Talk:United States ship naming conventions/Archive 1

Talk
I've created this new stub article with a source reference. This article should be expanded; existing guides for style are Russian ship naming conventions and Japanese ship naming conventions, and the cited external reference is the only source of content I could find. Wdfarmer 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved Page
I moved this article here from its former location because the corresponding articles for Russia and Japan took this form - i.e., "(national adjective) ship naming conventions" rather than "(nation's navy) ship naming conventions." Plus, since there's no content yet (hope to see that changed soon, and maybe to help change it), I don't think the page will be too badly missed at its old home. Zamzodder 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. Anything to get it noticed and some content added. :) Wdfarmer 05:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved again to make the title still more accurate. Also, please add some text or I will recommend the page for deletion. Journeyman 03:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia ship-naming standards
Naming conventions (ships) might have some useful info., though much of it is so we can standardize ship-related articles here on Wikipedia, and not so much standards that set by the U.S. Navy or U.S. civilian ships. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ageekgal (talk • contribs) 19:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Coast Guard
US Coast Guard ships should be discussed. WikiParker (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is a mess
We have no discussion of the earliest Congressional mandate for the naming of ships. Somehow this has become a list of ship names. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps better lead would help? I have barely looked at the top half of the page, the 'traditional' conventions, but awhile ago I did a clean-up and updating for the lower half, the 'contemporary' conventions. I see that others have since added and updated that section as well. - the WOLF  child  05:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Arleigh Burke class
This is a large class, with a planned 77 possibly going to 118 (or more). As it is, the description of "naval leaders and heroes' was being expanded and along with the sheer numbers, the exceptions listed was becoming a lengthy list that under the criteria used, could've been potentially tripled. For example, there was a SECNAV listed, but there anther 5 SECNAV's that hadn't been listed as well, but could've been. There were some listed for being the first woman or minority to accomplish something, but there several other fitting that criteria that were left out (but still could've been listed). Instead having a potentially huge list of exceptions, I expanded and clarified the reasons for inclusion and was then able to reduce the list of exceptions to around 6. It's a significant change, to I figured I'd proactively explain here in case anyone cares to discuss it. Cheers - the WOLF  child  05:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think either USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) or USS Mustin (DDG-89) deserve to be on this list. Both names were used decades ago on previous USN destroyers, i.e. The USS The Sullivans (DD-537) commissioned back in 1943 and the USS Mustin (DD-413) commissioned back in 1939. Furthermore neither really broke with any sort precedent. As has been mentioned previously USN destroyers are typically named after noteworthy USN or USMC personnel, whether they be personnel with distinguished or noteworthy combat records like the Sullivan brothers or individuals who contributed in some significant way to the USN like Lenah Higbee or Alfred Thayer Mahan, both of whom have had numerous destroyers named after them. Granted it's somewhat subjective but I believe what would more accurately qualify for breaking precedent are USN destroyers named after individuals who have either never served in the USN or USMC, like Winston Churchill and Daniel Inouye, or who don't even have any connection to the Department of the Navy like Carl Levin. User:Mrniceguy101 —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The exceptions listed do not mean aren't considered "heroes", the exceptions are listed because they are not typical of the other listings. For example, Higgins was on a peacekeeping tour and kidnapped and murdered by terrorists. That is not typical, but doesn't make him any less of a "hero". The only other example that comes close to that is Stethem. He is also listed, but not any less of a hero. The Sullivan brothers and Mustin family are perfect examples of exceptions for this list. Neither are a single person who was say, awarded the Medal of Honor or won several battles in a leadership role, they are five brothers who happened to be on the same ship when it went down (no less heroic, but if they weren't on that ship, their records at the time of their deaths would not have justified having a ship named after them) and a family with long ties to the navy (and therefore significant service to the country, heroic in their right), but no individual member has any accomplishments worth naming a ship for. You are clearly misunderstanding the meaning of these exceptions. Also, if you're going to tag this description as "citation needed", you might as well tag them all, but the point it, cites aren't needed, every single listing is linked and they all speak for themselves. As this discussion was already started, please do not make any further changes until it is concluded, with a consensus or at least an agreement to make any changes. Thank you - the WOLF  child  22:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional note, you do realize that USS Mustin (DD-413) and USS Mustin (DDG-89) don't have the same namesakes, right? DDG-89 is named for the Mustin family, (as I mentioned above) and DD-413 is specifically named for Captain Henry C. Mustin, of the same family, but with a record in his own right deserving of individual recognition. Just wanted to make you were aware of that. - the WOLF  child  23:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm aware and I don't see it as out of the ordinary as far as how USN destroyers are named, e.g. the USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) is named after both John McCain Sr. and Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrniceguy101 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've not once brought up the notion that USN destroyers are or were named after "heroes", but rather that USN destroyers are historically merely named after noteworthy USN or USMC personnel or people in some way associated with the Department of the Navy. I've listed my concerns in order so as to make it as clear as possible:


 * The name USS The Sullivans was used previously on a USN destroyer dating all the back to 1942 with USS The Sullivans (DD-537). As such if you're going to include USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) then logically you must include USS The Sullivans (DD-537) as well.


 * Again the name USS Mustin is a name that predates WWII, dating all the way back to 1937. Again if you're to include USS Mustin (DDG-89) then USS Mustin (DD-413) should be included as well.


 * Colonel William R. Higgins, the namesake of the USS Higgins (DDG-76), was a decorated active duty US Marine killed while on a military assignment. USN and USMC personnel have had destroyers named after them for less.


 * Again naming a destroyer after a still living congressman who never served in either the USN or USMC, or in any other military branch for that matter, much less served as a SecNav, could only be considered as not breaking precedent based upon whatever arbitrary rules that you stipulate.


 * Finally I'd like to see some sort citation from a reputable source, ideally an official statement from the Department of the Navy, that specifically mentions that the US "Navy has broadened the term "leaders and heroes" to include politicians, such as US Senators." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrniceguy101 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not even sure what your concerns are here. Why are you insisting that USS The Sullivans (DD-537) and USS Mustin (DD-413) "be included"...? You do realize that this is a list of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers guided missile destroyers right? Have you even read this section? The first and second lines have citations, the second one being of relevance here; https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/heritage/customs-and-traditions/ship-naming.html which states; "destroyers...came to be named for American naval leaders and heroes, as today's destroyers are still named". But if you look at the list of Arleigh Burke-class namesakes, (have you btw? I have... all 76 of them) you can clearly see that the Navy has broadened the definition of "heroes". People are now having ships named after them that never would have forty years ago. People who are considered "heroes" for accomplishments away from the battlefield.

The purpose of this article is to list the various naming conventions for different types of ships. It includes straight-forward exceptions, such as a ship named for a person that belongs to a class named for US states. In the case of the Arleigh Burke-class, there are some exceptions that are noted not because they aren't heroes, but because their story is atypical. As I said, USS Higgins (DDG-76), named for a Marine Colonel kidnapped and killed while on a UN peacekeeping mission is atypical. It doesn't make him any less heroic, but no other ship on this list is named for another member of the US Armed Forces kidnapped and killed while on a UN PK mission. The closest would be USS Stethem (DDG-63), a Navy diver identified and killed by terrorists after they hijacked a civilian jetliner. Again, it doesn't make him any less heroic, but it certainly isn't typical of the namesakes of this class, so he is listed as well.

It's clear you are inexperienced here, not just based on your number of edits, but you don't sign your posts and are not familiar with talk page markup or pinging. This doesn't need to be a dispute, (and certainly not an edit-war), as I am happy to help you sort this out. I would suggest you read the article thoroughly, specifically the Arleigh Burke-class section, and decide just what it is you take exception to. Again the "list of exceptions" does not mean they are excluded from the status of "hero". While you seem to be the only person to take issue with the article, perhaps you would like to discuss some re-wording?. I'm happy to discuss that with you and sort something out. Just know that this isn't a debate about who deserves to have a ship named for them and who doesn't. We don't decide that, we just chronicle those who the Navy has chosen. - the WOLF  child  00:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Follow up, Right now it says; "Along with all those named for the above listed criteria, are the following exceptions;" And, again you would have to read the preceding paragraph to understand the full scope of the "criteria". But it could re-written to say something along the lines of; Would that work for you? Meanwhile, Higgins' and Stethem's story is certainly not typical. Nor is the situation behind the Sullivan brothers or the Mustin family. That leaves Churchill, who wasn't even a part of the US Navy dept in any role, but an allied leader, and Inouye who wasn't in the Navy, he was in the Army, then had a lifetime of service in government. Everyone else is attached to the Navy dept in some fashion, and whether they are the classical definition of "hero", (earning Medals of Honor ot Navy Crosses in battle, or leading men to victory in battle), or the Navy's broadened definition of hero, (pioneers in technology and strategy, or breakers of barriers; being the first woman, or African-American or Asian-American to accomplish something, such as earning a specialization or achieving a certain rank.) These types used to be listed as 'exceptions' to the typical "hero" moniker, but there too many of them now to list, it would make the section too long. That's why I made the change in the first place. - the WOLF  child  01:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Along with all those named for the above listed criteria, are unique exceptions, of which the namesake's backstories are not typical of the rest of the list;"


 * I don't know if we've reached a point where we're simply talking past each other or you're simply being obtuse, but suffice it to say including the USS The Sullivans (DD-537) and USS Mustin (DD-413) in the Arleigh Burke section of this article as exceptions is not what I had in mind. You're aware that at the top of this article there's a section titled "Traditional Conventions"? Anyhow just as the USS Kearsarge (BB-5) is listed as an exception in regards to the conventions governing Battleship names then by your logic so should USS The Sullivans (DD-537) be noted as an exception on the "Traditional Conventions" subsection on destroyers. Furthermore the https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/heritage/customs-and-traditions/ship-naming.html source you provided says in regards to how Arleigh Burke class destroyers are named "while others carry on the traditions of distinguished former ships of the same name." I would think that both USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) and USS Mustin (DDG-89) would at minimum fall under that categorization, i.e. carrying on the traditions of distinguished former ships.


 * After glancing at my edit history, however minor it may be, I would have assumed that you would have noticed that on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer page that I reformatted and added dates at which they were laid down on the section listing "Ships in class." So yes I've looked at the list for Arleigh Burke Class destroyers, "all 76 of them." Furthermore I do not have any problems with either of the cited sections that you've included. My issue is specifically with the sentence "In the 21st century, the Navy has broadened the term "leaders and heroes" to include politicians, such as US Senators and Navy Secretaries, who made significant contributions to the Navy away from the battlefield, and men and women of the Navy Department who have become pioneers in the fields of technology and strategy as well as for civil rights, breaking through barriers for women and minorities." Near as I can tell this is more a inference on your part, than any sort of stated official policy on the part of the USN or as a statement made by any Secretary's of the Navy. I assume you believe that because former Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, you're aware that it's the responsibility of the SecNav to name USN ships?, went a somewhat nontraditional route in regards to some of the namesakes for Burke class destroyers that this represents a permanent change in USN destroyer naming conventions and more specifically as regards the conventions governing the Burke class, rather than atypical exceptions? Additionally as I've already stated USN destroyers have historically been named after USN personnel who contributed to the Navy "away from the battlefield", look no further than Alfred Thayer Mahan who's manged to have 4 destroyers named after him and yet had a rather undistinguished career as a line officer, whose major contributions were largely limited to the field of academia.


 * Additionally if the criteria under which destroyers and again more specifically Burke class are named has been "broadened... to include include politicians, such as US Senators" shouldn't the USS Daniel Inouye be removed as being representative as an atypical exception? Not even taking into account Inouye's distinguished military service certainly his almost 50 years of service as a US Senator, the various leadership positions he held while in the Senate and his long time advocacy for Civil Rights by itself more than fits the "broadened" criteria that you believe is now in place. It would seem to be no more atypical than the USS Carl Levin.


 * Again, I don't believe the USS Higgins (DDG-76) is all that atypical. As I've already stated Colonel Higgins was abducted and killed while stationed in a war zone while on a military assignment who was later awarded a Purple Heart, Bronze Star with Valor, and a Prisoner of War Medal for his efforts. The criteria of which are all limited to those who were engaged in action against an enemy of the U.S. While perhaps not quite as traditional as say naming a destroyer or more specifically a Burke class destroyer after William Halsey or John Basilone Colonel Higgins strikes enough relevant boxes that I don't believe that it's properly representative as being either grossly "atypical" or an exception worthy of note. Mrniceguy101 16:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Up until now we've only been discussing the Burke-class namesakes and your issues with the exceptions I listed, after rewriting the Burke-subsection. You said that two WWII-era ships "must" be included on the list, so of course I'm going to question that. But when I do, you, call me "obtuse" (?!) and now, suddenly claim you were talking about a completely different section of the page? (Riiiight... whatever) Right now were discussing the Burke sub-section. If you want to start complaining about other sections of the page, that is a different discussion (and hopefully with someone else). The version of the page prior to my re-write simply stated;
 * "destroyers are named after Navy and Marine Corps heroes, with the exception of;"
 * and that was followed by an ever-growing, unwieldy and inconsistent list of "exceptions". This is why I re-wrote the description. I don't have a "citation to support it", the list of names speaks for itself. You yourself just wrote that Mabus "went a somewhat nontraditional route in regards to some of the namesakes for Burke class destroyers" Exactly! So I don't see the problem here. Whether or not you or I think Carl Levin deserves to have a ship named for him is irrelevant. Clearly, the Navy is including him as one of the "leaders" they are honoring. He is among the others I covered with my description of their expanded definition of "Naval leaders and heroes", a definition that now included "pioneers" in various areas, including strategy, like A.T. Mahan, an noted author on naval strategy. The reason I listed Daniel Inouye, is because he was a Medal of Honor recipient while he was a officer in the Army. He is the only Army officer on the list, and therefore an exception to "Naval leaders and heroes". That just leaves Col. William Higgins. He is the only person on the list to be kidnapped and murdered while on a UN peacekeeping mission. (I'm sure I've already written this) Can you name another person on this list who was killed under the same circumstances? Nope. So it certainly is 'atypical' and worthy of noting. The only situation that even comes close to being similar is that Robert Stethem, who is also noted. (and I mentioned this before as well, yet you've said noting about him being on the list). You can stop trying to convince me that Higgins is a hero... I agree. Noting him does not mean he isn't a hero. (sure I've written that before as well). And you can stop with the history lessons. I can assure you I have gone through the list of Burke-class namesakes thoroughly. So, basically, we're going in circles here. I'm still not sure what your issue is here, or why you continue to belabor it. I've proposed a suggested re-write, which you completely ignored, so unless you have something new to say (and without the insults), I'm going to suggest you drop this and move on to something more productive. I'm not going to continue debating, just for the sake of debating. - the WOLF  child  03:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So now you're essentially calling me a liar, how nice. If I had known that you were going to attack my character for being guilty of simple brevity when juxtaposing the USS The Sullivans DDG-68 with USS The Sullivans DD-537 and USS Mustin DDG-89 with USS Mustin DD-413 I would've delineated as precisely as possible what I had in mind. I foolishly assumed that when discussing a subject narrow in scope with someone I assumed was another naval history aficionado you'd at least grant me the minor courtesy of assuming that I'm not only capable of being able to distinguish between different destroyer classes but different sections and subsections of a wiki page as well.


 * As someone who's familiar with USN ship naming conventions and who has reformatted and added additional data to numerous USN destroyer articles on wiki, specifically subsections listing ship lists, including the Burke class, and who went over the impressive user sandbox you created for the Burke class the phrase "naval leaders and heroes" has always allowed for a rather "broad" interpretation when governing the naming of USN destroyers, including but certainly not unique to the Burke class, hence Mahan. As I alluded to in my first comment on this page the established precedent for naming USN destroyers, either historically or presently with the Burkes, has been that the namesake at least be noteworthy enough for inclusion in a footnote somewhere and to have served in either the USN or the USMC or barring that been a SecNav. Under that criteria the only namesakes in regards to the Burke class that stick out as egregious atypical nontraditional exceptions worthy of note are the USS Winston Churchill, the Daniel Inouye, and the Carl Levin. Concerning the Stethlem, I've actually gone back and forth as to whether it represents a bona fide atypical exception. At the end of the day I concluded that your explanation was more than sound enough to leave it as is. In regards to Daneil Inouye, while he was in fact an Army officer, I should know I believe it was me who initially added the USS Inouye, under your criteria the USS Inouye should still be removed as being an exception as when one excludes his distinguished military service his time as a Senator and his advocacy for Civil Rights still meets the "broadened" criteria you believe is now in place.


 * As for Colonel Higgins as I've already stated I'm not trying to convince you or anybody else that he's a hero. My contention has always been that under the historical or current criteria for naming USN destroyers, including Burke class destroyers, that naming a destroyer for Colonel Higgins doesn't represent an atypical exception worthy of note, that's it. While the fact that Colonel Higgins was indeed killed on a UN peacekeeping mission ins't up for debate he was still on an assignment that was military in nature, in a recognized war zone and was in fact abducted and later killed while attempting to carrying out the military orders to which he had been assigned. Again I'm not now nor have I previously attempted to argue some esoteric notion that he was a hero, merely that his service branch and death while performing his official military duties more than falls under the historic and present USN destroyer ship naming conventions.


 * What you assume are "history lessons" are nothing more than attempts on my part to provide context and background for my positions. As for your rewrite it doesn't correct the fundamental issues that there are still Burke class destroyer namesakes listed as exceptions that don't qualify as such and namesakes that do qualify as exceptions that aren't listed.


 * Something that I was really hoping to get your feedback on that I mentioned in my last post is that in the Naval History and Command article that you provided there was a statement that said "while others carry on the traditions of distinguished former ships of the same name." Wouldn't both USS The Sullivans DDG-68 and USS Mustin DDG-89 both fall under that criteria, hence necessitating their removal as exceptions? Mrniceguy101


 * "So now you're essentially calling me a liar" Oy... >groan< Is this the direction we're going in now...? At. No. Time. Did. I. Call. You. A. Liar.


 * "I foolishly assumed..." ...yadda, yadda, yadda. Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.


 * Do you realize your last post is more about you that this article? This is now becoming a pointless, circular exercise in futility. You keep arguing the same things, over and over. (and over.)
 * We are not going to agree on Higgins. Point out all the similarities you like, it's the peculiarities that make him worth noting. Don't know what else to say about that.
 * Regardless of Inouye's time in gov't, his only affiliation with the military (but it's a pretty significant one) was when he was in the Army and was awarded the Medal of Honor. That makes him noteworthy and is also the difference between him and Levin.
 * Levin was Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He had influence on the military and a direct impact on naval matters. Why else would they have chose him? I'm not saying I agree with his ship-naming, but there it is. As tenuous as it seems, he now fits into the boardened definition of "leader", already coverred in the lead-in description.
 * As for The Sullivans and Mustin, unless you have a source that confirms these current ships were named in honor of the previous ships of the same name, (like Enterprise), then AFAIK/C, The Sullivans is, again, named for the 5 brothers, and Mustin is named for the whole family. (and the last Mustin wasn't named for a ship or the family). Both are unique and worthy of noting.
 * In fact, if any ship in the Burke-class was named for a another ship, I'd even include that in the list. But none of them are. None.


 * Now, for the 3rd?, 4th?... (definitely the last) time... I have put forward a suggested re-write, and I have even repeatedly asked you to offer suggestions of your own toward a re-write of the lead-in. You have continually ignored and/or failed to respond to these requests.


 * So, with all that said, stop personalizing this, this is not about you, and stop beating the same WP:DEADHORSE over and over. If you feel you must, absoluetely must, comment again, then pleeaease, pretty-please, with sugar on top, and for the love of all that is holy... say. something. new. And nothing about me or yourself, stick to content.


 * Take a new tack, comment on my suggestion or make a suggestion of your own, but attempt to drag this any further, or lower, in the diection it has been going... then don't expect this to continue any further. Good night. - the WOLF  child  04:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd be more than happy to take our conversation on this subject in a much more polite and professional direction, all that I ask for in return is the same from you. While there's still much I need to learn vis-à-vis the editing functions on wiki if you could extend a me little professional courtesy in regards to conceding that I at least know that wiki articles contain different sections and subsections and that I'm at least reasonably knowledgeable when it comes to current and past US ship naming conventions I'd greatly appreciate it.


 * As for your proposed edit, while I do appreciate the sentiment and your willingness to compromise as I stated in my last post I don't believe that it fixes the fundamental issue at stake, namely what currently or historically qualifies as a "Naval leader and hero" and if or how much conventions have actually changed in regards to naming USN destroyers, including the Burke's. The crux of the matter seems to be that what you perceive as a permanent and fundamental shift in destroyer/Burke class naming conventions I perceive more as atypical aberrations. If it were up to me I'd replace the last two sentences with something along the lines of this:


 * While many would contend that the conventions governing the naming of various United States Navy ship types and classes since the later part of the 20th century has become increasingly disjointed, arbitrary and politicized the Arleigh Burke class has up until recently largely managed to avoid such assertions with the following noted exceptions;


 * Then of course I'd list the Burke class destroyers that I believe are representative as notable exceptions.


 * That all being said I believe as you do that we have unfortunately reached an impasse. Would it be possible, and would you be willing to somehow bring in some third party wiki editors to either toss in their two cents and/or arbitrate the issue? Mrniceguy101 —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(break)
"I'd be more than happy to take our conversation on this subject in a much more polite and professional direction..." - then do that. Both the ad hominem attacks and accusations thus far can be laid directly at your feet. I have asked you, repeatedly, to discuss content, not me, and not yourself. But again you have just spent the first half of your most recent reply telling me about you, which quite frankly, does not hold any interest for me, and does nothing to address the content of this page. You then began the second half of your most recent post with an assumption about me that is entirely incorrect, to wit; "The crux of the matter seems to be that what you perceive as a permanent and fundamental shift in destroyer/Burke class naming conventions..." That is simply wrong. When I first cleaned up the second half of this page, the "Contemporary ship naming conventions and their exceptions", I had left the lead-in description for destroyers as it was; ...(which, at some point, someone incorrectly added "and Coast Guard"). But still, the list was growing with every new announcement of Burke-class names, and was becoming more and more inconsistent. I took a long and careful look through the entire list of Burke-class namesakes, and decided to expand that lead-in with a more detailed description of what the list has contained up to that point (DDG-126). With the more detailed description which included a quote from the Navy on their naming conventions for destroyers and an attached source, I was able to significantly reduce the list. No where in that description did I claim there was a "permanent and fundamental shift in destroyer/Burke class naming conventions". I simply described what is there so far, and as much as I tried to expand upon the Navy's description of "Naval leaders and heroes", (to include people now considered "leaders" for their actions in governing the military, and "heroes" for their accomplishments in the non-combat areas of strategy, technology and civil rights), there are still a few instances that are worthy of notation for being atypical or singular. That's all that was done here. And that is just with the Burke-class, this doesn't have anything to with any other classes or types, conventional or traditional
 * "destroyers are named after Navy and Marine Corps heroes, with the exception of;"

And yet weeks later, post after post after post, I still have no idea what it is you are reading in to that, that somehow causes you to take issue. And while the description I added simply noted what is there, you want to replace that with a very POV-ish, non-neutral and unsupported opinion piece.

From

Arleigh Burke class, a class of a planned 77 ships, that may be extended to as many as 118,[6] that was originally to retain the traditional naming convention for destroyers, that of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps leaders and heroes.[7] Some of these leaders are men who fought in the Revolutionary War as a part of the original Continental Navy, while others took part in the early days of the US Navy fighting in the Quasi and Barbary Wars, the War of 1812, the Civil War and the Spanish–American War. In these early conflicts and right through to World War II and up to the current War on Terror, many sailors and marines, from cooks to SEALs to Marine Commandants and Fleet Admirals, distinguished themselves in battle, earning the Medal of Honor or Navy Cross, (among others medals and, posthumously in some cases). In the 21st century, the Navy has broadened the term "leaders and heroes" to include politicians, such as US Senators and Navy Secretaries, who made significant contributions to the Navy away from the battlefield, and men and women of the Navy Department who have become pioneers in the fields of technology and strategy as well as for civil rights, breaking through barriers for women and minorities. Along with all those named for the above listed criteria, are the following exceptions;

You want to remove

In these early conflicts and right through to World War II and up to the current War on Terror, many sailors and marines, from cooks to SEALs to Marine Commandants and Fleet Admirals, distinguished themselves in battle, earning the Medal of Honor or Navy Cross, (among others medals and, posthumously in some cases). In the 21st century, the Navy has broadened the term "leaders and heroes" to include politicians, such as US Senators and Navy Secretaries, who made significant contributions to the Navy away from the battlefield, and men and women of the Navy Department who have become pioneers in the fields of technology and strategy as well as for civil rights, breaking through barriers for women and minorities. Along with all those named for the above listed criteria, are the following exceptions; And add

While many would argue that the conventions governing the naming of various United States Navy ship types and classes has since the later part of the 20th century become increasingly disjointed, arbitrary and as some have argued politicized the Arleigh Burke class has up until recently largely managed to avoid this with the following noted exceptions;

To create

Arleigh Burke class, a class of a planned 77 ships, that may be extended to as many as 118,[6] that was originally to retain the traditional naming convention for destroyers, that of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps leaders and heroes.[7] Some of these leaders are men who fought in the Revolutionary War as a part of the original Continental Navy, while others took part in the early days of the US Navy fighting in the Quasi and Barbary Wars, the War of 1812, the Civil War and the Spanish–American War. While many would argue that the conventions governing the naming of various United States Navy ship types and classes has since the later part of the 20th century become increasingly disjointed, arbitrary and as some have argued politicized the Arleigh Burke class has up until recently largely managed to avoid this with the following noted exceptions;

And you feel this new, (and frankly bizarre) mish-mash of a "description" would clearly and adequately explain the Navy's naming conventions as it pertains specifically to the Burke-class? (And just what "exceptions" to this new "description" would you list instead? I think you need to include that before proceeding any further). As for your proposed change, I am in complete disagreement. Please note that the description that is currently there is a simple notation. What you are proposing to add (and which would still require a deal of copy-editing and sourcing) is something that would belong elsewhere. Whether that be the lead of this page, as part of a new, proposed lead for the second half of this page (the "Conventional half"), or perhaps somewhere else entirely, such as the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer page, the United States Ship page, the United States Navy ships page... or somewhere else. If at all.

Now, keeping in mind that since I made this change almost a month ago, no one has taken issue with it except you, if you really are hell-bent on changing this (and it appears you are), there are several options open to you, if you wish to include input from others (and you don't need my permission). You can post an RfC here seeking comments from others, or you can post a request at the WP:SHIPS or WP:MILHIST project talk pages, again asking people to comment here, or you can ask for a 3rd opinion at WP:30. But seeing as how you aren't particularly clear on what you are taking issue with or what you want changed. I would suggest, (make that strongly urge) that you post here first exactly what you take exception with and exactly what changes you want made (including your new list of "exceptions"), so that others will know exactly what they are commenting on. And, again, I strongly urge you to limit your comments to content, and refrain from making anymore personal comments to or about you, me or anyone else. Thank you - the WOLF  child  00:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Ship Names
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) filed a report on 9 November 2017 that included the following summary;

The attached source (see ref) has additional information on ship naming and contains an in-page reader with the entire 33-page CRS report. FYI - the WOLF  child  20:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ref

Add earlier ship naming history, please
Readers of this article would benefit from knowing what the conventions were before 1862. President Washington started them. I'm not aware of coverage of this on Wikipedia, though WP quality citations exist. If there is such coverage, please at least add it to the See also section. — Lentower (talk)
 * If you think the article would benefit from it, feel free to add it. - the WOLF  child  21:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)