Talk:Battle of the Eastern Solomons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Eastern Solomons article.

Article policies
Featured article star Battle of the Eastern Solomons is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

[edit] Battle Map and Featured Article (FA) Plans

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)

[edit] POV?

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 The landing was a success and the strategic carriers were withdrawn out of range of attack by land based, multi-engine, torpedo bombers.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.216.203.108.114 (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)