Jump to content

Talk:Navy One

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

Recommend that line 1 be corrected to "Navy One is the callsign of any United States Navy aircraft carrying the President of the United States." Replace "Naval" with "Navy" to be more precise.

In military terms, Naval refers to both Navy and Marine Corps assets.

Navy One would not be the call sign of the POTUS if he was on a USMC aircraft; the correct call sign would be Marine One.

Therefore Navy One cannot be correctly applied to all Naval (Navy & USMC) aircraft, since a distinction must be made for USMC aircraft separately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.194.186 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 04:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Navy One" is the call sign for any Navy vessel on which POTUS is embarked.

[edit]

It doesn't come up often, because US Navy Ships don't often receive radio message traffic via voice, but if a surface ship or submarine has POTUS on board, their radio call sign would also be "Navy One".

The current state of this article is probably derived from the 'Air Force One' article, where the term is described as an air traffic control call sign, which is incorrect. The call sign is not just for air traffic control communications, but for all half-duplex voice communications. TCav (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide some reliable sources for you info, I'll be happy to verify and add the info to the article. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true then wouldn't the USS Abraham Lincoln have become "Navy One" once the Aircraft landed? Kilrogg (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it probably didn't come up because call signs are only used for half-duplex voice communication, and the Navy doesn't do that very often anymore. TCav (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement saying there has only been one Navy One is inaccurate. Nixon flew on an HS-5 SH-3 Sea King when he and Prime Minister Ky of South Vietnam visited the Naval War College. Air Force One took them to Quonset, and Navy One took them from there. 71.162.70.66 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undue?

[edit]

Where does this article give undue weight to anything? Ryan Vesey 19:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It gives undue weight to a single incident, namely Bush's flight. Why does one guy using a plane one time merit an article, when there's already an article on the event he took the flight to? pbp 19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your issue clearly isn't about the undue weight of something within the article. It is about whether the article should exist at all. Those issues are completely separate and the issue you have can be cleared with the merge discussion. The undue tag is completely unnecessary. Ryan Vesey 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it again. Since PBP has reinitiated another merge discussion, the tag is unnecessary piling on. - BilCat (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. One flight doesn't deserve TWO articles. Anything about Bush's flight to the Mission Accomplished speech can be covered in the Mission Accomplished speech, or in the Transportation article. This article is currently unnecessary and gives undue weight to a single incident. pbp 16:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about the speech, and would be notable without the speech. It's the first time a current US president has flown in, and flown, in a Navy aircraft, and the first time a sitting president has landed on a carrier in a fixed wing aircraft. That also makes the aircraft itself notable, and it's covered here too. Perhaps the article can/should be expanded to make those points mor clear. BilCat (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. One flight does not equal notability. If it was that notable, it would occur more frequently. Furthermore, notability doesn't preclude merger. pbp 17:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's historic because it hasn't occurred frequently. And the merger is being addressed elsewhere. But those point aren't about undue weight, so I assume you've accepted that that's a non-issue, and will drop it. - BilCat (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Navy One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Navy One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Navy_One&oldid=1232524749"