Talk:Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands

message: I don't have access to a copy of Frank (1990) which was apparently cited for the (IMHO dubious because would require a long sequence of unlikely events) proposition that Porter was sunk by a torpedo inadvertently released from a US Avenger torpedo bomber after it ditched nearby.  Apparently Frank asserts that Japanese records don't support that Japanese sub I-21 fired the fatal torpedo.  Without reading Frank, it's hard for me to assess whether I-21 or some other Japanese sub might have fired the fatal torpedo, so for now I have changed the article to simply say a torpedo hit Porter without saying where it came from.  Hammel (1987) contains substantial evidence that the torpedo which hit Porter was one of spread of three, including three separate eyewitness accounts of multiple torpedoes missing ahead and astern at the same time.  A spread of three torpedoes could only have come from a submarine.  I welcome input from anyone who has access to a copy of Frank.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyhistorybuff (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sinking of Porter

message: US casualties in the info box lists 1 carrier twice. So were 2 carriers sunk or just 1? - RoyBoy 800 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 carrier sunk, 1 carrier heavily damaged. Cla68 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we list the 2nd US carrier as heavily damaged? Enterprise was out of the game for a good while after the battle --RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: I removed the following passage from the Aftermath section, not because it wasn't a valid point, which it was, but because it was uncited (except for the date in the first sentence):
Please cite a reference that supports the assertions in this paragraph, and then I'll help rewrite it into smoother English for inclusion in the article. Cla68 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of uncited passage in Aftermath section

message: Dear Sir, it’s the first time I write concerning a Wikipedia article, so please forgive me if  I’m not following the proper way to contact  the author about just a little thing.
The photo of the Wildcat fighter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SantaCruzEHornetWildcat.jpg
closely resambles a stiil from the film taken by Photographer's Mate 2nd Class Marion Riley, on 24 August 1942 during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons while on Enterprise. You used another famous still from the same film is in the page of this battle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_enterprise-bomb_hit-Bat_eastern_Solomons.jpg
with the link to the complete film on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFXcnUtMT4A&NR=1
For instance at 1:31 you can see a Wildcat in the same position and with crew members lying on the deck in security position as in the Photo of Santa Cruz Batlle article. But actually in Youtube film I can fin no match for the exact one. 
St58 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of the Wildcat fighter

message: "Japanese sources as the Battle of the South Pacific (南太平洋海戦?)"
Why is something cited from Japanese sources followed by Chinese text?  I don't think the parenthetical is necessary anyway.
173.26.53.210 (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the parenthetical.  Kablammo (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Japanese uses Chinese characters. Brutannica (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  (南太平洋海戦?), 

message: So the Dr is claiming that the U.S. won solely due to industrial output, so obviously he's not aware of the many technological advantages, such as fire retardant, and proximity fuse anti-aircraft rounds, among other things. And U.S. planning and training was practical, as opposed to some race and class based decision making, which led to the line of trained pilots to fill the superior aircraft it could produce. I'm pointing these things out, because there seems to be this false narrative of “Fascist superiority", when their war effort was more of a poorly, barely planned gamble that ended in disaster for Europe and Asia.  Mrhaysy2k (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My Dr. Prados quote ended with the sentence "In Prados' view, the real story of the aftermath is that the Imperial Navy failed to exploit their hard-won victory." What follows that was added later. Dr. Prados certainly wasn't advocating "Fascist superiority" -- far from it. He praises the industrious and far-sighted preparations that the US Navy made after the battle. 99.141.222.170 (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by Dr John Prados accurate?  

message: For WP:URFA/2020, could someone cite the last sentence of this section?  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't find a source, deleted it. For the record, as far as I am concerned, the state of this FA is satisfactory, and while improvements could definitely be made, it definitely shouldn't go to FAR in its current condition. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  URFA 2020 

message: Terry King was my stepfather.  He was on the U.S.S. Craven the night I was born and he and the crew wer battling but had a happy note about the baby being born to Terry King.  Me.  I just had my birthday October 27, born in 1942. 2600:8801:3100:A40:3463:FD6A:2D3B:6C0D (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terry King was on the U.S.S. Craven October 27, 1942 at 1:35 a.m. when I was born in Oakland,CA.  The ship telecommunications told Terry they got the message his daughter, Sandy was born at that time.  Me.