Talk:USS Lexington (CV-16)/Archive 1

Lexington air crews didn't straif survivors
That was a tactic of the Japanese. Such inclusion of a lie against Decorated American Heros among a crew that received Presidential Commendations for Heroisim in Battle is a disgrace to their contributions and sacrifices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.40.206.205 (talk • contribs). 00:25, 7 April 2007
 * The Pacific War was a nasty war and alot of things happened on both sides that were a bit below board. Yes the Japanese atrocities were of a much grander scale but things happen in war.  One of the reasons there were so few Japanese POWs was that not only did they not believe in surrender but of those that wanted to the Marines and Soldiers were not to keen on taking any either due to the ferocity of the fighting.  The information deleted was sourced and was thus restored.  I don't see how its inclusion in any way diminishes what those men did in the air war over the Pacific.  War is a dirty game.--Looper5920 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the top Allied leaders in the Pacific War, as far as I know of, didn't explicitely order their troops, aviators, and naval crews not to take prisoners, they heavily implied it. For example:


 * U.S. General George C. Kenney ordered his aviators to strafe survivors from sunken Japanese ships as well as to attack any Japanese rescue ships during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. This isn't a war crime, by the way.


 * U.S. Admiral William Halsey, Jr.'s famous "kill Japs, kill Japs, kill Japs" messages and signs posted everywhere throughout the ships and island areas under his command.(see the "Guadalcanal Battle Sites" webpage in the references section of the Guadalcanal campaign article).


 * At least once, when a ship in his task force reported rescuing and capturing two downed Japanese naval aviators, U.S. Admiral Marc Mitscher radioed back, "Why?".


 * The fact that U.S. aviators picked-up on these implied approvals to kill as many Japanese as possible in whatever situation isn't surprising. That was the way the Pacific War was largely fought, not much quarter was given by either side. Cla68 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting you saw fit to replace that "straifing of Japs". I'm 91 years old and was on Lexington CV-16 for the duration of WW II. I was also a member of the Admiral's Staff and involved in close communications between Staff among vessels within our command. No such communication or action took place or I would have known of it. It was years before I saw land again during my service aboard the Lex, just as it was for many others vital to ship operation. My own quarters were destroyed and I lost everything I had aboard during the action off Kwajalein - not to mention a number of friends and crew mates. To include such an unsupported lie in this article as a means to dilute our sacrifices and efforts is a disgrace. Captain Stump, Admiral Mitcher, and I don't require any correction for our actions. You do require correction, and I find your actions those of a coward that doesn't appreciate the factual history that kept this country free - but those of someone who instead would work to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.196.104 (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2007


 * and i am 35, not American, and thus am neutral on the subject,(also i am fully aware that the poster was 91 in 2007 ...and possibly might not be around to read this ...this is a blanket statement to anyone sharing this view) so let me give my two penneth/cents so to speak, since i am not obligated to agree/disagree with either of you


 * 1) i agree ....it doesn't really belong in the article, but only on the grounds that it is quite unsupported and is an un-opposed none neutral viewpoint with questionable relevancy ...not because it is a lie, ....to be frank i find your views on this subject to be the MOST biased of all of them, not simply for the fact that you served in the USN, and would naturally not want to face the fact that this had happened even if it had, nor would you wish to hear the reputations of fallen comrades tarnished,


 * but also for the fact that in my experience you Americans as a country tend to be proud of your armed forces ....and not only does this proudness tend to be especially prevailant among those who have served in said forces, but the WW2 generation is usually singled out for the highest praise


 * i on the other hand am under no obligation to hold such allegence, and since i once heared a Vietnam veteran take the opposite view of his armed forces saying ...and i am paraphrasing here .."we like to think we cannot be the the bad guys, and cannot fight a bad war but that isn't strictly true", then you will forgive me if i remain cynical of your viewpoint,


 * but even if i wasn't, you WOULD STILL be obligated to PROVE us wrong, because ....despite what you think .......it is quite mandatory on wikipedia


 * 2) you were not an airman, put simply ....if i had ever committed an atrocity like this (and believe me ...i am the kind of asshole that probably would ...i can be quite vengeance minded when POed) my commanding officers would probably be the LAST people i would tell about it or WANT to know about it, especially if it was a heat of the moment thing, you see whilst you have the right to tell us who you are and your experiences...that DOES NOT mean that anyone here has to automatically believe you or is obligated to do so,


 * nor does it mean you were told or heard about everything that the pilots did ..they are human ...everybody lies, and everyone has secrets, Human beings are ALL capable of being Assholes to each other, just as much as the opposite is true your views that the OP is a coward (witch ...for the record i do not share in the slightest, nor do i see how he is working to change the truth) do not change this fact, nor does your service (witch given my outsider status i am not obligated to care about, but do respect for the record) is not an "i am automatically right and you are automatically wrong" pass, in fact on this subject it is quite the opposite by its very nature,


 * hell the very same US Marine i quoted earlier admitted to dehumanizing the North Vietnamese with racial epithets (gooks,slopes,dinks ect) it isn't so hard to imagine that a USN pilot didn't exist at some point who hated "The Japs" enough to think of them as animals, its statistically IMPOSSIBLE


 * 3) why should Wikipedia be obligated to cover up US atrocities when it wouldn't do so for the armed forces of other nations....say ...Germany for example, this is a neutral website, your personal greivences are quite irrelevant even if they are understandable, now ..don't get me wrong this doesn't mean i support the subject matter being here, but only on the basis that it is unopposed, i am of the mind that if this kind of thing is mentioned on other similar articles (for example ....it IS mentioned on the page of HMS Conqueror AND ARA General Belgrano, that the sinking of the latter by the former during the Falklands conflict may have been an act of controversy, but this is ALSO BACKED UP BY OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS including a statement that the Belgrano wasn't sailing away from the exclusion zone, simply menouvering and was still under orders to attack British shipping in the area, i don't find this distasteful ...nor offensive to the crew of the Conqueror, and neither should you


 * ....in short, just because you didn't personally see it happen, or hear about it happening, doesn't mean it didn't happen, and to deny that fact would be incredibly obtuse, since all you can give at the most is an account of the facts, not the unfettered truth, only YOUR version of events, no one is obligated to believe you,


 * we ARE however obligated to provide an opposing viewpoint, and if this kind of thing is present on other articles of similar type ...witch it is(eg ...the Belgrano controversy appears on no less than two pages .INCLUDING the page of the vessel commiting the act) than the information belongs here, and is relevant to the Lexington, it is not being disrespectful to include it, as long as the opposing view is present


 * Kind regards, and respect


 * Tony Spike (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * EDIT ...My viewpoint hasn't changed on this subject ....and i think its a fair and impartial viewpoint, (So if this comment is ever removed again i will simply revert it) but i did watch an episode of the show Battle 360, and that show also says that this happened so .....make of that what you will


 * Tony Spike (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

machine gunning survivors
whether or not it's cited, i fail to see how this is relevant to the article. it's an article about the ship, not about the atrocities of war, or about the japanese experience in war. you'll note from looking at the references that this is the only such quoted act. it serves only to provide a "spin" to the article, and as such should be removed. I am removing it. it suits me fine for it to be re-added to the article if there are other acts added to it that don't paint the ship and her crew in such an intentionally ghastly light. i can't see how it adds any degree of "encyclopedicness" to the article. 17.255.240.146 01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * see also WP:TRIVIA for details on why "just throwing facts into the article" is not helpful or necessary. 17.255.240.146 01:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * as mentioned above, controversies committed by other vessels are mentioned on the relevant pages (example the sinking of the ARA Belgrano and the controversy surrounding it is mentioned on the page of HMS Conqueror) since wikipedia is a neutral site, it is not under any obligation to cover up events by the US Navy that it wouldn't cover up for other countries and as long as an opposing viewpoint is added alongside the information to make it more "encyclopedic", and if cited properly i see no reason why it shouldnt be re-added
 * Tony Spike (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Removed the part about the Lexington being the last USN warship that saw active service in WWII in commission
The Missouri was still around after the Lexington, she survived long enough in commission to be at the 50th anniversary ceremony for the attack on Pearl Harbor, a month after the Lexington was decommissioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.220.47 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Theodore Douglas Robinson
The CV-2 article and the CV-16 article each claim that their respective subjects were sponsored by Mrs. Theodore Douglas Robinson. In looking to see which one was actually the case, I found .mil sources that corroborated each. Either the sources are mistaken or this would be worth including in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Geppert (talk • contribs) 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon Crisis
Does anyone know what part Lex played in the Lebanon Crisis? The Navy article indicates that she sailed to the 7th Fleet (no where near Lebanon). Just trying to make the connection.E2a2j (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that is supposed to say the 1958 Taiwan Strait Crisis. As that article has a picture of the Lexington in Taiwan, and that would put the Lexington under the Jurisdiction of the 7th fleet, I'll assume this was a mistake unless someone has a source that puts the Lexington in Lebanon in 1958, in which case they should add it again as another section.Celestial Oblivion (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Table of contents
Why is there no TOC in this discussion page?E2a2j (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * never mind. It's there but doesn't look normal on my browser for some reason.
 * Fixed... first comments had no section title. done.LanceBarber (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ThanksE2a2j (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Last training carrier?
Was Lexington the last US training carrier? My understanding is that she was scheduled to be replaced by the Forrestal, but the Navy decided in 1993 to decommission Forrestal and do without a training carrier. If this is true and can be referenced, then it should be mentioned in the #Training carrier section, along with a short description of the how the navy adapted to that change. -- ToE 12:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There were several itterations of "training carrier" after Lex, including Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, and Kennedy. All of those after Lex were either not brought to fruition (FID and KHK) or put back into regular service (JFK).  I don't have a reference other than memory...E2a2j (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Two namesakes?
Since Lexington CV-16 was named Lexington in part due to the loss of Lexington CV-2, would that make CV-2 a namesake of CV-16 (in addition to the Battle of Lexington)? --Badger151 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

CV-2 Image on Page
There might be a good reason to have the original USS Lexington (CV-2) on the page but the caption doesn't seems to imply it is the CV-16. The date has to be wrong too as the CV-2 was sunk in 1942. Plus the 8in guns (clearly visible in the image) were removed in 1942 as well. What's the logic behind the image? At a minimum it should be changed to reflect the aircraft carrier being the CV-2 not the CV-16 and that the image was probably taken years earlier as there a bi-planes all over the deck. Tempejim (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)