Talk:Raymond A. Spruance

message: I moved it back to the middle initial version, not because I think it's better, but to unbreak all the redirs. Future moves should take care to fix redirs as well. Stan 14:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand: if there are pages that redirect to Raymond A. Spruance, why can't they be edited after a move to point to Raymond Spruance? --Saforrest 00:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Although he broke the back of the Japanese naval airforce by sinking 3 carriers, 2 oilers and destroying about 600 enemy airplanes" ... I believe this is misleading as an analysis of why there was criticism at him for not going after the Combined Fleet.  Only 1 Japanese carrier was sunk by air attack.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statalyzer (talk • contribs) 20:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destruction of IJN carriers by submarines credited to him? 

message: Halsey's incapacitation was due to shingles, not psoriasis -- but I don't have time to get a good source on this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.125 (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: shattered sword, p.95. 46.138.77.215 (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halsey's Incapacitation before the Battle of Midway 

message: Folks this needs to be cleaned up and the idea that most of this article should be about his decision when to launch is exceedingly strange. Tirronan (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh boy 

message: Should we make a section in the article about his appearance as a character in novels (Weapons of Choice springs to mind) especially since he is important in that story Series premiere (remake) (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Fiction 

message: "Spruance himself expressed disappointment that he had not attacked the Mobile Fleet on the 19th. "As a matter of tactics," he wrote, "I think that going after the Japanese and knocking their carriers out would have been much better and more satisfactory than waiting for them to attack us; but we were at the start of a very important and large amphibious operation and we could not afford to gamble and place it in jeopordy."
E.B. Potter, "Nimitz" (Naval Inst. Press 1976), p 303
"If Task Force 58 had advanced westward to bring its planes within range of the Mobile fleet, it might have sunk some Japanese carriers, but the Japanese would have had a better chance of sinking some American Carriers, for Mitscher would have had to divide his air strength, using some planes for defense and some for attack." 
E.B. Potter, "Nimitz" (Naval Inst. Press 1976), p 304
"Although Admiral Spruance was criticized - bitterly so, by self-styled air strategists - for not taking the offensive on 18 June or pursing more vigoroulsy on the 20th, there can no longer be any doubt that his strategy was correct."
Samuel Eliot Morison, "The Two-Ocean War" (Little, Brown & Co. 1963), p 345  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.224.2 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking for a source where Nimitz had made an aside comment to a friend that Spruance was his most trustworthy/useful subordinate in the Pacific.  I think I read this first in an issue of Our Navy magazine. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Midway I agree its nonsense to say Spruance wasn't aggressive but its a sad fact of history that some people said that. It wasn't about his decision to attack but rather his decision to pull back in the night rather than pusue. IMO its obvious that was the right decision. The Japanese still had a huge superiority in surface ships. The fact that the US had destroyed their carriers would be irrelevant in a night action since at that time planes couldn't attack at night.  In addition to retaining a surface fleet advantage the Japanese at that time were also much, much better in night fighting than the US as they demonstrated a few months later when they decimmated a US and Australian fleet in a night engagement in the Battl of Savo Island off Guadacanal. Still many navy fliers resented Spruance commanding the carriers and they did criticize him for not pursuing the Japanese after Midway. Mdebellis (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites re not agressive - Marianas Turkey Shoot 

message: I question the reliability of the "he was known as electric brain" at the beginning of the article. My recollection is that this was something put in a magazine article by a journalist but wasn't really true, no one in the navy really called him that. The current reference is incomplete, I'm assuming its a book but there is no ISBN or page number. I'm currently travelling so don't have access to my bio of Spruance but when I get home in a couple of weeks I'm going to check it and if it confirms my memory revise or delete that statement unless someone can provide a better reference. Mdebellis (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric Brain? 

message: Someone inserted a claim about a relative of Spruance: "COSTAS WAS HE GRANDSON" It wasn't justified with a refrerence and in any case didn't meet the Wikipedia standards for writing or for information worth being in the article so I undid the two edits. Mdebellis (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like garden-variety vandalism to me. There's been quite a lot from that IP recently. --Yaush (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, I hadn't notice before but they seem to have also vandalized pages on Nimitz and a TV show. I'm a new editor so still learning the process, should I report the user somewhere? Mdebellis (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depends. The WP:VANDALISM page has a lot of good information on handling vandals. Normally you use a template to warn the vandal. If he has already been warned recently (within the last month or so) you bump up the warning level. There comes a point where an administrator can be asked to block a repeatedly-warned vandal. --Yaush (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text:  Thanks. I looked at the Vandalism guidelines and used the Uw-disruptive1 template to leave a message on the Talk page for that IP address. I noticed there were several other recent warnings as well. Mdebellis (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I Undid two edits 

message: William Halsey was always known as "Bill" to his friends, who included Spruance. "Bull" was the invention of a press hungry for heroes. This makes the reference in this article to William "Bull" Halsey a bit problematic, and I've removed the nickname, which has oscillated back and forth between "Bill" and "Bull" between various editors, in order to avoid the issue. --Yaush (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your change. "Bull" was a nickname that lots of people used for Halsey. That Spruance didn't seems irrelevant to me, the point is we are introducing Halsey in that section and it was a common way to refer to him and that is what matters.  That section isn't about the friendship between Halsey and Spruance, it's about Halsey not being able to command at Midway due to illness and Spruance getting the nod as a result, it makes sense to refer to Halsey by the nickname that he is so well known for when introducing that topic. MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it wasn't. The nickname didn't exist until the press invented it early in the war. Those who knew the man and worked with him invariably called him "Bill". I suggest we simply avoid the controversy by avoiding the use of the nickname -- which strikes me as unencyclopedic in any case. --Yaush (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that there is any controversy. Your point is that those who knew him didn't use the nickname. I don't disagree with that and it's common for famous people with nicknames. The point is was he known widely and is he referred widely in history books by that name? And the answer is absolutely yes. At least that is what it says at the very beginning of the Wikipedia page on him: "Fleet Admiral William Frederick Halsey, Jr., GBE (October 30, 1882 – August 16, 1959)[2] (commonly referred to as "Bill" or "Bull" Halsey)" and I've read several books on Spruance, Midway, Leyte Gulf, etc. They all, at least as far as I can recall, start out introducing Halsey with the common nickname "Bull" so it makes sense to have that nickname in the article here. MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the more scholarly books on Halsey I've read take pains to point out that the name was a press invention and a slight embarrassment to Halsey, and there's just no reason to include the nickname on a passing reference to Halsey in an article not primarily about Halsey. It would be like insisting on Bernard "Monty" Montgomery or George "Blood and Guts" Patton in every article on the war against the western Axis. The fact that the nickname has gone back and forth as various editors have wandered past suggests that it's not only unncecessary and unencyclopedia, but a continuing nuisance. --Yaush (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Easy fix.  I took "Bull" out, and broke the wikilink, as there are too many.  Nota bene its "Bill Halsey" at the top.  Halsey's nickname is not pertinent to this article, but here's what Halsey said:  "some drunken correspondent changed 'Bill' Halsey to 'Bull'"  user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 21:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit of a nit, but ... 

message: Before Midway In the first months of World War II in the Pacific, Spruance commanded the four heavy cruisers and support ships of Cruiser Division Five from his flagship, the heavy cruiser USS Northampton.
Composition of Cruiser Division Five was three heavy cruisers (Salt Lake City, Northampton, Vincennes), one light cruiser (Nashville)- as these were the 4 cruisers to participate in the Doolittle Raid - listed on that page. 
Wfoj3 (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CruDes 5