Talk:Great White Fleet

message: Nicely detailed itinerary given, but what was the President's purpose for the fleet, and what was its historical significance?  Did it symbolize the emergence of the US as a world power?  Surely there are some TR quotes or documents to explain this.
According to a High School history book I had, it is written that congress would refuse to fund the Great White Fleet, and Teddy Roosevelt said that if they don't fund the fleet home, it will remain on the other side of the world.24.60.124.8 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: If I am not mistaken, Farragutt had ceased active duty and his step-brother David Dixon Porter was in charge of the naval forces in both battles of Ft. Fisher.  Any comments before I change this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.89.133 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite a reliable source. -- Donald Albury 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shelby Foote's The Civil War a Narrative, vol. III: Red River to Appomattox pg 724 (Farragut's end of War Service and his declining of the Ft. Fisher expedition) pp715-721 (Porter and the first expedition)pp 741-747 (Porter and the second expedition)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.136.125 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That should do it. -- Donald Albury 13:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil War Era Sailors

message: With their hulls painted white except for the gilded scrollwork with a red, white, and blue banner on their bows, these ships would later come to be known as the Great White Fleet.
As colour (white with the accents as described above) plays a large role in name and display of the fleet, this article could use at least one colour picture, wether it's a painting, post card or even an early colour photo.
Example: the USS Connecticut article contains a postcard with said battleship painted white, although the uploader estimates this picture as being from 1908. Does anyone have similar pictures from the great white fleet period? -- MiG (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: White hulls with buff upperworks was the standard paint scheme of the USN until 1914 (except for the gray "battle paint" applied during the Spanish-American War). The World Cruise ships didn't have a special paint job. Solicitr (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  colour picture(s)? 

message: Once the plans for the cruise became public, not everyone was
impressed. Some critics were worried that the Atlantic naval defenses
would be weakened by taking away so many ships. Senator Eugene Hale
from Maine, chairman of the Naval Appropriations Committee, threatened
to withhold money for the cruise. But this didn't bother Roosevelt, who
replied in his typically brusque and forthright fashion that he already
had the money and dared Congress to "try and get it back."
Great White Fleet (16 Dec 1907 - 22 Feb 1909) Geo8rge (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with congress. 

message: There is a lot of hyperbolic patriotic language in here. Did the world really take notice? Probably the biggest fleet visit to the Antipodes at the time, so the newspaper response there makes sense, but what did the Blue Water Powers think? What was German/English/French response to this challenge? Or did they just see it as a little joke--the little American displaying a bit of bravado for no particular reason? Did it change their attitudes towards the US Navy? I thought it was the conclusion of the first world war and the destruction of the German Imperial Navy, and the "Bled-White" French navy that saw the American emergence alongside the English and Japanese as world naval powers. This tour very well might have changed their opinions, but citations are needed to retain any of the language regarding international response.99.246.26.14 (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Royal Navy certainly wasn't impressed - long range cruises were a relatively common occurrence for RN warships and all the vessels sent on the World Cruise had been thoroughly overshadowed by the RN's new Dreadnoughts - but I doubt the World cruise was particularly trying to impress them anyway and relations between the two navies were reasonably strong at this time.  I've read that the Japanese took the opportunity to get a close look at the latest US warships and came away convinced they currently enjoyed a technical edge over the US state of the art, but the USN's ability to deploy relatively rapidly across the pacific was a surprise.  I've no idea of what the Germans and French made of the affair.  Getztashida (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Response 

message: Surely, there must be more going on than " Roosevelt sought to demonstrate growing American military power and blue-water navy capability" and painting the ships white. Ekem (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some additions in the text accordingly.Ekem (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose and Background  

message: It's a good read, but there are FAR too few references cited, especially given a lot of the content. There are lots of anecdotal details (Japanese schoolchildren waving flags, etc) that should really be cited, if nothing else. 3 references for the amount of claimed factual information in this article is pretty insufficient. This was a notable moment in American History...I ocan guarantee someone, somewhere has written about it. I'm no historian, so I don't intent to edit the article, but it either needs references, or needs to be stripped down to the bare ground and rewritten with references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.131 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References needed 

message: I'm wondering if there wasn't a bit of a misprint in the 'Background and purpose' section. it states that 
"In addition, specifically as Japan had arisen as a major seapower with the 1905 annilation of the Russian fleet at Tsushima, it sent a message to Tokyo that the American fleet could be deployed anywhere, even from its Atlantic ports, and would be able to defend American interests in the Philippines and the Pacific"
is there any question that the US could sortie from the eastern seaboard? or did the author mean 'even from its Pacific ports'.
thoughts before I edit this?Lambeth1661 (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Panama Canal had not been completed at the time, I think there was a point in demonstrating that U.S. Navy ships based on the Atlantic coast could indeed deploy to the Pacific if needed. -- Donald Albury 13:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantic/Pacific 

message: Hello... I am a professor of American Studies and I also teach AP US History- I taught my students the underlying reason for the "white fleet" as had been historically established for the past half a century as a way to show the Japanese that after they beat the Russians, whites are better. That is why he circled around the pacific islands, etc. This idea that the reason was to demonstrate our strength is revisionism plain and simple. My students told me they saw no mention of it on Wikipedia, so I came here.
Please revise the article accordingly.
Lucille Roatur, PhD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.8.109 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Think you have it backwards - the idea that the sole reason was to impress the Japanese of the superiority of Whites is the revisionist view. It also doesn't make too much sense - why did the fleet sail around the globe if the goal was to impress the Japanese alone - they could have just gone to Japan, sail around it, and gone home. Frankly, Roosevelt wanted to demonstrate to all powers that the Americans had arrived on the scene - be it the Japanese, British, Germans, Australians, etc. - so it was not limited to the Japanese. It is pretty clear from the comments at the time that other powers, like the British (who were the dominant naval power in the world of the time),  were indeed impressed by this display and understood its significance to the world order, not just some sort of white supremacy display for the Japanese. Go to Australia and you'll see how important the visit of the American Battle Fleet was to their subsequent development of a navy. BTW, I have a Ph.D. too - it doesn't mean you are infallible, as your comment above demonstrates. I would be far more concerned why your students are looking to Wikipedia for information - you hopefully are telling them that it is completely unreliable, being the equivalent of some sort of high school study group project.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.92.159 (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you need to find and add some sources to back up your contention if you want that added to the article. You know, do some research, rather than operating off the usual Dunning–Kruger effect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisionist Article 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Great White Fleet return2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 22, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-02-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 22:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Great White Fleet return2.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: contract 38 ships to supply the fleet with the 125,000 pounds of coal it would need
Should be tons? http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wehx8sd1FLYJ:https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession%3Dkent1258055271%26disposition%3Dinline%2BRoosevelt++38+ships+to+supply+the+fleet+with+the+125,000++coal+Great+White+Fleet&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&hl=en&&ct=clnk page 56/52 2601:600:8500:B2D9:D96:9C25:3F2F:4225 (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Great White Fleet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120206062241/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/faqs/faq42-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq42-1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In 1905, the San Francisco School Board segregated Japanese students from other students. This was an embarrassment to the Roosevelt Administration since this was a local action. The Japanese government protested and the school board reversed its policy. Roosevelt wanted to, among other things, demonstrate that the US could not be intimidated.
These are the cites I used in an article I wrote in 2001. "1907," Webster's Guide To American History, (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1971), p. 355; "Ports of Call," Great White Fleet website, (www.greatwhitefleet.org) 
David Wilma  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ediza8 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Japanese Riots in San Francisco 

message: Hey, friends - I don't know where you got your itinerary information, but it's incomplete: you missed a stop! The Fleet visited San Diego - its first U.S. port of call - before going on to San Francisco. It was here from April 14 to 18, 1908. 
Well, actually, I see that the Fleet also visited Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz. Is this the result of an article consensus, to include only "major" cities under some definition? Or is it the result of some kind of (uncited) reference?
If it can't be added to the table, the various cities could still be named in the introductory section to "First Leg" as was done with the Washington State ports of call in the Second Leg.
Thanks for any input. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  You left out San Diego! 

message: * Sections called "Background" are usually used for table-setting. Here I expected a discussion on the situation before the events of the article. Instead this section starts off with the general information about the article.
* The "concerns and preparations" section begins with Roosevelt's stated intent. That should go in the section named "...purpose"!
* The fleet composition section does not provide a clear and concise overview of which ships were actually included. The discussion on how far it travelled and how impressive it was should be moved elsewhere.
* Voyage and "General fleet itinerary" both discusses where they went. Instead have one single section discussing the travels and its ports of call. Move discussion about command structure elsewhere.
* The subheader "itinerary" is then repeated under "first leg". It should be the other way round, with First leg being a subsection under Itinerary.
* Ships is a top level section header but should be subsumed under first leg. The second and third legs are better dispositioned.
* The final three headers should be collected under a single Impact header.
CapnZapp (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  general article feedback 

message: Missing 1936 great white fleet folded Brochure caribean and west indies 2601:192:C17F:DCF0:5D51:5F46:4BF5:78DA (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  136 great white fleet folded Brochure spring/summer carrabean to west indies