment. I'll start working on that soon. Tspencer227 ( talk) 02:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This ship has sufficient differences to call it a Nimitz sub-class. I think its deck angle is increased and it has 4 instead of 5 arresting gear engines. Plus the look of the island and the bulbous bow amongst other things. Yet someone has considered it a Teddy Roosevelt variant. Why is that? WikiphyteMk1 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If anything, it may have to do with the modular construction. The first 3 Nimitz- class carriers were constructed traditionally (with a keel laid down, to which frames were welded to), while Theodore Roosevelt and following ships were assembled from subassemblies fabricated at another part of the shipyard, then joined in the drydock. Tspencer227 01:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The USS Ronald Reagan's webpage refers to the ships "Golden Anchors" that one belonged to the USS Ranger. Does anyone have more information on this? Are they real gold, plated, or painted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.54.114 ( talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The anchors did come from USS Ranger, yes, but they're not plated or real gold. A ship in the U.S. Navy will be awarded "Golden Anchors" for high retention (lots of people re- enlisting/ extending in the naval service), and the anchors are then subsequently painted gold by the BM's or the shipyards.
Tspencer227 ( talk) 03:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
So, are there other US navy ships called the Ronald Reagan, or is this just a misleading statement? Mycroft7 ( talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ain't this one the newest us aircraft carrier? USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) see wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.229.25 ( talk) 10:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
at the time of christianing? Was he ill? I mean it is a really great honor to be a namesake of a ship which is almost as tall as the Empire state building and cost $ 4.3 billion besides the symbolic meaning of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier... If I would haven been R.R., I'd have been present... -- 77.4.40.35 ( talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone put a text about the battle flag in the article and add the image? Thanks, -- Scriberius ( talk) 05:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. I also would like to know if that is in fact a Battle ensign and "Battle flag" a synonym.
The flag in question is referred to as a battle flag. The symbology on USS Ronald Reagan's battle flag draw from Ronald Reagan's experience as an enlistedman in the US Army. The "B" and "322" signify his membership with Troop "B" in the 322nd Cavalry. In 1937, Reagan starred in the motion picture "Sergeant Murphy", a movie featuring the Army's 11th Cavalry Regiment. The red and white background of the flag are from the 11th Cavalry's original guidon and unit patch. The crossed swords come from the emblem worn on the covers (hats) of early Cavalry officers. Source: http://www.reagan.navy.mil/battle_flag.html. If someone would like to write that into the article, be my guest; otherwise I'll take a crack at it later. I'm still fairly new to writing Wiki articles. Bdoe ( talk) 03:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed as I scanned over the article that an incomplete date was given for the ship's arrival to NAS North Island. USS Ronald Reagan arrived at its homeport on the morning of 23 July 2004. I went ahead and completed the date in the article. Although I pulled the date from memory (I served onboard from April 2003 through July 2007), the date can be verified here: http://www.reagan.navy.mil/faq.html Bdoe ( talk) 03:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the source for the displacement figure? The Navy, just to keep us confused, now lists displacements in short tons (whereas Treaty ships were listed in long tons). The conversions from tons to metric tons makes that clear. I cannot find the source here for the displacement, but other sources give the Nimitz class displacement at 97,000 tons, and 89,000+ metric tons, which shows the 97,000 figure is short tons. [1] Kablammo ( talk) 01:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The article devotes some space to the fact that the carrier was named for a person living at he time, and pointedly states that the ship was the first carrier to be named for a then-living president. As such, I believe it is necessary to keep this fact in context by noting that the USS Jimmy Carter was the first USN ship naval vessel to be named for a living president, especially since we already have a transcluded list of several ships named for living people. If one part goes, so should the other. -
BilCat (
talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Intro section states "Upon her christening in 2001, she was the first ship to be named for a living former president." The Naming section states "Ronald Reagan was the first aircraft carrier to be named in honor of a living former president.[4] However, the first naval vessel to be named for a living former president was the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), a submarine. Unlike most of the other men honored by inclusion in this group, Reagan was not associated with the United States Navy apart from his term as Commander-in-Chief, though one of his key initiatives in office was the 600-ship Navy program."
According to the Naval Register Reagan was named first http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CVN76.htm on 10 March 2001 and Carter was named later http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/SSN23.htm on 13 May 2004 assuming we use the christening date as the date of naming. Additionally, the contract for Reagan was awarded about 18 months before that for Carter.
Unless someone has a more authoritative reference for the dates I will make the following changes to the Naming paragraph: "Ronald Reagan was the first US Navy warship and the first aircraft carrier to be named in honor of a living former president.[4] Unlike the other two men honored by inclusion in the former group, Reagan was not associated with the United States Navy apart from his term as Commander-in-Chief, though one of his key initiatives in office was the 600-ship Navy program."
The other two men mentioned are Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush. Both served in the US Navy before becoming President. Righteous9000 ( talk) 05:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This section was removed with a reference to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Looking at that section, I can't really figure out which of the 6 points listed there applies? Any ideas? -- 签名 sig at 17:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what kind of section name it should be or how it should be formatted... but anyway, this ship (or a representation of it) appeared in the first episode of Surface. Is this something that would often get noted on pages of real world ships? I see it being done in some instances, but not other, so I was curious. -- Terran Officer ( talk) 03:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This page currently has date formats in a mix of MDY, DMY and YMD. I was adding some references to one section and made the dates all month-day-year or 'US style' as I would expect for a page about a US ship. I'm not sure what the predominant format is, but if anyone has a tool for this they may consider making all dates consistent..-- 220 of Borg 16:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You may not like the current consensus, but until that consensus is changed we you should abide by it. Making piecemeal changes in individual article such as that by 220 of Borg made to this article today is not the way to change consensus, it more likely to get an editor you identified as as a POV warrior. If you believe the consensus is wrong you should make your case in the appropriate place - in this case the MOS talk page. -
Nick Thorne
talk 00:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Nick Thorne: No I don't agree with the current "Consensus". That is well known. But I have NEVER edited this article at all. So I take offense to your accusation that I am "making piecemeal changes to an individual article", and that I am somehow a POV warrior, or at least could be identified as one. I don't edit against consensus, so your offensive accusation is a personal attack on me. In fact I'm pretty angry with what you said and how you said it.-- JOJ Hutton 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Referring to a ship as she or her is unnecessary personification. Wikipedia's goal is to present the truth, and the truth of the matter is that ships have no reproductive organs. English, unlike some other languages, does not tend to assign gender to most words. For example objects such as television, table, apple, car, shovel, lamp, and so on have no gender assigned.
Neutralizing a word's gender also denotes equality between the sexes. For example: Police Officer instead of policeman, Fire Fighter instead of fireman. Referring to an object as a "she" is objectifying to women. After all would it make sense to refer to the ship as "he"? I recommend that the ship be referred to as "it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartianColony ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
My grandmother made the battle flag for the USS Ronald Reagan. She actually had to make two. There is always a backup. The company that was asked to make the battle flag backed out because they were also making the American flag for the commissioning. My cousin was the Assistant Navigator at that time, so she suggested her "Aunt Betty" to make the flag. My grandmother obliged to this great honor, and set out to work on this vigorous task. She had little time to make the two flags because of the short notice from the company that originally had signed up to make it backed out. She hand made every piece to that flag, and she even made Nancy Reagan a miniature sized flag. I was lucky enough to be able to assist my grandmother in making it. She will forever be knows as "Bettsy Ross of Wyalusing". Her name is Betty Poe Krauss, and her art signature is Betty Poe. Poe being from her first marriage to her late husband. My second cousin "Former Assistant Nagivigator of the Reagan", Connie Avery. I was lucky enough to have gone to the commissioning, and it was that time that I sparked a true interest in joining the service. Unfortunately I can not join, but I always make my contribution to the service, and I honor those who serve. Ced37pitt ( talk) 17:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe that a review of the general characteristics would improve this article.
For example, listed in the armament is the Close-in Weapons (sic) System or CIWS. This particular ship was not designed or built with any CIWS, and photographs (original research) do not indicate whether any were added via later retrofitting. Unlike other CVNs, the quantity is not listed, missing, (perhaps because it was zero).
Also, CVN-76 had four (4) then-new Mk 9 Tracking Illuminator Systems (TIS), zero (0) former Mk 91 GMFCS, zero (0) former Mk 95 illuminator systems, and two (2) RAMS's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 ( talk) 00:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 |
I'm told that the flag that draped President Reagan's coffin throughout its journey belonged to the USS Ronald Reagan, and was taken down for his funeral and ultimatly presented to Nancy Reagan for safe keeping. Can anyone confirm this? TomStar81 03:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I moved this off the homepage because it is poorly written, seems somewhat unfounded and doesn't belong even if it is true because it seems minor of international (or national) note. If anyone besides the wikipedia who put it there disagrees, put it back. -- Daysleeper47 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I'll be darned...That's definately the Reagan- you can tell by looking at the island superstructure (longer than a normal Nimitz-class carrier to place the aft radar mast on the island as opposed to its own freestanding structure.) However, the number and type of planes claimed to be visible on the flight deck is highly suspect- seeing as CVW-14 includes only 4 squadrons of Hornets (2 squadrons of legacy F/A-18C's and 2 of the newer F/A-18E/F's), there's no way there were 72 Hornets on deck at that time. In addition, the hangar bay isn't nearly large enough to accomodate every single aircraft carried onboard; during our homeport change from Norfolk to San Diego we left port with a detachment approximately half the size of a regular airwing. While transiting the Straits of Magellan, all the aircraft were pulled down to the hangar deck for protection from the extreme weather conditions often encountered that far south during the winter time. As anybody who was onboard at the time will recall (including the Discovery Channel documentary crew that filmed our cruise), the hangar bay was virtually impassable during that time. Tspencer227 11:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Tspencer227
Shortly after I added this section, a video was released by the IRGC which documents the incident, the video can be seen here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGwFzzIe5EQ I think it's relevant to note the threats that face America's carrier groups in the Persian Gulf.
The Following are excerpts from an interview with General Yahya-Rahim Safavi, General Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which aired on Channel 2, Iranian TV on August 27, 2006:
General Yahya-Rahim Safavi: "A few months ago, the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, which, to the best of my recollection, was carrying on deck 72 F-18 planes, and which was escorted by several warships, was circled for about 25 minutes by one of our unmanned planes. The unmanned plane filmed and transmitted the footage. Later, its commander ordered all the planes to be removed from the deck of the aircraft carrier. He even gave an order to hit the unmanned plane, but they were unsuccessful. This unmanned plane returned safe and sound to the coasts of the Persian Gulf.
[...]
Obviously, what we did was a response to the fact that more than five unmanned planes were sent into Iran by the Americans or other foreign occupation forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We got hold of those unmanned planes. They did not take responsibility for this operation. [Our operation] was a response to their sending unmanned planes into Iran. This is customary, and we did not violate any international law. However, we have shown them that they are very vulnerable. Even their aircraft carriers and other warships are vulnerable." Middle East Media Research Institute
The fact is that this is total fabrication - the date claimed is interesting in that the Reagan and her stike group were not even in the gulf at the time!
The Youtube link is broken as it has been removed for a Terms of Use violation. Does anyone know what was on the video? Righteous9000 ( talk) 13:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know what port the Reagan is in when that picture was taken?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.58.61 ( talk) 16:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this article need a section about it getting "killed" by the swedish submarine HMS Gotland? 217.210.224.224 20:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The USS Reagan has been sent out on a few missions during its "lifetime." I think there should be some more talk about those, and some more descrptions. Happyme22 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm planning on working on that as soon as I have time to get all my notes together for dates, places, etc where we were- I was on the ship for a little over 5 years, from the pre-commissiong days through her first deployment. I'll start working on that soon. Tspencer227 ( talk) 02:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This ship has sufficient differences to call it a Nimitz sub-class. I think its deck angle is increased and it has 4 instead of 5 arresting gear engines. Plus the look of the island and the bulbous bow amongst other things. Yet someone has considered it a Teddy Roosevelt variant. Why is that? WikiphyteMk1 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If anything, it may have to do with the modular construction. The first 3 Nimitz- class carriers were constructed traditionally (with a keel laid down, to which frames were welded to), while Theodore Roosevelt and following ships were assembled from subassemblies fabricated at another part of the shipyard, then joined in the drydock. Tspencer227 01:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The USS Ronald Reagan's webpage refers to the ships "Golden Anchors" that one belonged to the USS Ranger. Does anyone have more information on this? Are they real gold, plated, or painted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.54.114 ( talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The anchors did come from USS Ranger, yes, but they're not plated or real gold. A ship in the U.S. Navy will be awarded "Golden Anchors" for high retention (lots of people re- enlisting/ extending in the naval service), and the anchors are then subsequently painted gold by the BM's or the shipyards.
Tspencer227 ( talk) 03:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
So, are there other US navy ships called the Ronald Reagan, or is this just a misleading statement? Mycroft7 ( talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ain't this one the newest us aircraft carrier? USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) see wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.229.25 ( talk) 10:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
at the time of christianing? Was he ill? I mean it is a really great honor to be a namesake of a ship which is almost as tall as the Empire state building and cost $ 4.3 billion besides the symbolic meaning of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier... If I would haven been R.R., I'd have been present... -- 77.4.40.35 ( talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone put a text about the battle flag in the article and add the image? Thanks, -- Scriberius ( talk) 05:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. I also would like to know if that is in fact a Battle ensign and "Battle flag" a synonym.
The flag in question is referred to as a battle flag. The symbology on USS Ronald Reagan's battle flag draw from Ronald Reagan's experience as an enlistedman in the US Army. The "B" and "322" signify his membership with Troop "B" in the 322nd Cavalry. In 1937, Reagan starred in the motion picture "Sergeant Murphy", a movie featuring the Army's 11th Cavalry Regiment. The red and white background of the flag are from the 11th Cavalry's original guidon and unit patch. The crossed swords come from the emblem worn on the covers (hats) of early Cavalry officers. Source: http://www.reagan.navy.mil/battle_flag.html. If someone would like to write that into the article, be my guest; otherwise I'll take a crack at it later. I'm still fairly new to writing Wiki articles. Bdoe ( talk) 03:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed as I scanned over the article that an incomplete date was given for the ship's arrival to NAS North Island. USS Ronald Reagan arrived at its homeport on the morning of 23 July 2004. I went ahead and completed the date in the article. Although I pulled the date from memory (I served onboard from April 2003 through July 2007), the date can be verified here: http://www.reagan.navy.mil/faq.html Bdoe ( talk) 03:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the source for the displacement figure? The Navy, just to keep us confused, now lists displacements in short tons (whereas Treaty ships were listed in long tons). The conversions from tons to metric tons makes that clear. I cannot find the source here for the displacement, but other sources give the Nimitz class displacement at 97,000 tons, and 89,000+ metric tons, which shows the 97,000 figure is short tons. [1] Kablammo ( talk) 01:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The article devotes some space to the fact that the carrier was named for a person living at he time, and pointedly states that the ship was the first carrier to be named for a then-living president. As such, I believe it is necessary to keep this fact in context by noting that the USS Jimmy Carter was the first USN ship naval vessel to be named for a living president, especially since we already have a transcluded list of several ships named for living people. If one part goes, so should the other. -
BilCat (
talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Intro section states "Upon her christening in 2001, she was the first ship to be named for a living former president." The Naming section states "Ronald Reagan was the first aircraft carrier to be named in honor of a living former president.[4] However, the first naval vessel to be named for a living former president was the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23), a submarine. Unlike most of the other men honored by inclusion in this group, Reagan was not associated with the United States Navy apart from his term as Commander-in-Chief, though one of his key initiatives in office was the 600-ship Navy program."
According to the Naval Register Reagan was named first http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CVN76.htm on 10 March 2001 and Carter was named later http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/SSN23.htm on 13 May 2004 assuming we use the christening date as the date of naming. Additionally, the contract for Reagan was awarded about 18 months before that for Carter.
Unless someone has a more authoritative reference for the dates I will make the following changes to the Naming paragraph: "Ronald Reagan was the first US Navy warship and the first aircraft carrier to be named in honor of a living former president.[4] Unlike the other two men honored by inclusion in the former group, Reagan was not associated with the United States Navy apart from his term as Commander-in-Chief, though one of his key initiatives in office was the 600-ship Navy program."
The other two men mentioned are Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush. Both served in the US Navy before becoming President. Righteous9000 ( talk) 05:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This section was removed with a reference to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Looking at that section, I can't really figure out which of the 6 points listed there applies? Any ideas? -- 签名 sig at 17:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what kind of section name it should be or how it should be formatted... but anyway, this ship (or a representation of it) appeared in the first episode of Surface. Is this something that would often get noted on pages of real world ships? I see it being done in some instances, but not other, so I was curious. -- Terran Officer ( talk) 03:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This page currently has date formats in a mix of MDY, DMY and YMD. I was adding some references to one section and made the dates all month-day-year or 'US style' as I would expect for a page about a US ship. I'm not sure what the predominant format is, but if anyone has a tool for this they may consider making all dates consistent..-- 220 of Borg 16:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You may not like the current consensus, but until that consensus is changed we you should abide by it. Making piecemeal changes in individual article such as that by 220 of Borg made to this article today is not the way to change consensus, it more likely to get an editor you identified as as a POV warrior. If you believe the consensus is wrong you should make your case in the appropriate place - in this case the MOS talk page. -
Nick Thorne
talk 00:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Nick Thorne: No I don't agree with the current "Consensus". That is well known. But I have NEVER edited this article at all. So I take offense to your accusation that I am "making piecemeal changes to an individual article", and that I am somehow a POV warrior, or at least could be identified as one. I don't edit against consensus, so your offensive accusation is a personal attack on me. In fact I'm pretty angry with what you said and how you said it.-- JOJ Hutton 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Referring to a ship as she or her is unnecessary personification. Wikipedia's goal is to present the truth, and the truth of the matter is that ships have no reproductive organs. English, unlike some other languages, does not tend to assign gender to most words. For example objects such as television, table, apple, car, shovel, lamp, and so on have no gender assigned.
Neutralizing a word's gender also denotes equality between the sexes. For example: Police Officer instead of policeman, Fire Fighter instead of fireman. Referring to an object as a "she" is objectifying to women. After all would it make sense to refer to the ship as "he"? I recommend that the ship be referred to as "it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartianColony ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
My grandmother made the battle flag for the USS Ronald Reagan. She actually had to make two. There is always a backup. The company that was asked to make the battle flag backed out because they were also making the American flag for the commissioning. My cousin was the Assistant Navigator at that time, so she suggested her "Aunt Betty" to make the flag. My grandmother obliged to this great honor, and set out to work on this vigorous task. She had little time to make the two flags because of the short notice from the company that originally had signed up to make it backed out. She hand made every piece to that flag, and she even made Nancy Reagan a miniature sized flag. I was lucky enough to be able to assist my grandmother in making it. She will forever be knows as "Bettsy Ross of Wyalusing". Her name is Betty Poe Krauss, and her art signature is Betty Poe. Poe being from her first marriage to her late husband. My second cousin "Former Assistant Nagivigator of the Reagan", Connie Avery. I was lucky enough to have gone to the commissioning, and it was that time that I sparked a true interest in joining the service. Unfortunately I can not join, but I always make my contribution to the service, and I honor those who serve. Ced37pitt ( talk) 17:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe that a review of the general characteristics would improve this article.
For example, listed in the armament is the Close-in Weapons (sic) System or CIWS. This particular ship was not designed or built with any CIWS, and photographs (original research) do not indicate whether any were added via later retrofitting. Unlike other CVNs, the quantity is not listed, missing, (perhaps because it was zero).
Also, CVN-76 had four (4) then-new Mk 9 Tracking Illuminator Systems (TIS), zero (0) former Mk 91 GMFCS, zero (0) former Mk 95 illuminator systems, and two (2) RAMS's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 ( talk) 00:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)