Talk:USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6). 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

January 2005

It should be noted that this ship is assisting in the '04 earthquake relief effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 January 2005 (UTC)

Irish Guard

History:-
It is possible that the United States Marine Corps or restrictivly interpreted the USMC serving on Bon Homme Richard [and other USMC on other commissioned ships bearing the names of John Paul Jones' flotilla in the war of Independence] is entitled to the seniority; honours and uniform of The Irish Guards 28 May 1662. Dublin, as Irish Guards of Colonel in Chief Colonel Walsh's Regiment did serve with Congress's foundation flotilla of the United States Navy when it raided the coasts of England; Ireland and Scotland in the Revolutionary War. The Irish Guards / Congressional Marines may have held joint commissions as 'ancien Guardes Irlandais en service de France and as Congressional Marines holding commissions from Congress. The matter is under investigation. Michael Patrick Cusack.
Search Irish Guards 1662 for further information.

[Info posted by anon. user, IP: 195.93.21.69] Jinian 16:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon user asked to be contacted by me to retain this information. I removed it primarily because it (a) isn't written in an encylcopedic style, (b) isn't particularly germane to this ship (as written), (c) lacks source material and (d) says internally that it's "under investigation" bringing the validity of it into question. Perhaps it more properly belongs on the USMC page, but the flaws would need to be fixed first. Jinian 18:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Something similar also got dumped onto Irish Guards, and is now at Historical Irish Guards regiments - I really can't make head or tail of it, but it does look like original research. Shimgray 18:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Bonhomme Richard

While a previous user indicated that John Paul Jones used the phrase "bonhomme" in accordance with the Acadian French dialect meaning "father", there is no indication that this was actually the case. Jones was French, not Acadian, and though Acadian influence did reach Philadelphia, they had been conquered by Britain for decades before Jones was even born. Furthermore, Jones is said to have preferred the style "Bon Homme Richard", which would seem to rule out a colloquialism. Barring further evidence that Jones intended an alternate meaning, I have reverted the reference. Kaalel (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

hull swap

The wikipedia article says the Bonhomme will only swap homeports with the Essex. AFAIK that's not complete. The crews will also be swapped. The crew of the Bonhomme will sail to Japan then swap crews. The Ex Bonhomme crew will then sail the Essex back to the states for eventual drydock and maintenance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmaldia (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is true. I don't have a source but I left the ship just prior to the hull swap and I have friends who were onboard and they returned with the Essex to San Diego. AdamWillis (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sewol disaster

Is there going to be any coverage of the Sewol disaster on this? If so, would that be under Deployments? Thanks. --XndrK (talk | contribs) 21:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6). 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Unit Awards

I noticed while searching for my own chest candy that wikipedia was missing an entry from 2010 under the Battle "E" portion. I have added it but did not cite as I'm unsure if my source is considered wikipedia sourcing material. I will post links in here so anyone who knows more can go ahead and enter them if necessary. All are from awards.navy.mil with the exception of a facebook post from the BHR which apears to have been published early when compared to the second link when the NU (Navy Unit Commedation) gets approved as a MU (Meritorious Unit Commedation).

AdamWillis (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Incidents

Hello, new to Wikipedia, full disclosure, I was a sailor onboard from Jul 2014-Feb 2018. I cleaned up the info about the tilt rotor accident. Article didn't say that the Marines had died, only that they were missing, user who altered what I wrote changed it to say that the bodies were recovered next day. This was not said in the reference because it is not true. It took around a week to recover the bodies, it was irresponsible for user to assume that the bodies were recovered the next day.

I tried to add a line referencing the suicide of MM2 Price. I was told that it is not relevant to this article. I cannot understand why this is considered irrelevant and not an important incident while the tilt rotor crash is. The suicide is an incident in the history of the ship, it sure was important when it happened, the ship pretty much shutdown for week because the engineers wouldn't enter the boiler room where he hung himself. A PS1 was killed onboard Essex (ship BHR swapped with) before I reported because he was crushed by a missile launcher, this is not recorded there either https://www.stripes.com/news/navy-report-says-gross-negligence-led-to-death-of-essex-sailor-1.170796. Another Sailor fell off the roof of Sasebo BHR barracks and died. These kind of problems were occurring throughout 7th fleet which was plagued with problems which are well documented e.g. USS Shiloh. More people died in 7th than in the Army and Marine corps at that time, because of "incidents" e.g. collision of USS Fitzgerald, USS McCain.

If these incidents are not documented it gives the impression that the ship and 7th were safe happy places that didn't have the problems that they did have. The article contributes to a flawed narrative about 7th fleet and the Navy. I admit that I may have a conflict of interest, but I was a first hand witness to these events and want history to record them. When I read this page I didn't intend to alter it, but when i saw the section on incidents I couldn't help but get the impression that it was whitewashed, I felt compelled to change it, I want people to be aware of the deaths that occurred, that there is a problem in the Navy and 7th fleet.

I apologize for edit warring, as I said before, this is my first post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankiecc (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Frankiecc: The section about the crash needed updating, which is a fairly common occurrence for active subjects. Now it's updated. The date the missing Marines were recovered was obviously an error, surely you don't believe otherwise (but the way you've gone on about it, it's difficult to tell), it was a minor mistake and it's now been corrected. But as for the remainder of your comments here, you've already been advised by three different editors that your edit was improper. And beyond recording the death of your shipmate (which, quite frankly you've given more details here than is necessary or appropriate), this is not the place for you to air your grievances about the Navy. Wikipedia is not a platform to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you intend to continue editing Wikipedia, please read through the links in the 'welcome' message posted on your talk page, there is information there that is both useful and important to beginners. And given your comments here, it is certainly advisable that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, especially in regards to any articles about the Navy that you might want to edit. If you require any further assistance, please consult the help desk. Thank you - wolf 01:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I'm not airing my grievances against the Navy. I disagree with you and anyone else who thinks that a suicide onboard does not qualify as an "incident". You have shown me a lot of rules but you have not addressed the central question. Why is an onboard suicide unimportant, irrelevant, not considered an incident in the history of the ship, you have been talking around this central question the entire time. Please address my issue and inform me as to why the onboard suicide is not worthy of being recorded. It should at least be said that he died onboard if the reference does not explicitly say that it was a suicide, or is suicide something Wikipedia considers unimportant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankiecc (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Frankiecc:. Thanks for adding to the article. Regular editors do tend to talk in shorthand quoting relevant WP policies and guidelines and although everything will be explained there if you click the links I can understand that this is found offputting to new editors. As I see it you have two issues, firstly trying to put on record that the 7th fleet was not a happy place during your time there and secondly to honour the death of your shipmate. On the first point Wikipedia is a sifting of what we call reputable sources (basically quality news sites or a published book from a mainstream publisher - not self published), if you can find such a source then you can cite it and add the claim to the article, if no reputable source has said that then we cannot add it even if you know its true. With regard to the death we generally do not name individuals unless they are otherwise notable (ie have their own article on wikipedia or should have by various criteria) or their death or service is particularly significant to the history of the ship. Many individuals die on ships (you mention those in the crash, that is a significant occurrence and is rightly in the article - theirs names would add nothing more to the general readers understanding of the incident so are not added). If we added the names of every individual who died on a ship it would be huge and would not be of interest to most readers, therefore we add none unless there is a specific reason the individual needs to be named. Every family's loss is the same regardless of the cause of death including those whose loved ones died by their own hand. One suicide in isolation is not a significant event in the history of the ship unless you can find a reputable source which refers to it in relation to the morale problems. I hope this explanation helps you understand why the individual should not be named nor the incident mentioned currently. Lyndaship (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lyndaship:. I appreciate your thoughtful answer, to add something to a page that I consider to be very relevant, then have it deleted without explanation, or to have that explanation be about everything except the question at hand, I found to be very disturbing. The individual that deletes the comment has the responsibility for adequately explaining why they deleted it, not a third party, to not have to adequately explain one's own actions is to not be accountable for the power one wields. User who deleted addition has been on Wikipedia for over 10 years! I found user's attitude to be irresponsible, and frankly arrogant, like he didn't even owe the me (the public) an answer. Just throwing a lot of rules at someone doesn't mean much, I've been studying the pillars of Wikipedia and one of them is that there are no firm rules. Rules should not be used to tie people up and keep the site from becoming better (also not to intimidate newcomers). I acknowledge your argument about it not being feasible to list every suicide, I will also research articles in regard to morale issues in 7th fleet when posting in the future. Didn't really expect this to ensue when posting about my own ship, and own experiences, first hand knowledge is the basis of history.

Thank you, Lyndaship, I appreciate your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankiecc (talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protected for 12 Hours

As part of the ongoing event, unregistered editors have been messing with the motto and status in the infobox. I have semi'd it for 12 hours. SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

vandalization of this page

While I appreciate black and ill timed humor, perhaps this page needs additional scrutiny prior to edits being made for a day or two.

I only discovered this because I wanted to know if the ship had a nuclear power plant after I learned it was aflame in port. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strykerman5000 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 12 hours (semi-protection means that unregistered, and newly-registered accounts are not allowed to edit the page). We'll see if it's necessary further after that. (Oh, and just a heads up, you can sign your post with four tildes.) SirFozzie (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've given it another three days. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Since everything is still ongoing, I've extended it three more days since it seems likely the vandalism will reappear again otherwise. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Creation of a Seperate Article devoted to the fire

Hello! I feel as if the July 12 incident deserves a Wikipedia Article of its own considering the nature of the situation. There are plenty of viable sources for an potential article. I also know that many of people come to Wikipedia to read up on current events and the footnote left in this article seems insufficient. I think a new article should be created to detail the fire. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's probably Too Soon for a separate article. Wikipedia is Not News, and it's not our job to add all breaking news-type information being reported. We only summarize the more important aspects of what is reported elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

What about adding { { current } } template? 172.58.227.27 (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Main picture is glitched

The main picture has a weird artifact at the bottom where the bottom part is duplicated below the picture. Could someone please fix this? I am unable to do it at this time. --SwissTHX11384EB (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Fire on this ship

Should the fire on this ship form an independent article?Johnson.Xia (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"Admiral Michael Gilday, head of the United States Navy"

Honest question, but wouldn't the "head of the United States Navy" be the Secretary of the Navy? I know the Admiral is Chief of Naval Operations, so should "head of the United States Navy" be changed? I didn't see any discussion, so this might be obvious, but I don't edit often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKNJwrites (talk • contribs) 05:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've edited the article to clarify ADM Gilday's formal title; you're correct that "head" was too ambiguous. By the way, please sign your comments per WP:TPG. Carguychris (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I added that little section to the article, and used "Head of the US Navy" because I was unsure what a CNO is, and thought it sounded like a senior but subsidiary position - - eg there might be a Chief of Operations; a Chief of Logistics, a Chief of Personnel ... . So I went to the Lede on Chief of Naval Operations which begins: "The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) is the head of the United States Navy" and copied that - but I see the ambiguity and will try to amend that article to "professional head". See what follows ... Springnuts (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Nine sailors promoted...

Nine sailors meritoriously promoted?

The article says eight...

74.98.176.46 (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)