This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:25, July 12, 2017 (JST, Heisei 29) (Refresh)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I've been trying to replace the old U.S. Navy battle map for this article with a self-made map using "Campaign Cartographer" (CC2). Unfortunately, the notoriously user-unfriendly CC2 program is resisting my best efforts to get a map done. I'll keep working on it but will try to see, after one final copyedit, if the article can pass FA review as is. Cla68 12:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I altered "low on fuel" to "claiming a need to fuel". His low fuel state isn't established fact, & accepting his claim uncritically is, I'd say, POV--or naive. IMO, it smacks of cowardice, & FJF did end up relieved after a similar "need to fuel". Trekphiler 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As reflected in the footnotes for the Battle of Savo Island, several historians have indeed asserted that Fletcher's statement that his ships were low on fuel on August 9 was a dubious claim. However, the source I cited for this article (Hammel) didn't go into whether or not the claim was dubious or not. Thus, to say, "claiming a need to fuel" might be asserting something that the cited source for that sentence doesn't say. I don't think it's a really big deal, but, the text in the article needs to reflect exactly what the specific cited source for that passage is stating. Also, the question as to whether Fletcher's withdrawal from the battle area was cowardice or a prudent decision to protect the few remaining U.S. aircraft carriers is still a matter of debate among historians. Cla68 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Claimed" sounds like a lie was made. The landing was a success and the strategic carriers were withdrawn out of range of attack by land based, multi-engine, torpedo bombers. Fletcher asked to be met by a tanker, he would have asked for replacement fighters if any had been available. The task force had been in combat and of course needed replenishment and replacements. Mention of cowardice in your remarks is offensive.184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
At the moment there's a sentence that states that five TBF Avengers from the USS Saratoga scored near-hits on Chitose which damaged the ship. However, when I click on the reference tag that takes me to the bottom of the page, (there seems to be two sources listed under this tag actually) there's a link to the "Chitose tabular record of movement" page from combinedfleet.com which relates a similar account but states that the planes which attacked were SBD Dauntlesses rather than Avengers. Now I don't have access to the other source (or any other source for that matter) so I don't want to go ahead and edit this just yet, but perhaps someone else can verify which is correct? —Masterblooregard (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It's SBDs. Avengers were torpedo planes, which don't generally score near-misses. --Yaush (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Mmk, "Carrier Clash" by Eric Hammel says that it was SBDs (also from USS Saratoga) so I went ahead and changed the sentence and reference. There were five Avengers accompanying the SBDs, but they didn't attack Chitose and didn't cause the damage. The bit in the reference tag regarding the Chitose being towed back for repairs I assume is taken from the combinedfleet.com link, so I left that there —Masterblooregard (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)