Talk:Battle of the Philippine Sea

1351:

Zuikaku, Junyo, and Chiyoda were damaged. The article (or at least the infobox) seems to consider the Hiyo class (Hiyo, Zuiho) to be fleet carriers, when they clearly are not. (Merchant conversions, 23 knots, 35 aircraft; they would be escort carriers by USN designation.) Confusing the issue further is that the light carriers of the 2nd Carrier Division were in fact reclassified by the IJN as fleet carriers after Midway, and operated in this role during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. By the IJN's reckoning, they brought 6 fleet carriers and 3 light carriers. But it seems more appropriate to classify their carriers on capability rather than official designation - upgrading Junyo from an auxiliary carrier to a fleet carrier didn't suddenly make it 10 knots faster and able to carry twice as many aircraft. For this reason it seems reasonable to assert the IJN brought 3 fleet carriers and 6 light carriers, and lost 2 fleet carriers and 1 light carrier.

1976:, but I know how to do a Google Books search too: Coleman: "The US victory at the Philippine Sea was not decisive. The bulk of the Japanese carrier force along with the battleships and cruisers escaped to the northeast and remained a possible threat to further US advances." Hone: "The outcome in the battle of the Philippine Sea, however, was not decisive, even when the successes of submarines are considered." Y'Blood: "If Spruance had been more conversant with the aviation capability of his fleet perhaps he would have headed west for the “decisive” action." 495: 2022:"What was called the Battle of the Philippine Sea was not the decisive carrier action that had been sought in terms of sinking enemy ships... Nimitz and his admirals believed all the Japanese carriers had lived to fight another day... momentous effect on the final and greatest sea battle of the war, the Battles of Leyte Gulf". Anyone could find anything searching for common phrases, there're certainly more elaborated works showing that the Japanese were losing the war of attrition since Rabaul and before. 950: 926: 1799:. "Though often styled a battle, in reality the engagement at Lexington was a minor brush or skirmish". Here we actually flat refuse to lie to the reader. It wasn't a proper battle by any reasonable definition of "battle" (one side fired no shots (or maybe a couple-few shots at most) and had less than 100 engaged, and the affair lasted a couple of minutes; if that's a "battle", then WWI and WWII had hundreds of thousands of "battles" and the word acquires a completely new definition.) 1575:

to launch their first strike wave, of 180 aircraft, at dawn... At 08:00, as the attack went in, its escorting fighters destroyed Ozawa's combat air patrol of about 30 planes. The U.S. air strikes continued until the evening, by which time TF 38 had flown 527 sorties against the Northern Force, sinking Zuikaku, the light carriers Chitose and Zuihō, and the destroyer Akizuki, all with heavy loss of life. The light carrier Chiyoda and the cruiser Tama were crippled."

463: 2467:

many of these trained air crew were rescued, whereas for the 600 Japanese planes lost, almost all the trained air crew were lost with them. This seems to me the major reason why this was the last major carrier battle of the war; there was simply not enough time remaining in the war to train new Japanese air crew. The article shows that total dead were 2,987 to 109, but probably the most painful of these dead to the Japanese were the air crews. --

605: 578: 960: 1888:

did decide the issue of Japan's westward expansion. The Battle of the Phillippine Sea destroyed Japan's naval air arm. Yes, some carriers escaped, but Ozawa's function for Leyte Gulf was sacrificial lamb to pull Halsey away from Leyte rather than to actually destroy Halsey. I'm not an RS, so I cannot say it was a decisive defeat, but using one source by a Lt. Cmdr. to say it was not a decisive defeat seems thin. A google book search

717: 1049: 511: 2312:, whose infobox lists the result as "Decisive Allied Victory" and then has a bullet point beneath specifying "Japanese naval capabilities crippled." For Battle of the Philippine Sea, it could list "Decisive Allied Victory" with a bullet point stating "Japanese carrier warfare capabilities crippled," or some such. So far though it appears that users disagree with the form this takes or the definition of 'decisive,' only 768: 447: 1437:-class carriers, but they were still significantly superior in all of these respects to the light carriers of the IJN. Thus, classifying them as either fleet or light carriers may not be entirely appropriate. However, since the IJN designated them as fleet carriers, and since the sources cited in the article designate them as fleet carriers, we should probably use this designation to avoid confusion.( 527: 479: 316: 1081: 431: 191: 543: 615: 388: 377: 366: 355: 1994:

also writing about Leyte Gulf rather BotPS. In Hone, you failed to quote the next sentence: "Nonetheless, the first phase of the decisive naval battle of the Pacific War, the carrier duel, was over." Y'Blood: seeing "decisive" in quotes before "action" suggests a reference to IJN's prewar focus to engage and destroy the US fleet in a "decisive battle".

2155:

beginning another stage." Clearly the FBotPS qualifies under this definition since it marks the endpoint of Japan's ability to successfully wage carrier warfare. While we can quibble over the meaning of "decisive victory" as other authors have used it, if we use the definition already extant here on Knowledge (XXG) it'll make our meaning quite clear.

274: 222: 1247:

which had grown steadily from mid-1943—Japan's older and newly commissioned aircraft carriers sat in port awaiting hastily trained pilots to arm and justify their existence while the U.S. Fleet had totally re-equipped with the more modern Grumman F6F Hellcat fighter, which was specifically designed to be superior to the Japanese Zero.

1925: 344: 2102:

may well be the premier historian of the US Navy in WW II. King was also looking back, but an Army publication in 1995 using other sources can hardly be called primary; the Army need not puff the Navy. You quoted the opinion of a Lt. Commander in a book from a fourth-rate publisher that does not have

2021:

BTW, I found some more interest opinions. Goldberg: "Despite its outcome, this battle of the Philippine Sea was not the decisive battle the United States had hoped for to crush Japan finally and totally. That battle would be fought sixteen weeks later at Leyte Gulf in the Philippine Islands" Cleaver:

1489:

Agree. I am trying to figure out the list myself. First "carrier-versus-carrier" will be Coral Sea (May 1942), second is Midway (June 1942), (known & certain) Using Knowledge (XXG), I say 3 & 4 are : Battle of the Eastern Solomons (Aug 1942). 3rd Battle of Santa Cruz (Oct 1942) - Interesting

1350:

The carrier forces brought to battle were the 1st Carrier Squadron (fleet carriers Taiho, Shokaku, and Zuikaku), the 2nd Carrier Squadron (light carriers Junyo, Hiyo, and Chiyoda) and the 3rd Carrier Squadron (light carriers Chitose, Chiyoda, and Zuiho). Of these, Shokaku, Taiho, and Hiyo were sunk.

2356:

I'm all for a clear, descriptive and objective narrative; as stated at MoS "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.". I'm not for peacock terms that, as it's obvious by the discussion, everyone has a different

2017:

I don't want to drag a historiographical discussion, or argue over dictionary definition. I got those from a thirty second search just to point that reality maybe, just maybe, be a little more nuanced than a single adjective may be. Although I don't get all the fuss about, as I already suggested the

1887:

again. I'm perhaps willing to drop "decisive", but I think it is inappropriate to say the battle was not decisive. Midway is viewed as a decisive battle in that it devastated Japan's carrier : Japan lost irreplaceable carriers, planes, and pilots. Midway did not decide the outcome of the war, but it

1574:

According to the Knowledge (XXG) article, Ozawa had 108 aircraft. "Around dawn on 25 October, Ozawa launched 75 aircraft to attack the 3rd Fleet. Most were shot down by American combat air patrols, and no damage was done to the U.S. ships" after which "Mitscher... ordered the American carrier groups

1246:

Additional training and experience effects from the long pilot shortage was the resultant inexperience of the Japanese carrier deck crews, not just its newbie aircrews flying the same unimproved well understood planes with the same old weaknesses, for in contrast to the U.S. Navy's operational tempo

2193:

the battle, too. Even if Japan had won big, so what? They were going to be ground down and forced to surrender. The Americans were never going to give up. So as a practical matter, the battle changed nothing and decided nothing. And it wasn't even a turning point (as Midway was) -- things just kept

1953:

by Nigel Cawthorne says it "was ultimately of more strategic importance than the fall of Saipan." 2) Mark W. Allen - 2011 says Midway, the Solomons, the Philippine Sea, and Leyte Gulf "all turned out to be decisive Japanese defeats" 3) James B. Wood - 2007 -"decisive" ... " Philippine Sea completed

1909:

Yes, I know that some people label this battle as "decisive", as others don't too. I suppose that when RSs agree on substantives but are on dissonance over the adjective to be used, the contested words should not be presented, or stated as a fact, or should be explained with some length in the body

2207:

point, e.g., Stalingrad -- German defeat was inevitable either way) or "big famous victory" (e.g, Waterloo -- Napoleon was toast regardless) or "big battle with a clear winner who went on to win that war" or whatever. In this idiomatic sense the Battle of the Philippine Sea was a typical "decisive

2169:

Yeah, but Knowledge (XXG) is not necessarily a good source. I don't agree with the definition "Definitively resolves the objective being fought over" which "can take place from the tactical or unit level ". And then it adds in "battles that bring an end to hostilities", which is not right IMO. Was

2126:

the Imperial Japanese Navy's ability to conduct large-scale carrier actions." The Japanese aftermath section states, "These losses to the already outnumbered Japanese fleet air arm were irreplaceable. The Japanese had spent the better part of a year reconstituting their carrier air groups, and the

1993:

It does not look like synthesis to me; references refer to it as a decisive victory. I see it as a matter of weight. King and Morison have stature and weight. I've already raised an eyebrow about the opinion of Lt. Cmdr. Coleman; I've never heard of Pickle Partners Publishing Co. The Lt. Cmdr. was

1851:

However, and this is a big however, I have no idea if that number is correct. I am simply making it consistent. It would be good to figure out the correct number. I think we're looking for the number of aircraft that actually made the strike, not the number launched, and that might be contributing

1760:

But, you know, it's not even a fact. It's an opinion. It's an opinion that many people share, including some eminent ones. So? A fact is something like "Ozawa had 108 planes". He either did or he didn't. You can count them (or look at records made by somebody who did). An opinion is something like

1301:

Japanese aircraft losses are pretty hard to nail down, Binks. Particularly in attemting to assign how they came to be lost. Certainly an awful lot of Japanese aircraft were destroyed, predominantly by Hellcats, but how many were actually lost to anti-aircraft fire? How many of the aircraft shot

1155:

I know I may be extrapolating a little wildly here, but wouldn't the sinking of two aircraft carriers be considered significant damage? I understand the necessity of some to use Knowledge (XXG) articles on WW II in the Pacific to construct a virtual Shinto shrine to the Japanese participants, but

2466:

It seems to me that a big piece of the puzzle that is missing from this article is a comparison of air crew losses. I am not sure if there is a reliable source for this, but the air crew losses for the Japanese seem to have been even more fatal than the loss of planes. The US lost 123 planes, but

1655:

Personally, I think for an engagement to be regarded as a major carrier battle that implies there is at least some intention of achieving victory on both sides, which wasn't present at Cape Engaño. Two of the Japanese carrier vessels did not even have aircraft. I don't really care whether it says

2494:

Summertime in that region the winds would likely be light variable. Here's a detailed battle map that shows no changes in Direction when launching airstrikes. In fact the air strikes of the 19th and the 20th on both sides appear to have been launched with the task forces headed to the northwest.

2360:

As a afterthought, one cannot stat how bad the Japanese were crippled without a large chunk of hindsight. The American didn't know it at the time; the fleet could, and was, used as a fleet-in-being; and as Leyte proved, decoy or not, the carriers still possessed operational capacity and played a

1926:

https://books.google.com/books?id=JNoexC3LhuEC&pg=PA441&dq=%22battle+of+the+philippine+sea%22+decisive+victory+morison&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfodiKn8zRAhWLhlQKHV-3DP4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22battle%20of%20the%20philippine%20sea%22%20decisive%20victory%20morison&f=false

1695:

on this subject in 2005 and specifically referred to "...the five carrier battles of the Second World War." John Lundstrom, a premier historian of the war in the Pacific, also specifically pegs the number at five: "Ideally the admiral who led the U.S. carriers in the first three of the only five

1584:

Sounds like a carrier battle to me. After all Ozawa did launch a carrier-to-carrier strike which found and went in on the American carriers. He did have a combat air patrol which engaged the American attackers and defended the fleet. And the Americans also launched carrier-to-carrier strikes and

2446:

I am having a confusion. In the section 'Submarine Attacks', it is written that Ozawa moved his staff to Zuikaku after the sinking of Taihō. In the section 'U.S. Counterattack', it is written Ozawa moved his staff to the destroyer Wakatsuki and then to the Zuikaku, while on the aircraft carrier

2391:

I don't think we can read too much into the fleet-in-being. Ozawa's feint worked, but the US probably had a good estimate of Japan's naval air after the BotPS. If you've shot down 360 carrier aircraft, then you've cleaned out 4 carriers worth of planes. Halsey could have just wanted to sink the

2240:

I think there is a slight confusion in this discussion about the implications of the term. The 'decisive' part relates to the margin of victory in the battle, not the significance of the battle within a wider campaign. So as long as there is agreement about the scale of victory it can be used

2154:

would seem to make sense here, so why not just Wikilink this in the infobox to put this problem to rest? From the page in question, "The term decisive victory refers to a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and

1320:

The material that Hyperionsteel has added is fine, but it is an analysis of the decisions made, and I think that would be better at the end of the article. Where it is now (Initial stages) is in the midst of the description of the events as they came to unfold, and I believe it disrupts the

1564:

a carrier battle. It was awfully one-sided, but then so was the Battle of the Philippine Sea, granted that Engaño was even more one-sided. But I'm not sure where we want to draw the line where we say "well, sure, this was a carrier battle, but it sucked so bad we don't even want to include

1504:

In the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Japan's carriers were largely used as a diversionary force, since there were so few planes/pilots available. While I suppose you could say that the carriers were involved in the battle, their lack of any real offensive power makes calling this is a

1847:

The article had four different figures on the number of US aircraft in the attack of June 20 - 215, 226, 230 and 240. Counting the individual aircraft listed (95 F6F, 54 TBF/TBM, 26 SBD, 51 SB2C) in the article, I get 226. I have edited the other figures to match that.

2392:

carriers at some gut level rather than rational thought. Maybe the Japanese knew Halsey would be in command during Leyte and specifically played the blood lust card. But even if the US thought carrier air was still powerful, the battle did destroy the carrier air arm.

2503:

Correct me if I'm wrong but the claim that easterly trade winds blow above the equator is so absurd that it makes me wonder if this is an example of an editor making something up that's completely bogus by linking it to book sources that are impossible to verify.

1370:(Hiyō, Junyō) were converted passenger liners (not merchant hulls or cruiser hulls) (most escort carriers were built from, or based on merchant hulls, while most light carriers were built on, or based on, cruiser hulls). (Note: I think you may have confused the 1223:

The box thing on the side says 7 fleet carriers, but the article says 5 large carriers. The box thing on the side says 8 light carriers, but the article says 4 light carriers. The box thing on the side says 7 battleships, but the article says 5 battleships.

2055:

again. Once again, nobody is saying BoPS decided the war. It was not the "decisive battle" (destruction of US Navy) that Japan always sought. Similarly, Midway did not decide the war. BoPS destroyed the Japanese carrier arm. Morison and King are not

502: 248: 1058: 936: 518: 252: 2079:

if you prefer, as they were involved in the events, but that's not my point as I never said they aren't valid opinions. Your attempt of definition is irrelevant, stating as fact that someone is correct when there's plenty of divergence around is

1382:). However, most of these sources (as far as I can tell), describe them as fleet carriers. The IJN did designate both as fleet carriers (but this may have been done due to a lack of any true fleet carriers available after the Battle of Midway). 1159:

Glad somebody else noticed that...unfortunately, much like the Japanese education system, Knowledge (XXG) has a policy against unpopular facts in Imperial Japanese related articles. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go lay a wreath at

725: 588: 486: 244: 1820:

it's battle. So what? Who cares what people who are wrong think? We're not going to tell the reader wrong things regardless. A lot of people think Betsy Ross made the first American flag, are we going to tell the reader that she did?

556: 470: 240: 153: 1633:

I don't think it's "we" who are drawing the line. I don't know where the person who put that in the article got it from, but I seem to recall the phrase "five carrier battles of WWII" used in several books but never "six". In

1302:

down were land based, and how many were off the carriers? Aircraft destroyed, was that in air combat, on runways and hangers, or in a carrier when it was sunk? I will try to sort it out, but the sources are conflicting.

2188:

In the literal sense of the word "decisive"... after the Battle of the Philippine Sea, there was a 100% certainty that, sooner or later, Japan would be forced to surrender. Problem is, there was a 100% certainty of that

2320:

seems to have a problem labeling the battle this way in the infobox. At the very least, it would make sense—if 'decisive' winds up stripped out—to describe the outcome in the infobox as I have suggested above. Cheers,

438: 232: 1700:, very first page of the book's Introduction) I work directly in this field. Having read available literature and actually focusing specifically on Leyte Gulf, I agree rather strongly with the doyens on this point. 454: 236: 2000:

There is second guessing that Spruance should have pursued for a more complete victory, but that was not his job at the time, and Halsey was roundly criticized for abandoning Leyte and getting suckered by Ozawa's

1778:

Apparently the number of carrier battles is an opinion which is disputed. Another person might say "Well, the Philippine Sea wasn't a battle. It was a massacre. I don't count it and so there were four battles".

1293:

First off, Binksternet is right. The article overall is under referenced. Certainly a fact tag is an invitation to track down something and reference it. They should not be removed until we have it nailed

551: 260: 2217:

I'm on board with that. Let's not overthink the matter. As a point of actual usage, the term "decisive victory" is an idiom with a broad and vague meaning. Which the Battle of the Philippine Sea fits under.

534: 256: 1391:

as light carriers largely because of their displacement the size of their air groups. The standard displacement for the Hiyō-class was 23,770 long tons (in comparison, the standard displacement for the

1190:

I believe what they're trying to say is that the counterattack from aircraft failed to do significant damage. The submarines were not apart of the air counter attack. That is my understanding at least.

2361:(important) role on the offensive. The piece about this in the article is unsourced and badly wrote, a common problems over articles and discussions that orbit around adjectives and not substantives. 2548: 2658: 2608: 1997:

Nobody here doubts that battleships and carriers escaped the battle. The battleships are not a part of naval air. The Japanese carrier air arm was destroyed; carriers without planes are useless.

1327:

I think an analysis section to follow the aftermath sections would be helpful, and it would be the best place to contrast Halsey and Spruance and their handling of Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf.

1714:

Mnmh. I guess. There's always a tension when you have sources that are 1) generally reliable and notable, but 2) wrong. Then you have two things in conflict, and which are you going to go with?

2618: 2447:

Taiho's page, it is written that Ozawa moved his command to the cruiser Haguro. We need reliable sources and crowd agreements to make any change to make any change in this case. Any comments?

2603: 1136:"While the air battle raged, US submarines sunk two Japanese fleet carriers. The US counterattack, however, failed to do significant damage in return." Should it be Japanese counterattack? 2018:

inclusion of something, and as I'm uninclined to wrote something it will stand as gospel true. If you have King in such high regard, why don't you quote him as a eyewitness of the events?

990: 2613: 147: 2598: 2553: 1475:

If the article is going to mention 'five major "carrier-versus-carrier" engagements between American and Japanese naval forces', then a footnote or link should enumerate them. --

1490:

this article clearly call the following Battle of Leyte Gulf (Oct 1944)- several months later NOT a carrier-versus-carrier- that the Japanese carriers were purely diversionary.

1007: 2438:(changed the verb "wrestling" to "wresting") should be undone. "Wresting" is the correct verb – to wrench, forcefully take, etc. – as opposed to "wrestling" (i.e., grappling). 44: 855: 329: 286: 2593: 2588: 2653: 2538: 1033: 1039: 2583: 1522:

It seems that this concern has still not been addressed. As a casual reader of the article, I would like to know: what are the "five major engagements" that it cites?

1118:

It seems odd that the phrase "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" is not mentioned once in the article, considering that it is one of the most famous aspects of the battle.

315: 2112:. After the ranks of the author and publisher were pointed out, you did a 30-second search to find Goldberg (a book about the 1940s rather than a military history) 863: 2638: 2568: 1687:

Seconding Boris here: This isn't about a "we" as much as it is consensus. The 'five carrier battle' figure has been mentioned before in e.g. Dunningan and Nofi's

697: 997: 2578: 1910:

of the article as why historian W thinks X and why historian Y thinks Z. If you wish to drop the line that I wrote and the word decisive that's alright for me.

1930:

Adm. King, Morison, others characterize it as the effective destruction of Ozawa's carrier fleet and crippling Japanese naval aviation for the rest of the war.

784: 79: 1164:'s grave for his honorable service to the US Army against the hated foreigner enemy. Oh no wait, that's what the Japanese Prime Minister does every year... 2673: 2668: 2663: 2563: 2489: 1002: 2573: 2558: 2543: 901: 776: 2357:

personal definition and two people can't agree what it really means. But I'll step aside from the discussion as it's merely a editorializing question.

2628: 1594:

Major? Well, the Japanese lost a carrier, two light carriers, and another ship, and two more "crippled" and those were their last carriers. It wasn't

1979:

As I said I have nothing against stating that some authors consider something, or X, Y and Z say anything else, but at least don't pretend it's 2+2.

707: 281: 227: 2203:

I guess people (include erudite history writers) use "decisive victory" as an idiom, to mean "turning point" (which is quite a different thing from

814: 807: 85: 2648: 2633: 2179:

It's a tough question because with even the best sources it's a matter of subjective opinion. "Decisive victory" is like "great general": sez who?

2623: 2498: 2113: 1289:

With a number of recent edits going back and forth, it seems prudent if we can come together on some general ideas. Here are some thoughts:

973: 931: 2122:

The first sentence of our article states, "The Battle of the Philippine Sea (June 19–20, 1944) was a major naval battle of World War II that

290: 880: 834: 821: 2486:

It's easier than I thought. The Marianas lie 12 to 24 degrees north of the equator. The winds would come from the southwest, not easterly.

1638:

Stille says the "United States Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) fought five carrier battles during the course of the Pacific War." In

1378: 1206: 168: 30: 135: 2643: 2519: 1269: 2119:. Cleaver is an aviation buff who has written about planes and pilots in the BoPS, but the titles do not show a broad historical scope. 1889: 1092: 648: 640: 1461: 1404: 1372: 1248: 985: 889: 99: 1398: 1393: 104: 20: 1262:

Agreed, the entire "background" section is rather hard to follow and contains run-on sentences, and all sorts of "purple prose".

1796: 981:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

74: 202: 129: 1388: 1367: 652: 644: 628: 583: 65: 1761:"Ozawa didn't have many planes" or "Ozawa had a lot of planes, all things considered and accounting for the circumstances". 1611:

What more do you want? Yes it was pathetic. So are lots of battles. The Alamo, Thermopylae, so on. They're still battles.

1460:

If the article is going to say that in the first paragraph, a link or a note listing these engagements would be useful. --

125: 24: 2490:

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/geography-miscellaneous/difference-between-doldrums-and-horse-latitudes/

2098:

Morison is not a primary source. Morison reviewed primary sources (such as battle reports) to compile his histories;

175: 109: 2275:. "Clear victory" or "definite victory" or "overwhelming victory" might be better terms for what you describe. 2208:

battle": it was big, it was famous, it was very clearly won by one side, and the winner went on to win the war.

1202: 839: 1692: 1557: 208: 2515: 1511: 1465: 1443: 1336: 1307: 1273: 1169: 285:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 2507: 2499:

https://www.abebooks.com/maps/Battle-Philippine-Sea-18th-21st-June-1944/31106567953/bd#&gid=1&pid=1

1356: 1265: 1194: 1252: 1229: 494: 141: 1973: 1433:-class carriers were smaller, slower, had smaller air groups, and overall, less offensive power than the 1324:

Mitscher handled the aircraft, so we should not be referring to Spruance when we are speaking of the CAP.

1198: 55: 2472: 2340: 2280: 2223: 1826: 1616: 1147: 1691:, pp. 164–165. Douglas V. Smith, who is head of Strategy and Policy as the US Naval War College, wrote 1225: 70: 2468: 1352: 2452: 2309: 2099: 1857: 1480: 965: 871: 2076: 1657: 1543: 190: 2366: 2108: 2089: 2027: 1984: 1915: 1661: 1547: 1542:

The five major engagements are Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz, and Philippine Sea.

1527: 1101: 1097: 656: 161: 2511: 2326: 2246: 2160: 1705: 1507: 1439: 1332: 1303: 1165: 847: 2057: 949: 925: 1816:

So it's commonly called the Battle of Lexington and (probably because of that) a lot of people

2115:

I didn't find your Cleaver quotation in a Google search, but I did find a YouTube video and a

1963: 1892: 1123: 51: 2336: 2303: 2276: 2219: 2151: 1822: 1682: 1612: 1137: 462: 2523: 2476: 2456: 2448: 2401: 2370: 2344: 2330: 2284: 2250: 2227: 2164: 2143: 2093: 2069: 2031: 2012: 1988: 1967: 1944: 1919: 1903: 1861: 1853: 1830: 1709: 1665: 1620: 1551: 1531: 1516: 1499: 1495: 1484: 1476: 1469: 1448: 1360: 1340: 1311: 1277: 1256: 1233: 1210: 1173: 1150: 1140: 1126: 604: 577: 2397: 2362: 2315: 2139: 2085: 2081: 2065: 2050: 2023: 2008: 1980: 1940: 1911: 1899: 1876: 1523: 1161: 767: 2170:

the Battle of Berlin in 1945 "decisive"? I think the issue had already been decided...

1396:

was 25,675 long tons). In contrast, the standard displacements for the light carriers

716: 2532: 2427: 2322: 2242: 2156: 2103:

a Knowledge (XXG) article; the book was about Halsey and Leyte Gulf rather than BoPS.

1701: 1238:

The crew complement of Taiho (1750) differs from the info on the Taiho page of 2150.

978: 1954:

the destruction of Japan's carrier force and its air groups." 4) it is included in

1959: 1119: 660: 620: 1048: 510: 1656:

five or six on the article, but I do think the consensus is that there were five.

2116: 1642:

the introduction starts with "There were five carrier battles in World War II."

1080: 526: 1491: 1242:

Good article but in several places incoherent, below I enter just one example.

955: 610: 2388:

I'd be happy with "decisive allied victory" with the bullet point underneath.

1424:-class carriers could carry significantly more (72 aircraft + 12 in reserve). 2393: 2135: 2061: 2004: 1936: 1895: 1731:

My take on "reliable sources" is that sources are reliable and not reliable

1087: 446: 977:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 478: 542: 430: 2106:

A lot of that publisher's business is reprinting earlier books such as

1924:"nevertheless a decisive victory" despite the Japanese fleet escaping. 2127:

American Fast Carrier Task Force had destroyed 90% of it in two days."

1585:

engaged carrier-borne enemy aircraft with their own combat air patrol.

1949:

yes it was a decisive victory--Japan lost 95% of its naval power. 1)

1602:

with that level of ships and aircraft involved and shot down or sunk.

273: 221: 2130:

The article infobox has used "decisive victory" since 2 July 2004.

634: 1739:(as here) that's a strong indication that that it's not reliable 1156:

isn't this claim of failing to do signigicant damage a stretch?

1059:

WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force

1075: 184: 15: 1598:-- Japan was going to lose the war either way -- but it was 1047: 766: 715: 541: 525: 509: 493: 477: 461: 445: 429: 314: 1146:

nope - the counterattack was against the IJN by the USN. --

1086:

A fact from this article was featured on Knowledge (XXG)'s

1951:

Turning the Tide: Decisive Battles of the Second World War

1956:

Decisive Battles of the Twentieth Century: Land, Sea, Air

1933:

Would others here support reinserting "decisive victory"?

894: 1505:"carrier-versus-carrier" engagement a bit of a stretch.( 2434: 2131: 2104: 1884: 760: 755: 750: 745: 668: 160: 2549:

C-Class Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) articles

1412:-class carriers could carry 48-53 aircraft, where as 2659:

C-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance

867:: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. 655:. Current time in Japan: 21:19, September 24, 2024 ( 632:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 327:

This article has been checked against the following

2609:

North American military history task force articles

412: 326: 174: 2619:United States military history task force articles 2442:After Taihō went down, on which ship did Ozawa go? 1958:by Noble Frankland, ‎Christopher Dowling - 1976. 1636:Santa Cruz 1942: Carrier duel in the South Pacific 1038:This article has not yet received a rating on the 647:, where you can join the project, participate in 2604:C-Class North American military history articles 2194:going in the same direction they had been going. 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2614:C-Class United States military history articles 1640:Carrier Battles: Command Decision in Harm's Way 1408:were about 11,200 long tons. In addition, the 2599:Japanese military history task force articles 2554:Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) articles 8: 299:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history 1387:However, I would be reluctant to label the 1346:Fleet carrier vs. light carrier designation 2594:C-Class Japanese military history articles 2589:Asian military history task force articles 2505: 2150:Using Knowledge (XXG)'s own definition of 1456:Five major carrier-to-carrier engagements? 1192: 920: 733: 572: 503:North American military history task force 409: 323: 216: 2654:Unknown-importance United States articles 2539:C-Class Operation Majestic Titan articles 1018:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States 639:on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to 519:United States military history task force 279:This article is within the scope of the 2584:C-Class Asian military history articles 922: 724:This article is supported by the joint 669: 574: 218: 188: 2308:Perhaps we could do something akin to 289:. To use this banner, please see the 2639:Mid-importance Japan-related articles 2569:Military aviation task force articles 302:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 2579:Maritime warfare task force articles 1420:could only carry 30. Of course, the 971:This article is within the scope of 726:Japanese military history task force 626:This article is within the scope of 487:Japanese military history task force 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2674:Selected anniversaries (June 2015) 2669:Selected anniversaries (June 2008) 2664:WikiProject United States articles 2564:C-Class military aviation articles 1021:Template:WikiProject United States 14: 2574:C-Class maritime warfare articles 2559:C-Class military history articles 2544:Operation Majestic Titan articles 1331:What do the other editors think? 682:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Japan 471:Asian military history task force 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 2629:World War II task force articles 2482:the Tradewinds were not a Factor 1894:who call it a decisive victory. 1852:here to the messiness. Regards, 1843:Number of US aircraft on 6/20/44 1797:Battles of Lexington and Concord 1696:carrier battles in history..." ( 1079: 958: 948: 924: 613: 603: 576: 386: 375: 364: 353: 342: 272: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 1394:Shōkaku-class aircraft carriers 702:This article has been rated as 2649:C-Class United States articles 2634:C-Class Japan-related articles 2420:To "wrest" is the correct verb 1560:(part of the Leyte operation) 1341:05:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC) 1312:06:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC) 1234:12:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC) 1: 2624:C-Class World War II articles 2477:22:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC) 2402:22:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC) 2371:15:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC) 2345:15:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC) 2331:12:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC) 2285:04:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 2251:20:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 2228:02:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 2165:00:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 2144:20:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 2094:00:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 2070:20:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC) 1891:turns up books such as Miller 1831:15:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC) 1710:13:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC) 1666:18:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC) 1621:19:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC) 1278:02:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 1056:This article is supported by 737:WikiProject Japan to do list: 42:Put new text under old text. 2524:23:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC) 2117:website listing publications 2032:23:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC) 2013:22:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC) 1989:22:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) 1968:18:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC) 1945:17:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC) 1920:08:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC) 1904:21:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC) 1862:17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC) 1389:Hiyō-class aircraft carriers 1368:Hiyō-class aircraft carriers 1257:16:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC) 439:Military aviation task force 282:Military history WikiProject 25:Battle of the Philippine Sea 2241:without broader discussion. 1552:15:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC) 1449:07:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 1429:There is no doubt that the 1361:17:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC) 1174:22:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 859:to articles that need them. 798:Featured content candidates 455:Maritime warfare task force 2690: 2644:WikiProject Japan articles 2457:04:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC) 2267:The discussors may not be 1698:Black Shoe Carrier Admiral 1040:project's importance scale 793: 708:project's importance scale 685:Template:WikiProject Japan 347:Referencing and citation: 1733:for a particular instance 1532:20:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC) 1517:02:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC) 1500:00:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC) 1485:16:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC) 1470:16:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC) 1151:12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 1055: 1037: 974:WikiProject United States 943: 732: 723: 701: 598: 549: 533: 517: 501: 485: 469: 453: 437: 408: 305:military history articles 267: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 1741:for that particular fact 1321:narrative if left there. 1285:Analysis section at end? 1141:10:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC) 1127:14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 979:United States of America 895:Japanese Knowledge (XXG) 835:Good article nominations 552:Operation Majestic Titan 261:Operation Majestic Titan 1211:18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC) 535:World War II task force 413:Associated task forces: 358:Coverage and accuracy: 2335:Yeah that seems good. 2271:. They might just not 1883:I'm tempted to revert 1052: 1024:United States articles 771: 720: 688:Japan-related articles 546: 530: 514: 498: 482: 466: 450: 434: 391:Supporting materials: 319: 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 1735:. And if a source is 1558:Battle of Cape Engaño 1051: 770: 719: 545: 529: 513: 497: 481: 465: 449: 433: 318: 201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 100:Neutral point of view 2310:Battle of Leyte Gulf 2100:Samuel Eliot Morison 1556:Well but I mean the 966:United States portal 893:an article from the 875:Japan-related stubs. 649:relevant discussions 105:No original research 992:Articles Requested! 905:unassessed articles 653:lists of open tasks 643:, please visit the 380:Grammar and style: 333:for B-class status: 1053: 881:requested articles 872:Improve and expand 864:Pages for Deletion 848:Godzilla Minus One 772: 721: 547: 531: 515: 499: 483: 467: 451: 435: 320: 287:list of open tasks 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2526: 2510:comment added by 2432:Your undo of the 1268:comment added by 1213: 1197:comment added by 1108: 1107: 1074: 1073: 1070: 1069: 1066: 1065: 919: 918: 915: 914: 911: 910: 830: 829: 676: 637:-related articles 629:WikiProject Japan 571: 570: 567: 566: 563: 562: 404: 403: 349:criterion not met 291:full instructions 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2681: 2437: 2431: 2319: 2307: 2152:decisive victory 2054: 1972:This looks like 1880: 1693:his dissertation 1686: 1280: 1083: 1076: 1026: 1025: 1022: 1019: 1016: 968: 963: 962: 961: 952: 945: 944: 939: 937:Military history 928: 921: 856:requested images 792: 791: 734: 690: 689: 686: 683: 680: 673: 671: 664: 623: 618: 617: 616: 607: 600: 599: 594: 591: 589:Military history 580: 573: 420: 410: 394: 390: 389: 383: 379: 378: 372: 368: 367: 361: 357: 356: 350: 346: 345: 324: 307: 306: 303: 300: 297: 296:Military history 276: 269: 268: 263: 228:Military history 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2689: 2688: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2529: 2528: 2484: 2464: 2462:Air Crew Losses 2444: 2433: 2425: 2422: 2313: 2301: 2048: 1874: 1872: 1845: 1680: 1458: 1348: 1287: 1263: 1244: 1134: 1132:Is this a typo? 1116: 1023: 1020: 1017: 1014: 1013: 1012: 998:Become a Member 964: 959: 957: 934: 765: 687: 684: 681: 678: 677: 667: 619: 614: 612: 592: 586: 418: 392: 387: 381: 376: 370: 365: 359: 354: 348: 343: 304: 301: 298: 295: 294: 230: 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2687: 2685: 2677: 2676: 2671: 2666: 2661: 2656: 2651: 2646: 2641: 2636: 2631: 2626: 2621: 2616: 2611: 2606: 2601: 2596: 2591: 2586: 2581: 2576: 2571: 2566: 2561: 2556: 2551: 2546: 2541: 2531: 2530: 2483: 2480: 2463: 2460: 2443: 2440: 2421: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2389: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2133: 2128: 2125: 2120: 2082:cherry picking 2047:I've reverted 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2019: 2002: 1998: 1995: 1977: 1934: 1931: 1928: 1871: 1865: 1844: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1689:Victory at Sea 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1457: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1426: 1425: 1384: 1383: 1347: 1344: 1329: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1296: 1295: 1286: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1243: 1240: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1199:206.213.209.32 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1162:William Calley 1133: 1130: 1115: 1112: 1110: 1106: 1105: 1084: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1067: 1064: 1063: 1054: 1044: 1043: 1036: 1030: 1029: 1027: 1011: 1010: 1005: 1000: 995: 988: 986:Template Usage 982: 970: 969: 953: 941: 940: 929: 917: 916: 913: 912: 909: 908: 907: 906: 898: 885: 876: 868: 860: 851: 828: 827: 819: 812: 803: 802: 801: 790: 789: 785:A-class review 781: 764: 763: 758: 753: 748: 742: 739: 738: 730: 729: 722: 712: 711: 704:Mid-importance 700: 694: 693: 691: 625: 624: 608: 596: 595: 593:Mid‑importance 581: 569: 568: 565: 564: 561: 560: 548: 538: 537: 532: 522: 521: 516: 506: 505: 500: 490: 489: 484: 474: 473: 468: 458: 457: 452: 442: 441: 436: 426: 425: 423: 421: 415: 414: 406: 405: 402: 401: 399: 397: 396: 395: 384: 373: 362: 351: 337: 336: 334: 321: 311: 310: 308: 277: 265: 264: 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2686: 2675: 2672: 2670: 2667: 2665: 2662: 2660: 2657: 2655: 2652: 2650: 2647: 2645: 2642: 2640: 2637: 2635: 2632: 2630: 2627: 2625: 2622: 2620: 2617: 2615: 2612: 2610: 2607: 2605: 2602: 2600: 2597: 2595: 2592: 2590: 2587: 2585: 2582: 2580: 2577: 2575: 2572: 2570: 2567: 2565: 2562: 2560: 2557: 2555: 2552: 2550: 2547: 2545: 2542: 2540: 2537: 2536: 2534: 2527: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2512:Jackhammer111 2509: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2491: 2487: 2481: 2479: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2461: 2459: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2441: 2439: 2436: 2429: 2419: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2358: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2317: 2311: 2305: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2192: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2134: 2132: 2129: 2123: 2121: 2118: 2114: 2111: 2110: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2078: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2052: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2020: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2003: 1999: 1996: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1952: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1935: 1932: 1929: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1890: 1886: 1881: 1878: 1869: 1866: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1849: 1842: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1819: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1798: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1694: 1690: 1684: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1641: 1637: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1518: 1515: 1513: 1509: 1508:Hyperionsteel 1503: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1455: 1450: 1447: 1445: 1441: 1440:Hyperionsteel 1436: 1432: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1406: 1401: 1400: 1395: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1380: 1375: 1374: 1369: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1345: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1333:Gunbirddriver 1326: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1304:Gunbirddriver 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1284: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270:24.23.193.172 1267: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1241: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1166:Bravo Foxtrot 1163: 1158: 1157: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1149: 1148:89.54.153.194 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1139: 1131: 1129: 1128: 1125: 1121: 1113: 1111: 1103: 1102:June 19, 2015 1099: 1098:June 19, 2008 1095: 1094: 1089: 1085: 1082: 1078: 1077: 1061: 1060: 1050: 1046: 1045: 1041: 1035: 1032: 1031: 1028: 1015:United States 1009: 1006: 1004: 1001: 999: 996: 994: 993: 989: 987: 984: 983: 980: 976: 975: 967: 956: 954: 951: 947: 946: 942: 938: 933: 932:United States 930: 927: 923: 904: 903: 899: 897:into English. 896: 892: 891: 886: 883: 882: 877: 874: 873: 869: 866: 865: 861: 858: 857: 852: 850: 849: 844: 842: 837: 836: 832: 831: 826: 824: 823: 817: 816: 810: 809: 804: 799: 796: 795: 794: 787: 786: 782: 779: 778: 774: 773: 769: 762: 759: 757: 754: 752: 749: 747: 744: 743: 741: 740: 736: 735: 731: 727: 718: 714: 713: 709: 705: 699: 696: 695: 692: 675: 672: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 636: 631: 630: 622: 611: 609: 606: 602: 601: 597: 590: 585: 582: 579: 575: 558: 554: 553: 544: 540: 539: 536: 528: 524: 523: 520: 512: 508: 507: 504: 496: 492: 491: 488: 480: 476: 475: 472: 464: 460: 459: 456: 448: 444: 443: 440: 432: 428: 427: 424: 422: 417: 416: 411: 407: 400: 398: 393:criterion met 385: 382:criterion met 374: 371:criterion met 363: 360:criterion met 352: 341: 340: 339: 338: 335: 332: 331: 325: 322: 317: 313: 312: 309: 292: 288: 284: 283: 278: 275: 271: 270: 266: 262: 258: 254: 253:United States 250: 249:North America 246: 242: 238: 234: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2506:— Preceding 2502: 2497: 2493: 2488: 2485: 2465: 2445: 2423: 2359: 2355: 2272: 2268: 2204: 2190: 2107: 2046: 1974:WP:SYNTHESIS 1955: 1950: 1882: 1873: 1867: 1850: 1846: 1817: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1697: 1688: 1639: 1635: 1599: 1595: 1561: 1506: 1462:75.144.57.49 1459: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1403: 1397: 1377: 1371: 1349: 1330: 1288: 1264:— Preceding 1249:196.3.50.254 1245: 1237: 1226:Johndoeemail 1222: 1193:— Preceding 1135: 1117: 1109: 1091: 1057: 1003:Project Talk 991: 972: 900: 888: 879: 878:Create some 870: 862: 854: 846: 841:Vinland Saga 840: 833: 820: 813: 806: 805: 797: 783: 775: 703: 665: 645:project page 633: 627: 621:Japan portal 550: 328: 280: 257:World War II 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2469:Westwind273 2337:Herostratus 2304:Herostratus 2277:Herostratus 2220:Herostratus 1823:Herostratus 1683:Herostratus 1613:Herostratus 1353:Alchemy3083 1138:Harold14370 1096:section on 1093:On this day 843:(TV series) 777:Peer review 641:participate 369:Structure: 148:free images 31:not a forum 2533:Categories 2449:ShauryaOMG 2124:eliminated 2109:Harm's Way 2077:WP:PRIMARY 2060:opinions. 1854:DMorpheus2 1477:Tbanderson 651:, and see 2363:Bertdrunk 2316:Bertdrunk 2086:Bertdrunk 2075:Both are 2051:Bertdrunk 2024:Bertdrunk 1981:Bertdrunk 1912:Bertdrunk 1885:this edit 1877:Bertdrunk 1658:Boris0192 1596:important 1544:Boris0192 1524:Ishboyfay 1376:with the 1088:Main Page 890:translate 557:Phase III 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2520:contribs 2508:unsigned 2428:Coltsfan 2323:Finktron 2269:confused 2243:Martinlc 2205:deciding 2157:Finktron 2058:WP:UNDUE 1868:Decisive 1702:Finktron 1266:unsigned 1207:contribs 1195:unsigned 1114:Untitled 815:Pictures 808:Articles 330:criteria 245:Japanese 237:Maritime 233:Aviation 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2435:IP edit 1960:Rjensen 1870:victory 1435:Shōkaku 1422:Shōkaku 1414:Chiyoda 1399:Chiyoda 1120:Grant65 1090:in the 825:: None 818:: None 811:: None 751:history 706:on the 670:Refresh 199:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2191:before 2001:feint. 1008:Alerts 902:Assess 788:: None 780:: None 205:scale. 126:Google 2273:agree 1818:think 1737:wrong 1600:major 1492:Wfoj3 1418:Zuihō 1405:Zuihō 1379:Junyo 1373:Zuiho 1294:down. 887:Help 822:Lists 761:purge 756:watch 679:Japan 661:Reiwa 635:Japan 584:Japan 241:Asian 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2516:talk 2473:talk 2453:talk 2398:talk 2394:Glrx 2367:talk 2341:talk 2327:talk 2281:talk 2247:talk 2224:talk 2161:talk 2140:talk 2136:Glrx 2090:talk 2066:talk 2062:Glrx 2028:talk 2009:talk 2005:Glrx 1985:talk 1964:talk 1941:talk 1937:Glrx 1916:talk 1900:talk 1896:Glrx 1858:talk 1827:talk 1795:See 1706:talk 1662:talk 1617:talk 1565:it." 1548:talk 1528:talk 1512:talk 1496:talk 1481:talk 1466:talk 1444:talk 1431:Hiyō 1416:and 1410:Hiyō 1402:and 1366:The 1357:talk 1337:talk 1308:talk 1274:talk 1253:talk 1230:talk 1203:talk 1170:talk 1124:Talk 1100:and 853:Add 746:edit 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 1562:was 1034:??? 698:Mid 663:6) 657:JST 176:TWL 2535:: 2522:) 2518:• 2475:) 2455:) 2400:) 2369:) 2343:) 2329:) 2283:) 2249:) 2226:) 2163:) 2142:) 2092:) 2084:. 2068:) 2030:) 2011:) 1987:) 1966:) 1943:) 1918:) 1902:) 1860:) 1829:) 1708:) 1664:) 1619:) 1550:) 1530:) 1519:) 1498:) 1483:) 1468:) 1359:) 1339:) 1310:) 1276:) 1255:) 1232:) 1209:) 1205:• 1172:) 1122:| 935:: 845:, 838:: 800:– 659:, 587:: 419:/ 259:/ 255:/ 251:/ 247:/ 243:/ 239:/ 235:/ 231:: 156:) 54:; 2514:( 2471:( 2451:( 2430:: 2426:@ 2424:@ 2396:( 2365:( 2339:( 2325:( 2318:: 2314:@ 2306:: 2302:@ 2279:( 2245:( 2222:( 2159:( 2138:( 2088:( 2064:( 2053:: 2049:@ 2026:( 2007:( 1983:( 1962:( 1939:( 1914:( 1898:( 1879:: 1875:@ 1856:( 1825:( 1743:. 1704:( 1685:: 1681:@ 1660:( 1615:( 1546:( 1526:( 1514:) 1510:( 1494:( 1479:( 1464:( 1451:) 1446:) 1442:( 1355:( 1335:( 1306:( 1272:( 1251:( 1228:( 1201:( 1168:( 1104:. 1062:. 1042:. 884:. 728:. 710:. 674:) 666:( 559:) 555:( 293:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index