Talk:Battle of Leyte Gulf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Leyte Gulf is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 17, 2004.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 29, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
January 25, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted
Current Status: Former featured article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Leyte Gulf article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met
Related task forces (general topics):
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	Australian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	United States military history task force
Related task forces (periods and conflicts):
	World War II task force

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Battle of Leyte Gulf is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Japan To-do:

	This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
Start	This article has been rated* as Start-Class on the assessment scale.*
Top	This article has been rated* as Top-importance on the assessment scale.*

An event mentioned in this article is an October 25 selected anniversary.

What did we get out the battle

[edit] Image formatting

So, uh, let's discuss the image instead of instantly reverting? We really need the caption, otherwise the reader just sees a smoke cloud, not exactly informative in the encyclopedic way. The thumb is one way (and has the advantage that it also indicates that the picture can get larger), or we could have a line break and then the caption. But to omit captioning entirely is not the right way to go. Stan 04:03, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not ommitted -- it appears when you hoover the mouse over the picture. And the reason I changed it is because this (as the article stands now) is the standard battlebox format (you can find the whole writeup at Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles). →Raul654 04:06, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I see at least one other person who objected to the lack of captions in the template, but no response to that point. Hovering is going to look pretty funny for a multi-line caption! But I'll let the caption project folks fight that battle :-) Stan 04:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There was never any final agreement on rules for images in the battlebox. They obviously look better un-thumbnailed and captionless so probably only self-explanatory images should go in the battlebox. There's certainly no rule saying if an article only has one image, that has to go in the battlebox. Geoff/Gsl 05:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the record, hover captions do not work in all browsers. Plain text captions do.--Carnildo 07:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried to introduce active full sentance captions throughout which would lead readers into the body text, in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Writing_Captions; some of my efforts have been removed. They can be seen at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf&oldid=7562889 Perhaps they can be improved and reinstated? Richard Taylor 21:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I changed your captions. (1) A WikiProject doesn't represent policy. (2) Noun phrase captions are just as good, and are often shorter and snappier than full sentence captions. They are used widely in professional publishing. (3) You made the noun phrases into sentences by introducing obvious and redundant verbiage like "This chart shows..." or "...is shown here..." (4) You introduced a past tense into one caption. I did keep the one about Zuikaku no longer being the flagship of the Japanese fleet. Gdr 22:58, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

[edit] "Largest" battle

After the initial vandalism, I checked again and it seems there are battles with more ships and possibly more "men" in ancient history. However, there doesn't seem to be much doubt in terms of the area covered and the tonnage. Grant65 (Talk) 22:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Actium defintely had more ships, and I suspect Salamis did too. But number of men is a bit iffy. →Raul654 22:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I deemed that there would be a need for a page for this issue, so please see Largest Naval Battle in History. Rather than having an endles rambling about men, ships, aircraft, tonnage, time, and surface area in every article you can now refer directly to that page. At least when I created the page it made no comment asto what actually is the largest battle. My aim was to present facts and allow readers to form their own opinions. I don't think there is a definite answer for this question. Chino

Chino, is it you that us repeatedly removing the mention of tonnage and area in the opening sentence? I would like whoever it is to explain why they are doing that. I don't see how there can be any question about Leyte being the largest battle in terms of these.

Also, my last edit included the link to Largest naval battle in history. I think it's better style to work the link into the sentence rather than have it in brackets.Grant65 (Talk) 14:58, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

I have changed the only text once, but I have followed "the battle" with amusement :-) I actually agree with the person who came up with the idea that Leyte is the second largest naval battle in history, altough his/her claims about the Battle of Aegates Islands are clearly wrong. But I also know that such a large portion of Wiki users are American that the truth would invariably disappear :-) My opinion is that both Leyte and Ecnomus pages should state that the battle _may_ be concidered the largest in history and then have a link to the Largest naval battle in history. That page should, in my opinion, provide the facts and let people themselves make up their minds. This is, as I think we all agree, a matter of opinion. To compromise my latest edit of Leyte (which might not survive the next ten minutes) mentions both the "tonnage" and "number of ships" issue. This makes the beginning of the page quite cumbersome... I still prefer "Often regarded as largest" and link to page with info for those who really like to know what "often" means in this context. Chino

I'm not happy about Ecnomus being mentioned in the Leyte article. I think the link to "largest naval battle" is enough. That way if people search for "largest naval battle" they will go straight to that page, and not to the Leyte or Ecnomus pages. I doubt that people interested in either Leyte or Ecnomus are very interested in the other battle. Grant65 (Talk) 16:05, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Since there do not seem to be any objections from registered users, can I ask that the direct reference to Ecnomus be removed from the page? (How strange would it look if Leyte was mentioned on Battle of Ecnomus?) Grant65 (Talk) 22:34, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

The current version is my attempt for a compromise. As I said, it is cumbersome. In my opinion it all boils down to "generally considered". Most people read it as "most probably is". The meaning we should convey is that Leyte is "one of the two candidates for the largest naval battle in history". Probably not in those words, tough. The whole discussion seems to be more about definitions and wording than facts. Chino

I don't think it is "one of two candidates" in terms of tonnage and area. And I don't think that is a "cumbersome" definition. I think you need to show why Ecnomus should be mentioned on the Leyte page.Grant65 (Talk) 11:40, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Conceptually, I don't think there is a problem with mentioning Ecnomus - it's very common for article to namedrop topics with some kind of connection, and indeed that is one of the "value-adds" of being hyperlinked. But first I would like to see some citations of professional historians stating anything about relative sizes, rather than random people making claims on their own - very slender - authority. I'm on the road, so my own library is not at hand, but will be home in a couple days and able to consult relevant works. Stan 16:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"At the most basic level, it is hardly possible to form a clear notion of how battles were fought. Professor Lazenby remarks that "we do not even know exactly what a quinquereme was". He is too optimistic. We do not even know approximately what a quinquereme was, except that it was the principal warship on both sides and had a name derived from five somethings having to do with oars."[1]"

If the prime source is official Roman budget records, then we are not talking about the records of a liberal democracy. There are good reasons for the size of both Roman and Carthaginian fleets to be exaggerated. For example, to hide corruption and incompetence. Whereas the accounts of Leyte Gulf have been arrived at by cross-referencing sources from several countries. Grant65 (Talk) 04:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I vote for this article having something like

probably/possibly/generally considered/etc the largest naval battle in history

and leaving the detailed arguments and other candidates to that article. Or even nothing at all. It would be better to put some work into expanding the account of the battle than warring over trivia like this! Gdr 21:59, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

Why has protected status been removed? The people who wanted Ecnomus mentioned in the frst paragraph have not consented with the present version and they will no doubt do their stuff again.Grant65 (Talk) 10:13, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

I asked for protection to be removed because I wanted to write something about the battle. It's only one sentence in the introduction, after all, and it's not wholly objectionable, so I think we can live with the Ecnomus enthusiasts. Eventually they will go away and the reference can be removed. Gdr 11:40, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

To make the discussion more concrete, I would like to give two wordings that I would be satisfied with. The other one is the current version, and the other would be simply "Often concidered to be the largest naval battle in history". Often is the key word. --Chino 05:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I understand Chino correctly, he is satisfied with the present wording of "generally considered", as long as Ecnomus is mentioned. No one else seems enthusiastic to mention Ecnomus --- or even to believe that the Roman sources are credible, but so be it. However, I do think the passage should be at the very top of the first paragraph since -- IMO --- the "epic" size of the battle is the most noteworthy fact about it.Grant65 (Talk) 09:54, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I support Gdr's suggestions. --Chino 10:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image shows burning ship, but it is not mentioned it the article

There is picture of burning USS Princeton, but no single loss is mentioned on US side. Could we make a bit better balanced article? saigon_from_europe

[edit] Miscellany

There should be a link in here about the [[USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55)]], and maybe other information on naval craft named after people in the battle. Mtnerd 03:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese characters

This article contained the following Japanese characters (in context):

Shō ichi gō sakusen (捷１号作戦 — Operation Shou No. 1
Jisaburo Ozawa's force (小沢)
Takeo Kurita's force (栗田)
Shoji Nishimura's force (西村)
Kiyohide Shima's force (志摩)

I removed the characters because I think they don't add anything to the article. This is an English-language encyclopedia, so we can expect few people to read Japanese characters. It is better to provide transliteration instead because that will be accessible to all readers. Gdr 10:24, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

In general, they are useful because they provide a way for the English/Japanese-bilingual (and I hear there are millions of them in Japan :-) ) to check the accuracy of transliteration, but each only needs to appear once, in the article that introduces the transliterated term. So for instance I would expect to see the Japanese chars in each person's bio, but not elsewhere, while terms specific to this battle should be here. Stan 18:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a good rationale. I'll restore 捷１号作戦 to the text. Gdr 19:07, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Thanks Stan and Gdr.Grant65 (Talk) 09:54, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article status?

I'd like to propose this page for featured article status, once the Ecnomus business is settled. There are a couple of things I would like to add but can't find.

Some criticism of Toyoda's strategy. With the benefit of hindsight it seems to me that his policy of throwing forces away in suicidal battles was stupid. I'd like to quote notable criticism of his plans. (I found his justification for the plan which I think is a better thing to include.)
~~Some quotes for the Task Force 34 controversy. Who criticized him and what did they say?~~

The article also needs a few quotes from eye-witnesses. Gdr 17:35, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

OK, I think it's ready, except for the edit war. Can we come to some agreement? I propose the plain and simple

The battle is often considered to be the largest naval battle in history.

as a paragraph in the lead section? Gdr 12:16, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

I'm happy with that form of words.Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I think this article is great would make a fine featured article. →Raul654 05:02, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Where was the landing?

This enormous battle was fought over the US landings on one of the Philippean islands. Why do none of the maps of the battle show where the landings were? --Carnildo 07:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Image:Battle of Leyte map 1.jpg. Gdr 11:15, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

[edit] What was the scale?

None of the maps shows a scale of miles. It's hard to see how close the Japanese fleet came to destroying the landing force without a sense of size.--Carnildo 07:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome to add a scale to the maps. Gdr 11:17, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

[edit] Defacement

It looks like there has been some defacing of the content. [Some vandalism] appears to have been added to the aftermath section.

That's what happens when an article is featured on the Main Page. Gdr 23:00, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Ormoc Bay

An anonymous editor added a fifth battle to the list of engagements:

5. Although these battles were fought to secure Allied control of Leyte Gulf, when they were over, the Japanese controlled only the eastern third of the island of Leyte and they continued to be resupplied through their port of Ormoc on the western end. Continuous disruptive U.S. destroyer action in Ormoc Bay from 2 December 1944 through 11 December (the Battle of Ormoc Bay) caused the Japanese to abandon their Leyte garrison and withdraw from the area. Some historians now regard the Battle as the "fifth battle of the Battle for Leyte Gulf".

"Some historians" appears to refer to Irwin J. Kappes, whose articles, (e.g. The Battle for Leyte Gulf Revisited and A New Look at the Battle for Leyte Gulf argue that historical accounts shouldn't stop on 26 October but should cover the later engagements. This is a fair enough point, and it's a good way for Kappes to advertise and dramatise his area of research. But I think we need to see quite a few more historians take up this usage before we reflect it here. Gdr 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Our Battle of Ormoc Bay article was rather tendentious: it concentrated on historiographical debate instead of explaining what happened. I've completely rewritten it so that now it at least has an account of the events. I've quoted some of Kappes in the last section so as not to leave out the historiographical debate. Gdr 21:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I added a few lines concerning Halsey's decision to pursue the carrier forces. When reading the article it sounded like this decision was downplayed in the body of the text, and I think the fact that Bogan and Lee (and Mitschner for that matter) all disagreed with it and saw through the ruse is worth mentioning. I hope this does not unbalance the article too much, but this decision of Halsey's definitely needs a bit more exploration.

[edit] Military organization

It seems to me that the glaring error was that 7th fleet was not informed of either 3rd fleets whereabouts or the observation that the center force had turned again toward Leyte Gulf. Halsey may have the greatest share of the responsibility for that, but not at the time of the battle. Someone, from the president down to the officer in charge of relaying intelligence should have noted that since there was no central command, information needed to be passed between the independent commands, not just upward in the chain of command. It looks as though Halsey assumed that someone on his staff was distributing the plans and intelligence. David R. Ingham 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "But it left the landings on Leyte covered only by a handful of escort carriers and destroyers."

The other six battle ships appear to have been in place to protect the landing, just not in place to protect the escort carriers. Or did I miss something? David R. Ingham 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The other six battleships, which were actually battleships raised out of Pearl Harbor, were left in Leyte Gulf to provide shore bombardment. By sure, dumb, idiot luck, these battleships wound up protecting Leyte Gulf from Southern Force, but they were still too far south to play a large role in the battle against Center Force. (Nick31091 05:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

They did start to head in the direction of the Center Force and might would have encountered them if the Center Force had attacked the invasion beaches instead of retreating when it did. Cla68 07:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The battleships which destroyed the Southern Force did so as a result of deliberate planning and a good battle plan. This planning built upon the years and months of effort which went into raising, modernising and supporting them, so there was no dumb luck involved. --Nick Dowling 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What I ment was that the battleships were in a position to get revenge that was luck. It was quite a coincidence that Pearl Harbor BB's would wind up in a position to destroy a major Japanese force. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick31091 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Seventh Fleet

The battleships in question were covering Surigao Strait at the time of the Samar battle. They were there to provide fire support for the landing as a first priority and defend against a surface fleet attack as a secondary priority. Given the need to cover both Surigao and San Bernardino strait against converging forces, it would have been difficult for them to fend off Kurita, Nishimura, and Shima at the same time. These battleships were older, 21 knot battleships with 14 or 16 inch guns carryilng mostly with explosive rounds(all of the BB type shells fired during this battle were armor piercing) rather than armor piercing shells. They had enough firepower to stop the Southern Forces *or* Kurita's force but not both at once, and they were not fast enough to come to Sprague's aid.

It seems to me that the Yamato might have been worth two or three 16" gun battle ships in a shoot-out, and there very probably wasn't enough ammunition in the Seventh Fleet to sink it. They were low on armor piercing before the first battle. Two battleships gave up on sinking the Bismarck because they were nearly out of fuel(they still had about two thirds of their main battery ammo left), and its armor(Bismarcks' 'equivalent' protection was slightly thicker{a combination of belt 'plus' the turtle deck protected the 'vitals'} and British AP shells are 'known' to be inferior) was not so thick. David R. Ingham 02:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph

The second sentence of the document is complicated, and could be split into about three different sentences. What does everyone else think? --Will James 05:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I split it in two, separating the 'when', 'where', and 'who' from the 'why'. How does that look?

—wwoods 14:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Halsey

"Halsey was criticized for his decision to take Task Force 34 with him in pursuit of Ozawa, ..."

I don't have a book handy, but if I recall correctly, Halsey's flagship was one of the battleships of TF 34, so his decision would effectively have been to dispatch TF 38 (and other components of 3rd Fleet?). Which would have meant Halsey taking himself out of the carrier fight, or shifting himself and his staff to another ship on the spur of the moment.
—wwoods 14:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of the fact Halsey had in his hands a copy of the plan & therefore knew (or damn well should have known) Ozawa's force was bait. He threw away a chance at the greatest naval victory in history, destroying both forces, & instead damn near left Taffy 3 to their doom. (I'd add that, but it falls under "original research"...). Trekphiler 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagurism

I found this article on the net (http://experts.about.com/e/b/ba/battle_of_leyte_gulf.htm) which directly mirrors the information in this article, word for word, picture for picture. Either they copied wikipedia or a wikipedian copied them. Someone should have a look. --Will James 05:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Look more carefully at the bottom of that article - This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer. Raul654 08:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{inappropriate tone}}

Much of the recent changes in this article make it read more like a story than an an encyclopedic entry, particularly the Battle of Samar section. Anthony Rupert 05:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Specifically it reads like a script narrative to a History Channel version????

Yeah... My bad. It was my first ever edit. I use the History channel alot but after that first one I've not, and will not, copy the History Channel word-for-word. (What can I say...? I was a Wikinoob.) (Nick31091 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Changing times

I added "in honor if the anniversary of Balaklava)"

I deleted these:

"Japanese airmen were not well trained due to Japan's loss of her expierienced pilots."

"which took away Japan's strategic force in the Pacific War"

"This gave the Allies freedom to choose where to strike next. "

"(now Taiwan). "

"which would then perish from lack of supplies. "

"and leaving the Japanese navy without air cover."

"and sever Japan's links to her garrisons"

"The days of such naval commanders as Nelson at Trafalger and Farragut at Mobile Bay were over. With the exception of smaller boats, such as submarines and PT's or others like them, and with the exception of the next day's battle off Samar, all naval warfare would be carried out by aircraft and more recently missiles."

"Cape Engano is perhaps a fitting name for this battle, for, in Spanish, the infinitive verb "enganar" means "to trick or deceive"; and Halsey took the bait of Ozawa's carriers and was tricked, hook, line, and sinker."

Trekphiler 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate articles for each sub-battle

Each of the sub-battles of the Battle of Leyte Gulf could easily be separate articles:

Battle of the Sibuyan Sea
Battle of Surigao Strait
Battle off Cape Engaño (ironic title, isn't it?)
Battle off Samar

Any takers for exapanding each battle as separate articles? Cla68 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Samar at least needs to be spun off, and condensed on this page.

—wwoods 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Cla, an epic battle deserves it. I have done the reverse, condensing this whole article in Pacific War, but even that still needs work.Grant65 | Talk 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've copied the infobox, Samar, and References sections to Battle off Samar. It needs an introduction, etc.

—wwoods 18:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Discussion

The mission of the Japanese forces is surprisingly vague for a "Featured Article"--I don't question the content (altho I agree the tone is a little informal), but it's a vital and rarely-perused aspect of this battle. "Destroy the landing forces" is highly vague--but if that's the actual wording of the orders, then quote and document. But does that mean destroy the troops on Leyte?--because that was an impossibility even if all the battleship forces converged, which half didn't. Not only were the Army troops already deployed inland but spotting for IJN naval gunfire was next to impossible. (Japanese attempts at Guadalcanal on a mission as app. simple as shelling an airfield out of operation had been failures) Does it mean destroy the amphibious landing force in Leyte Gulf? Because 95% of all Allied vessels, large and small, ocean-going and amphibious, had already unloaded and departed before the battle. Does it mean destroy the supplies on the beachhead? While the most viable mission, it would also be the least likely to accomplish anything significant. Much of the previous reporting on this battle--which this article mirrors--has been to criticize Halsey, at the expense of exploring the true ramifications. Much like the validity of capturing Iwo Jima, few seem willing to question the validity of the IJN's concept--basically the Japanese were on a suicide-mission. Japan was likely to accomplish nothing but either the total or as in what finally occurred a partially-complete destruction of its Navy. Even a public embarrassment of the Allies by sinking some shipping was not likely to occur--the Allies successfully censored the bombing of Bari Harbor by the Germans in Dec. 1943.--Buckboard 08:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well frankly, with the state of the IJN after the Turkey Shoot, even blasting a few empty cargo ships would have been a victory... (Nick31091 06:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Order of battle

Is there an order of battle page for this article? I remember seeing a half done one sometime ago, but I can't find it now--Jackyd101 05:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Working back to FA

Unfortunately I see that the article was removed from FA status today. The main reason cited was, "Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c) and general clean-up (2). Marskell 21:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)". This is definitely fixable and I am sure we will rise to the challenge.

While we are at it, here are the suggestions from the semi-automated peer review script:

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 14 inch, use 14 inch, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 14 inch.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- correctly
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), armor (A) (British: armour), armour (B) (American: armor), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), counterattack (A) (British: counter-attack), any more (B) (American: anymore).

I would suggest that we use American spellings because the US Navy was a bigger participant than British/Commonwealth forces. Please object if you feel differently.

I have made a small start at the lead already, but it still needs expansion. Johntex\^talk 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Leyte_Gulf_8b3b.html"