Talk:Frank Jack Fletcher

message: The section makes it sound as if Fletcher, with no carrier experience, was chosen over more senior admirals with carrier experience. This is not so. Carrier doctrine was too new and carrier duty not seen as a plum assignment for career-minded naval officers. There were very few general officers who had experience with carriers. The middle ranks, though, were filling out and many of Fletcher's aviation officers resented Fletcher's command because he was a "surface fleet admiral". This needs to be rewritten and made more historically accurate. For example, WHY was Fletcher actually "chosen over more senior officers"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.199.125 (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: January - April, 1942

message: Some confusion over the "controversy" stems from Morison's bias. Fletcher did the best he could; nobody blames Spruance for being cautious.
212.188.108.137 23:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Morison and Fletcher

message: The radio intercept officer on Yorktown had a personality clash with the Admiral. Layton, as a supervisor, should support Lt. Biard's career and get him another assignment.  Lawton, as author of And I Was There, continued to defend his man which colors everything he says concerning Fletcher in an otherwise valuable book. The trivia in the section about the Coral Sea has been replaced with material about the battle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorborn1 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lt. Biard's Problem

message: Just noticed that Fletcher graduated in February 1906. I realize things were different then. He wasn't commissioned until later. But did the class not graduate together? Was there no "June week?" Not during wartime, so this  seems puzzling. Any ideas? Student7 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No June week?

message: "The biography of Adm Frank Jack Fletcher", P17. "A student's class ranking forever established him as senior to those below him. Ranking 30th of 116, Fletcher was very good at seamanship ... and low on modern language.
... During his final year ... Fletcher was Cadet Junior Lieutenant [4th officer]...
"Frank Jack Fletcher and his friends graduated on February 12, 1906, and awaited orders for a sea assignment.  His first orders were for the USS Rhode Island (BB 17)" [commissioned 19 February 1906], then Ohio (BB 12), then Eagle IV (PY) in Haiti. 
Passed Midshipmen had to serve two years at varying duties with good fitness reports and take a final exam before commissioning.216.203.108.114 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer?

message: I think that since this is a bio of Fletcher, his orders to commanders and to him are germane. I don't think that it is essential to recount battle particulars that don't seem to involve him specifically. If he was responsible for the action, it should read "Fletcher (or his task force or whatever) sank the carrier." It shouldn't read that Joe Smith sank it and radioed back "xxxx." It's not about them. We have a specific account in the Battle article which readers can go to if they are interested. Either Fletcher did it (or omitted it) or it shouldn't be in here. Student7 (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. I was getting ready to post this very question when I saw this. However, it has been 9 years with no reply. If I don't see any objections in the next week I will be paring the article of this unnecessary information.Pennsy22 (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Relating battles

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: This article is highly deficient in referencesBillsmith60 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of References 

message: Which 6 Japanese fleet carriers did the USN sink in those 2 battles? The IJN lost 4 fleet carriers at Midway and a light carrier at Coral sea.. the intro paragraph says collectively we sank 6 japanese fleet carriers in those 2 battles 2601:18C:8282:7B0:9D50:4B0F:BAFA:1BDA (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coral sea and midway