text:
Talk:Spitzer Space Telescope

Spitzer for sale
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is seeking information from parties who are interested in operating the Spitzer Space Telescope using non-NASA funding, including defining and executing a Spitzer science program, beyond the timeframe of the NASA-funded mission.

Layout Question
I can't seem to get the image size right on the artist's concept in the box. Can anyone help out with this? It's filling my whole screen on the article page, but the image I uploaded, is only 250x180 pix. --zandperl 03:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Instrumentation
Does anyone know more about the instruments on Spitzer, much like the Hubble Space Telescope page has? --zandperl 00:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * See 2nd para of Don Barry comment a few below - Rod57 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 * MIPS 160 micron array is actually a 2x20 array. See http://mips.as.arizona.edu/mipspage/instrument_f.html for full description of MIPS instrumentation.  --AmberRobot 09:47, 14 Aug 2004 (CST)

 * NO plain and simple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.143.42 (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Orbit
From what I can infer, the Spitzer orbit is not truly at L5, but is attracted toward L5. I believe L5 itself is rather dirty, and may not be well suited for an observatory. The only authoritative orbit detail says it is moving away from the earth at 0.1AU per year:

http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/about/orbit.shtml

I added a bit more text to describe this, but did not delete the reference to L5 in the table. 04:16, 28 May 2004 12.64.126.134

 * As Spitzer's orbit is heliocentric, changed "Satellite of:" in infobox from Earth to Sun. Harperska 21:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Don Barry
To the commentator above -- Spitzer's orbit is not taking it towards an Earth resonance point; it truly is a heliocentric orbit which lags Earth's by about 1/60 orbit per year, i.e. in 60 years (the synodic period of the two) it will catch up to Earth again.

There is no propulsion capability on the spacecraft other than a quite limited dry-nitrogen system intended for occasional angular momentum dumps off the reaction wheels, so there was no intent to "aim" it anywhere except in a low-precision trajectory. The spacecraft radio antenna is not steerable, so pointing in the daily data dumps is done by slewing the entire telescope -- eventually the orbit will move so far from Earth so that this maneuver would require spilling sunlight over the shielding solar panels onto the telescope itself -- this will not take place until several years after cryogen exhaustion and effective end of mission, however.

To the commentator far above -- Spitzer contains three "instrument packages", designated IRAC (infrared array camera) built by Harvard, consisting of four 256x256 detectors sampling 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, and 8.0 microns (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/oir/Research/irac/firstpage.html), the MIPS (multiband imaging photometer) package built by the University of Arizona, consisting of a 128x128 24 micron camera, a 32x32 70 micron camera, and a 2x20 160 micron camera (http://mips.as.arizona.edu/MIPS/Home.html) and the IRS (InfraRed Spectrograph) package built by Cornell, consisting of four spectrometers, two low resolution (resolution of roughly R=100, 5-15, 15-38 microns), and two high resolution (R=600, 10-20, 19-37 microns) modules. The low resolution modules are long slit instruments providing spatial as well as spectral resolution. Currently, as of February 2006, about 50% of the requested observing time is for spectroscopic observations.

Don Barry, Spitzer Space Telescope IRS Instrument Team, Cornell University 01:54, 2 March 2006 24.59.116.16

 * Anyone object to splitting Dons comment between the two sections he's responding to ? Should be easier to read - It might make future archiving easier too - Rod57 (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Challenger Disaster
Challenger disaster? Isn't it supposed to be Columbia? I mean, the SST was launched after 2000, no?

 * The planning for the Spitzer Space Telescope took decades. At one point, it was called the Shuttle Infrared Telescope Facility, and it was supposed to operate in the cargo bay of the Space Shuttle.  If my memory serves me right, a decision was made prior to the 1986 Challenger disaster to make the telescope free-flying, although I recall seeing nothing about whether it would be launched from the Space Shuttle or on its own rocket.  By the time the 2003 Columbia disaster occurred, Spitzer was being prepared to launch on a Delta II rocket.  I don't recall that the Columbia disaster had any impact on the launch or the program.  George J. Bendo 08:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

f/12
"The primary mirror is 85 cm in diameter, f/12 and made of beryllium and cooled to 5.5 K." In this case, what does f/12 mean? I think that should be clarified/linked. --Eyrian 12:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I added a short explanation. 193.171.121.30 18:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

 * My guess is that it is the "effective focal ratio" since it is a RC design. mcsew2k 71.189.241.42 12:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 * If Eyrian had done some research on focal lengths, he would not have asked us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explodingstar (talk • contribs) 09:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Collecting Area
A circle of 85 cm diameter has got an area of no more than 0.57 m2, and part of it is occluded by the secondary mirror. Therefore the 2.3 m2 collecting area was wrong. I changed it to 0.5 m2, but this is only a guess because I don't know the exact size of the secondary mirror. 193.171.121.30 18:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Spitzer space telescope → Spitzer Space Telescope – {It's the propor name} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Done. — Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 22:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

HD 209458 b

 * "As one of its most noteworthy observations, in 2005, SST became the first to directly capture the light from extrasolar planets; the "hot Jupiter" planets HD 209458b and TrES-1 respectively."

Would it be possible to find one of these images and include in the article? I looked, and couldn't find them at NASA's site, or the Spitzer site hosted at Caltech. --Eyrian 10:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The wording in the article may be somewhat misleading and I am planning to change it. The Spitzer did indeed directly capture the light from the planets, but it did not (and could not) resolve that light into an actual image.Kevin Nelson 13:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pixelage
Is the camera resolution not far too low? -- maxrspct  in the mud  00:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure which instrument you mean, but the numbers in the "Instrument" section are correct. It gets more and more difficult to build detector arrays at longer wavelengths.  At 160µm for example, each pixel is a little chunk of Ge, about 1 mm3, which must be held individually  in a tiny vice and squeezed to around half its shatter stress, then lined up, in two rows of twenty, the rows spaced one pixel-width apart to allow room for the vices, and then kept at about 6 K in liquid He.  To make a complete filled image, one must move the field of view a little and take another exposure to supply the missing row of pixels.  Also, the optical resolution gets worse in proportion as the wavelength gets longer (for the telescope's 85 cm primary mirror). The pixels at each wavelength are sized with that in mind, being no smaller than necessary to match the optical response.  Wwheaton (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I made an edit/deleted text
While reading this article I found this text was added: "Spitzer is a kid in my school who likes penis penis penis penis penis and more penis. And takes it up the butt :[" and I made the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.64.119 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to ask or remark about this sort of thing. It happens constantly; just revert and leave a comment in the edit summary (for the page history), as seems appropriate. Wwheaton (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Total cost of Spitzer at launch
I read the statement that the cost of Spitzer was $800M but the SpaceflightNow article cited claims only $670M. It is also not clear if it is the cost of just the payload or including the cost of launching it. Is that the $130M difference?

mcsew2k 71.189.241.42 12:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits
Removed "In keeping with NASA tradition, " from before "The telescope was renamed after successful demonstration of operation, on December 18, 2003."

I don't believe this is a NASA tradition; I don't recall Hubble having a different name before launch. The James Webb Space Telescope was renamed from NGST a long way ahead of launch. The only other example I can think of is MAP being renamed WMAP, but even that was a modification of the name rather than a rename.

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will put it back.

The *Japanese* certainly do rename their satellites once they are up in orbit and working.

AdamW (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 * This has been a well-established NASA tradition, though not universally followed. The Explorer program satellites often got names after launch, and the Small Astronomy Satellite series (themselves Explorers), SAS-1, SAS-2, and SAS-3, was an early example; SAS-1 was renamed Uhuru after launch in 1970.  The Orbiting Solar Observatory (OSO) series were given letter designations before launch, and numbered after; eg, OSO H became OSO 7 in 1971.  Similarly HEAO A, B, & C became HEAO 1, Einstein Observatory, and HEAO 3 respectively.  In earlier times only especially successful missions got proper names, like Einstein.  HST was originally the LST, the "Large Space Telescope", Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory was just GRO, Chandra was AXAF, and Spitzer was SIRTF.  Naming a mission before a successful launch is unusual.  The idea seemingly has been not to honor failed missions with official names.  Wwheaton (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed (SST) as telescope acronym. When Spitzer got its name, the mandate from NASA HQ was specifically that it was NEVER to be referred to as "SST" because of potential confusion with Supersonic_transport (the supersonic planes which, at that point, had been recently decommissioned). If you look on the Spitzer public and science sites, you will only find "Spitzer" as an abbreviation, never SST. Mharbut (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Changed "first images taken by Spitzer" to "first released images." There were a large number of initial observations from which images were selected the nicest to be used in press releases.Mharbut (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Added some references to observatory and instrument scientific and technical information
I just added a bunch of references to the Spitzer Science Center's (SSC) web sites at Caltech (IPAC), mostly intended for astronomers and other scientists, but with much more extensive and reliable information than the various media references we mainly have. The main shortcoming of these is that the links are liable to change a bit from time to time. The most reliable permanent information is of course in the science archival literature, but that is not so easily available to most people who are not connected to a university or other professional institution. However, digging up these archival references and putting them in is a chore that needs to be done as the Spitzer Project begins to wind down, what with liquid He exhaustion, etc. There was an issue of the Astrophysical Journal ("ApJ", Supplement series) devoted to Spitzer, issued a year or so after launch that had much of the basic information, which has mostly not changed since. (I should note that even the ApJ web sites seem to have changed now that the University of Chicago Press is no longer the publisher of the ApJ, since the Institute of Physics (IoP) took over that contract.) Anyhow, I will try to dig out and add that ref to the article asap if someone else does not beat me to it. (WP:COI note: I have been at the IPAC SSC, working on MIPS, for the past several years.) Wwheaton (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nitrogen exhaustion
Is nitrogen exhaustion likely to be what ends the warm mission ? How much nitrogen is left and how long is it likely to last ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Is that what will end the mission? Its not clear when the mission will end. Ottawakismet (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Which channels can still be used
Article says only the 3.6u and 4.5u of IRAC are now in use, but recent image released by NASA June 2011 says it uses IRAC 3.6 and 8.0, and MIPS 24u. Which is correct, or is the 24u image years old ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's make a Good article!
Hello. I thought, that we can bring this article to a good article status. Let's take this challenge! Friy Man talk 08:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Attitude and pointing control
Would be nice to find refs to describe how it daily turns to earth to send data, keeps the sun shade to the sun, and turns to astronomical targets. What direction is the fixed communication dish pointing ? Maybe its directly away from its viewing direction ? How fast can it slew ? Is it restricted to targets in the plane tangential to its orbit - if so it might have to wait 6 months to view some targets. How are its sensing gyros holding up ? and its reaction wheels ? Have they found any new ways to unload the reaction wheels without using nitrogen gas (hard without movable solar panels?) ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

End of life - costs - future communications
says it costs $14 m pa to operate, and after about 2020 it will be further from earth and hard or impossible to communicate with. - Could mention ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Animation of Spitzer's Orbit Relative to Earth
This animated gif is very misleading and probably shouldn't be in this article. While the coordinates with respect to Earth may be technically correct, the gif feeds into a massive misconception that Spitzer orbits Earth, which it doesn't. Spitzer orbits the Sun like Earth does; it just slowly trails away from Earth with time. The following video explains several different infrared telescopes including Spitzer (2:00 to about 9:30 is relevant to this discussion): Crash Course in IR missions.

To be really clear, “Earth is stationary” doesn't mean just “fixed in its orbit” but also “fixed in its diurnal rotation”. So it really is *really* fixed in this animation, and it’s mind-bending to understand what is actually plotted. Upon seeing this, too many people will just assume that Spitzer orbits Earth, which isn’t correct. Mharbut (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes - the animation is confusing and unhelpful. Can't we just say how many degrees Spitzer falls behind Earth each year ? A plot of annual relative position around Earths orbit would be nice ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

No mention of the attempt to observe 'omuamua
Spitzer's failure to see 'Oumuamua seemed to eliminate some possible sizes and material combinations. Surely significant - especially that Spitzer was used so near to its retirement ? What was the 2nd choice telescope for IR observations ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Not the 3rd IR mission
The Widefield InfraRed Explorer (WIRE) was launched in 1999. It's cryogen leaked on launch so it never did any specialist IR work, but the wording at the moment is not correct, because Spitzer was the 4th to *launch* if WIRE is included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.252.42 (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Spitzer Space Telescope


text:
Olivier Le Jeune

Olivier Le Jeune (died May 10, 1654) was the first recorded slave purchased in New France.

Background
Olivier was a young boy from Madagascar, believed to have been approximately seven years of age when he was brought to the French colonial settlement of Quebec in New France by Scottish privateer David Kirke or one of his brothers, Lewis and Thomas Kirke during their capture of the settlement on behalf of the English Crown. Shortly afterwards, the boy was sold to Olivier Le Baillif, a French clerk in the pay of the expeditionary force which captured the settlement.

When Quebec was handed back to the French in 1632, Le Baillif left the colony and gave his slave to a Quebec resident, Guillemette Couillard. The boy was educated in a school established by the Jesuit priest, Fr Le Jeune. In 1632, the boy said to Father Le Jeune: "You say that by baptism I shall be like you: I am black and you are white, I must have my skin taken off to be like you." Nevertheless, Fr Le Jeune baptised him as Olivier in 1633, after the colony's head clerk, Olivier Letardif. Olivier later adopted the name Le Jeune, the surname of the Jesuit priest.

Olivier Le Jeune died on 10 May 1654. It is believed that by the time of his death his official status was changed from that of slave to that of free "domestic servant".

Although he is often referred to as a black African from Madagascar, he may have been of partial Malay ancestry, which would have been quite common owing to the fact that Madagascar had been originally settled by diverse peoples of Southeast Asia and Oceania as well as Africa.

Le Jeune was designated a National Historic Person by Parks Canada in 2022. A commemorative plaque is located at Cartier-Brébeuf National Historic Site, 175 de l'Espinay Street, Québec.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Olivier Le Jeune


text:
List of Nintendo 64 games

The Nintendo 64 home video game console's library of games were primarily released in a plastic ROM cartridge called the Game Pak. This strategic choice of high-performance but lower-capacity medium was met with some controversy compared to CD-ROM. Two small indentations on the back of each cartridge allow it to connect or pass through the system's cartridge dustcover flaps. All regions have the same connectors, and region-locked cartridges will fit into the other regions' systems by using a cartridge converter or by simply removing the cartridge's casing. However, the systems are also equipped with lockout chips that will only allow them to play their appropriate games. Both Japanese and North American systems have the same NTSC lockout, and Europe has a PAL lockout. A bypass device such as the N64 Passport or the Datel Action Replay can be used to play import games, but a few require an additional boot code.

The Nintendo 64 was first launched in Japan on June 23, 1996, with Super Mario 64, Pilotwings 64, and Saikyō Habu Shōgi; in North America with Super Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64; and in Europe with Super Mario 64, Pilotwings 64, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire, and Turok: Dinosaur Hunter. The final first-party games are Dōbutsu no Mori on April 14, 2001, in Japan, and Mario Party 3 on May 7, 2001, in North America. The final licensed game to be published for the system is the North American exclusive Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 on August 20, 2002. The best-selling game is Super Mario 64 with 11 million units. The total unit sales of Nintendo 64 software has exceeded the total unit sales of GameCube software, but it has the lowest software sales per console sold among all Nintendo consoles.

There are  games listed below. This list is initially organized by either the game's English language title, or the Hepburn romanization of Japan-only releases. All English titles are listed first, followed by alternate titles, and there are no unofficial translations. Games for the 64DD peripheral and the Aleck 64 arcade system are not included in this list. For games that were announced or in development for the Nintendo 64, but never released, see the list of cancelled Nintendo 64 games.

title: List of Nintendo 64 games


text:
Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré

Juanita Westmoreland-Traore, (born March 10, 1942) is the first black judge in the history of Quebec. She is also the first black dean of a law school (the University of Windsor Faculty of Law) in Canada's history.

Early life and education
Westmoreland-Traoré was born in Verdun, now part of Montreal, Quebec, in 1942, the daughter of immigrants from Guyana. She studied at Marianopolis College, and subsequently obtained a law degree from the Université de Montréal (1966) and a doctorate from the University of Paris.

Career
She was called to the Quebec Bar in 1969, and began practising law in 1970 with the law firm of Mergler, Melançon. She has also been a member of the Ontario Bar since 1997. During the 1970s, Westmoreland-Traoré taught at the Université de Montréal from 1972 to 1976, and from 1976 to 1991 at the Université du Québec à Montréal. In 1990, Westmoreland-Traoré was an arbitrator to the Human Rights Tribunal of Quebec. Westmoreland-Traoré was also a member of the Office de protection des consommateurs du Québec from 1979 to 1983. From 1983 to 1985, she was a Commissioner for the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In 1985, she became the first chair of Quebec's Council on Cultural Communities and Immigration.

From 1991 to 1995, she was Employment Equity Commissioner of Ontario. In this role, she set up support to monitor the introduction of employment equity planning to seventeen thousand Ontario businesses. From 1996 to 1999 she was the dean of the University of Windsor's law faculty. She was appointed a Judge of the Court of Quebec for the District of Montreal in 1999.

Honours and awards
In 1991, she was made an Officer of the National Order of Quebec. Westmoreland-Traoré has received other awards, including from Canadian Jewish Congress, the Montreal Association of Black Business Persons and Professionals, and the Canadian Bar Association. In 2008, she was awarded the Quebec Human Rights Commission's Rights and Liberties Prize for her career-long fight against discrimination. In 2021, she received the Medal of the Barreau de Montréal.

In March 2013, Université du Québec à Montréal's Département des sciences juridiques founded the Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré scholarship. The $3000 scholarship is to be awarded annually to a single undergraduate law student who uses their training to promote human rights, social justice and equality. Sameer Zuberi, a human rights advocate of ten years, was the bursary's first recipient in April 2014.

Westmoreland-Traoré received honorary doctorates from University of Ottawa in 1993, Université du Québec à Montréal in 2001, and McGill University in 2018.

title: Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré


text:
Battle of Savo Island

The Battle of Savo Island, also known as the First Battle of Savo Island and in Japanese sources as the First Battle of the Solomon Sea (第一次ソロモン海戦), and colloquially among Allied Guadalcanal veterans as the Battle of the Five Sitting Ducks, was a naval battle of the Solomon Islands campaign of the Pacific War of World War II between the Imperial Japanese Navy and Allied naval forces. The battle took place on 8–9 August 1942 and was the first major naval engagement of the Guadalcanal campaign and the first of several naval battles in the straits later named Ironbottom Sound, near the island of Guadalcanal.

The Imperial Japanese Navy, in response to Allied amphibious landings in the eastern Solomon Islands, mobilized a task force of seven cruisers and one destroyer under the command of Vice Admiral Gunichi Mikawa. The task forces sailed from Japanese bases in New Britain and New Ireland down New Georgia Sound (also known as "The Slot") with the intention of interrupting the Allied landings by attacking the supporting amphibious fleet and its screening force. The Allied screen consisted of eight cruisers and fifteen destroyers under Rear Admiral Victor Crutchley, but only five cruisers and seven destroyers were involved in the battle. In a night action, Mikawa thoroughly surprised and routed the Allied force, sinking one Australian and three American cruisers, while suffering only light damage in return. Rear Admiral Samuel J. Cox, director of the Naval History and Heritage Command, considers this battle and the Battle of Tassafaronga to be two of the worst defeats in U.S. naval history, with only the attack on Pearl Harbor being worse.

After the initial engagement, Mikawa, fearing Allied carrier strikes against his fleet in daylight, decided to withdraw under cover of night rather than attempt to locate and destroy the Allied invasion transports. The Japanese attacks prompted the remaining Allied warships and the amphibious force to withdraw earlier than planned (before unloading all supplies), temporarily ceding control of the seas around Guadalcanal to the Japanese. This early withdrawal of the fleet left the Allied ground forces (primarily United States Marines), which had landed on Guadalcanal and nearby islands only two days before, in a precarious situation with limited supplies, equipment, and food to hold their beachhead.

Mikawa's decision to withdraw under cover of night rather than attempt to destroy the Allied invasion transports was primarily founded on concern over possible Allied carrier strikes against his fleet in daylight. In reality, the Allied carrier fleet, similarly fearing Japanese attack, had already withdrawn beyond operational range. This missed opportunity to cripple (rather than interrupt) the supply of Allied forces on Guadalcanal contributed to Japan's failure to recapture the island. At this critical early stage of the campaign, it allowed the Allied forces to entrench and fortify themselves sufficiently to defend the area around Henderson Field until additional Allied reinforcements arrived later in the year.

The battle was the first of five costly, large-scale sea and air-sea actions fought in support of the ground battles on Guadalcanal, as the Japanese sought to counter the American offensive in the Pacific. These sea battles took place after increasing delays by each side to regroup and refit, until the 30 November 1942 Battle of Tassafaronga—after which the Japanese, eschewing the costly losses, attempted resupplying by submarine and barges. The final naval battle, the Battle of Rennell Island, took place months later on 29–30 January 1943, by which time the Japanese were preparing to evacuate their remaining land forces and withdraw.

Operations at Guadalcanal
On 7 August 1942 Allied forces (primarily U.S. Marines) landed on Guadalcanal, Tulagi, and Florida Island in the eastern Solomon Islands. The landings were meant to deny their use to the Japanese as bases, especially the nearly completed airfield at Henderson Field that was being constructed on Guadalcanal. If Japanese air and sea forces were allowed to establish forward operating bases in the eastern Solomons, they would be in a position to threaten the supply shipping routes between the U.S. and Australia. The Allies also wanted to use the islands as launching points for a campaign to recapture the Solomons, isolate or capture the major Japanese base at Rabaul, and support the Allied New Guinea campaign, which was then building strength under General Douglas MacArthur. The landings initiated the six-month-long Guadalcanal campaign.

The overall commander of Allied naval forces in the Guadalcanal and Tulagi operation was U.S. Vice Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher. He also commanded the carrier task groups providing air cover. U.S. Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner commanded the amphibious fleet that delivered the 16,000 Allied troops to Guadalcanal and Tulagi. Also under Turner was Rear Admiral Victor Crutchley's screening force of eight cruisers, fifteen destroyers, and five minesweepers. This force was to protect Turner's ships and provide gunfire support for the landings. Crutchley commanded his force of mostly American ships from his flagship, the Australian heavy cruiser HMAS Australia (D84).

The Allied landings took the Japanese by surprise. The Allies secured Tulagi, nearby islets Gavutu and Tanambogo, and the airfield under construction on Guadalcanal by nightfall on 8 August. On 7–8 August Japanese aircraft based at Rabaul attacked the Allied amphibious forces several times, setting afire the U.S. transport ship USS George F. Elliott (AP-13) (which sank later) and heavily damaging the destroyer USS Jarvis (DD-393). In these air attacks, the Japanese lost 36 aircraft, while the U.S. lost 19 aircraft, including 14 carrier-based fighter aircraft.

Concerned over the losses to his carrier fighter aircraft strength, anxious about the threat to his carriers from further Japanese air attacks, and worried about his ships' fuel levels, Fletcher announced that he would withdraw his carrier task forces on the evening of 8 August. Some historians contend that Fletcher's fuel situation was not at all critical but that Fletcher used it to justify his withdrawal from the battle area. Fletcher's biographer notes that Fletcher concluded that the landing was a success and that no important targets for close air support were at hand. Being concerned over the loss of 21 of his carrier fighters, he assessed that his carriers were threatened by torpedo-bomber strikes and wanting to refuel before Japanese naval forces arrived, he withdrew as he had previously forewarned Turner and Vandegrift. Turner, however, believed that Fletcher understood that he was to provide air cover until all the transports were unloaded on 9 August.

Even though the unloading was going more slowly than planned, Turner decided that without carrier air cover, he would have to withdraw his ships from Guadalcanal. He planned to unload as much as possible during the night and depart the next day.

Japanese response
Unprepared for the Allied operation at Guadalcanal, the initial Japanese response included airstrikes and an attempted reinforcement. Mikawa, commander of the newly formed Japanese Eighth Fleet headquartered at Rabaul, loaded 519 naval troops on two transports and sent them towards Guadalcanal on 7 August. When the Japanese learned that Allied forces at Guadalcanal were stronger than originally reported, the transports were recalled.

Mikawa also assembled all the available warships in the area to attack the Allied forces at Guadalcanal. At Rabaul were the heavy Takao-class cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Chōkai (Mikawa's flagship), the light cruisers JAPANESE CRUISER Tenryū of Cruiser Division 18 and JAPANESE CRUISER Yūbari and the destroyer JAPANESE DESTROYER Yūnagi. En route from Kavieng were four heavy cruisers of Cruiser Division 6 under Rear Admiral Aritomo Goto: the Aoba-class cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Aoba and JAPANESE CRUISER Kinugasa and the Furutaka-class cruiser JAPANESE CRUISER Furutaka and JAPANESE CRUISER Kako, totaling 34 8-inch main guns.

The Japanese Navy had trained extensively in night-fighting tactics before the war, a fact of which the Allies were unaware. Mikawa hoped to engage the Allied naval forces off Guadalcanal and Tulagi on the night of 8–9 August when he could employ his night-battle expertise while avoiding attacks from Allied aircraft, which could not operate effectively at night. Mikawa's warships rendezvoused at sea near Cape St. George in the evening of 7 August and then headed east-southeast.

Prelude

Mikawa decided to take his fleet north of Buka Island and then down the east coast of Bougainville. The fleet paused east of Kieta for six hours on the morning of 8 August to avoid daytime air attacks during its final approach to Guadalcanal. Mikawa proceeded along the dangerous New Georgia Sound (known as "The Slot"), hoping that no Allied plane would see them in the fading light. The Japanese fleet was in fact sighted in St George Channel, where the column almost ran into USS S-38 (SS-143), lying in ambush. She was too close to fire torpedoes, but her captain, Lieutenant Commander Henry G. Munson alerted the fleet. Once at Bougainville, Mikawa spread his ships out over a wide area to mask the composition of his force and launched four floatplanes from his cruisers to scout for Allied ships in the southern Solomons.

At 10:20 and 11:10, his ships were spotted by Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Lockheed Hudson reconnaissance aircraft based at Milne Bay in New Guinea. The Hudson's crew tried to report the sighting to the Allied radio station at Fall River, New Guinea. Receiving no acknowledgment, they returned to Milne Bay at 12:42 to ensure that the report was received as soon as possible. The second Hudson also failed to report its sighting by radio but completed its patrol and landed at Milne Bay at 15:00. For unknown reasons, these reports were not relayed to the Allied fleet off Guadalcanal until 18:45 and 21:30, respectively. U.S. official historian Samuel Morison wrote in his 1949 account that the RAAF Hudson's crew failed to report the sighting until after they had landed and even had tea. This claim made international headlines and was repeated by many subsequent historians. Later research has discredited this version of events, and in 2014, the U.S. Navy's Naval History and Heritage Command acknowledged in a letter to the Hudson's radio operator, who had lobbied for decades to clear his crewmates' name, that Morison's criticisms were "unwarranted."

Mikawa's floatplanes returned around 12:00 and reported two groups of Allied ships, one off Guadalcanal and the other off Tulagi. By 13:00, he reassembled his warships and headed south through Bougainville Strait at 24 kn. At 13:45, the cruiser force was near Choiseul southeast of Bougainville. At that time, several surviving Japanese aircraft from the noon torpedo raid on the Allied ships off the coast of Guadalcanal flew over the cruisers on the way back to Rabaul and gave them waves of encouragement. Mikawa entered The Slot by 16:00 and began his run towards Guadalcanal. He communicated the following battle plan to his warships: "On the rush-in we will go from S. (south) of Savo Island and torpedo the enemy main force in front of Guadalcanal anchorage; after which we will turn toward the Tulagi forward area to shell and torpedo the enemy. We will then withdraw north of Savo Island."

Mikawa's run down The Slot was not detected by Allied forces. Turner had requested that U.S. Admiral John S. McCain Sr., commander of Allied air forces for the South Pacific Area, conduct extra reconnaissance missions over The Slot in the afternoon of 8 August. But for unexplained reasons McCain did not order the missions nor did he tell Turner that they were not carried out. Thus, Turner mistakenly believed that The Slot was under Allied observation throughout the day. However, McCain cannot totally bear fault as his patrol craft were few in number and operated over a vast area at the extreme limit of their endurance. Turner had fifteen scouting planes of the cruiser force, which were never used that afternoon and remained on the decks of their cruisers, filled with gasoline and serving as an explosive hazard to the cruisers.

To protect the unloading transports during the night, Crutchley divided the Allied warship forces into three groups. A "southern" group, consisting of the Australian cruisers HMAS Australia and HMAS Canberra (D33), cruiser USS Chicago (CA-29), and destroyers USS Patterson (DD-392) and USS Bagley (DD-386), patrolled between Lunga Point and Savo Island to block the entrance between Savo Island and Cape Esperance on Guadalcanal. A "northern" group, consisting of the cruisers USS Vincennes (CA-44), USS Astoria (CA-34) and USS Quincy (CA-39), and destroyers USS Helm (DD-388) and USS Wilson (DD-408), conducted a box-shaped patrol between the Tulagi anchorage and Savo Island to defend the passage between Savo and Florida Islands. An "eastern" group consisting of the cruisers USS San Juan (CL-54) and HMAS Hobart (1939) with destroyers USS Monssen and USS Buchanan guarded the eastern entrances to the sound between Florida and Guadalcanal Islands. Crutchley placed two radar-equipped U.S. destroyers to the west of Savo Island to provide early warning for any approaching Japanese ships. The destroyer USS Ralph Talbot (DD-390) patrolled the northern passage and the destroyer USS Blue (DD-387) patrolled the southern passage, with a gap of 12 – between their uncoordinated patrol patterns.

At this time, the Allies were unaware of all of the limitations of their primitive ship-borne radar, such as the effectiveness of the radar could be greatly degraded by the presence of nearby landmasses. Chicago's Captain Bode ordered his ship's radar to be used only intermittently out of concern that it would reveal his position, a decision that conformed with general Navy radar usage guidelines but which may have been incorrect in this specific circumstance. He allowed a single sweep every half hour with the fire control radar, but the timing of the last pre-engagement sweep was too early to detect the approaching Japanese cruisers. Wary of the potential threat from Japanese submarines to the transport ships, Crutchley placed his remaining seven destroyers as close-in protection around the two transport anchorages.

The crews of the Allied ships were fatigued after two days of constant alert and action in supporting the landings. Also, the weather was extremely hot and humid, inducing further fatigue and, in Morison's words, "inviting weary sailors to slackness." In response, most of Crutchley's warships went to "Condition II" the night of 8 August, which meant that half the crews were on duty while the other half rested, either in their bunks or near their battle stations.

In the evening, Turner called a conference on his command ship off Guadalcanal with Crutchley and Marine commander Major General Alexander A. Vandegrift to discuss the departure of Fletcher's carriers and the resulting withdrawal schedule for the transport ships. At 20:55, Crutchley left the southern group in Australia to attend the conference, leaving Bode in charge of the southern group. Crutchley did not inform the commanders of the other cruiser groups of his absence, contributing further to the dissolution of command arrangements. Bode, awakened from sleep in his cabin, decided not to place his ship in the lead of the southern group of ships, the customary place for the senior ship, and went back to sleep. At the conference, Turner, Crutchley, and Vandegrift discussed the reports of the "seaplane tender" force reported by the Australian Hudson crew earlier that day. They decided that it would not be a threat that night, because seaplane tenders did not normally engage in a surface action. Vandegrift said that he would need to inspect the transport unloading situation at Tulagi before recommending a withdrawal time for the transport ships, and he departed at midnight to conduct the inspection. Crutchley elected not to return with Australia to the southern force but instead stationed his ship just outside the Guadalcanal transport anchorage, without informing the other Allied ship commanders of his intentions or location.

As Mikawa's force neared the Guadalcanal area, the Japanese ships launched three floatplanes for one final reconnaissance of the Allied ships, and to provide illumination by dropping flares during the upcoming battle. Although several of the Allied ships heard and/or observed one or more of these floatplanes, starting at 23:45, none of them interpreted the presence of unknown aircraft in the area as an actionable threat, and no one reported the sightings to Crutchley or Turner. Mikawa's force approached in a single 3 km column led by Chōkai, with Aoba, Kako, Kinugasa, Furutaka, Tenryū, Yūbari, and Yūnagi following. Sometime between 00:44 and 00:54 on 9 August, lookouts in Mikawa's ships spotted Blue about 9 km ahead of the Japanese column.

Action south of Savo
To avoid Blue, Mikawa changed course to pass north of Savo Island. He also ordered his ships to slow to 22 kn to reduce wakes that might make his ships more visible. Mikawa's lookouts spied either Ralph Talbot about 16 km away or a small schooner of unknown nationality. The Japanese ships held their course while pointing more than 50 guns at Blue, ready to open fire at the first indication that Blue had sighted them. When Blue was less than 2 km away from Mikawa's force, she reversed course, having reached the end of her patrol track, and steamed away, apparently oblivious to the long column of large Japanese ships sailing by her. Seeing that his ships were still undetected, Mikawa turned back to a course south of Savo Island and increased speed, first to 26 kn, and then to 30 kn. At 01:25, Mikawa released his ships to operate independently of his flagship, and at 01:31 he ordered "Every ship attack."

At about this time, Yūnagi detached from the Japanese column and reversed direction, perhaps because she lost sight of the other Japanese ships ahead of her, or perhaps she was ordered to provide a rearguard for Mikawa's force. One minute later, Japanese lookouts sighted a warship to port. This ship was the destroyer USS Jarvis (DD-393), heavily damaged the day before and departing Guadalcanal independently for repairs in Australia. Whether Jarvis sighted the Japanese ships is unknown, since her radios had been destroyed. Furutaka launched torpedoes at Jarvis, which all missed. The Japanese ships passed as close to Jarvis as 1,100 m, close enough for officers on Tenryū to look down onto the destroyer's decks without seeing any of her crew moving about. If Jarvis was aware of the Japanese ships passing by, she did not respond in any noticeable way and was torpedoed and sunk the following day by aircraft from Rabaul. There were no survivors.

After sighting Jarvis, the Japanese lookouts sighted the Allied destroyers and cruisers of the southern force about 12,500 m away, silhouetted by the glow from the burning George F. Elliott. At about 01:38, the Japanese cruisers began launching salvos of torpedoes at the Allied southern force ships. At this same time, lookouts on Chōkai spotted the ships of the Allied northern force at a range of 16 km. Chōkai turned to face this new threat, and the rest of the Japanese column followed, while still preparing to engage the Allied southern force ships with gunfire.

Patterson's crew was alert because the destroyer's captain had taken seriously the earlier daytime sightings of Japanese warships and evening sightings of unknown aircraft. At 01:43, Patterson spotted a ship, probably Kinugasa, 5,000 m dead ahead and immediately sent a warning by radio and signal lamp: "Warning! Warning! Strange ships entering the harbor!" Patterson increased speed to full and fired star shells towards the Japanese column. Her captain ordered a torpedo attack, but his order was not heard over the noise from the destroyer's guns.

At about the same moment that Patterson sighted the Japanese ships and went into action, Japanese floatplanes dropped aerial flares directly over Canberra and Chicago. Canberra responded with Captain Frank Getting ordering an increase in speed and a reversal of an initial turn to port, which kept Canberra between the Japanese and the Allied transports, and for her guns to train out and fire at any targets that could be sighted. As Canberra's guns took aim at the Japanese, Chōkai and Furutaka opened fire on her, scoring numerous hits. Aoba and Kako joined in with gunfire, and Canberra took up to 24 large-caliber hits. Early hits killed her gunnery officer, mortally wounded Getting, and destroyed both boiler rooms, knocking out power to the entire ship before Canberra could fire any of her guns or communicate a warning to other Allied ships. The cruiser glided to a stop, on fire, with a 5- to 10-degree list to starboard, and unable to fight the fires or pump out flooded compartments because of lack of power.

The crew of Chicago, observing the illumination of their ship by air-dropped flares and the sudden turn by Canberra in front of them, came alert and awakened Captain Bode. Bode ordered his 5 in guns to fire star shells towards the Japanese column, but the shells did not function. At 01:47, a torpedo, probably from Kako, hit Chicago's bow, sending a shock wave throughout the ship that damaged the main battery director. A second torpedo hit but failed to explode, and a shell hit the cruiser's mainmast, killing two crewmen. Chicago steamed west for 40 minutes, leaving behind the transports she was assigned to protect. The cruiser fired her secondary batteries at the trailing ships in the Japanese column and may have hit Tenryū, causing slight damage. Bode did not try to assert control over any of the other Allied ships in the southern force, of which he was still technically in command. More significantly, Bode made no attempt to warn any of the other Allied ships or personnel in the Guadalcanal area as his ship headed away from the battle area.

Patterson engaged in a gun duel with the Japanese column. Patterson received a shell hit aft, causing moderate damage and killing 10 crew members. Patterson continued to pursue and fire at the Japanese ships and may have hit Kinugasa, causing moderate damage. Patterson then lost sight of the Japanese column as it headed northeast along the eastern shore of Savo Island. Bagley, whose crew sighted the Japanese shortly after Patterson and Canberra, circled completely around to port before firing torpedoes in the general direction of the rapidly disappearing Japanese column; one or two of which may have hit Canberra. Bagley played no further role in the battle. Yūnagi exchanged non-damaging gunfire with Jarvis before exiting the battle area to the west with the intention of eventually rejoining the Japanese column north and west of Savo Island.

At 01:44, as Mikawa's ships headed towards the Allied northern force, Tenryū and Yūbari split from the rest of the Japanese column and took a more westward course. Furutaka, either because of a steering problem, or to avoid a possible collision with Canberra, followed Yūbari and Tenryū. Thus, the Allied northern force was about to be enveloped and attacked from two sides.

Action north of Savo
When Mikawa's ships attacked the Allied southern force, the captains of all three U.S. northern force cruisers were asleep, with their ships steaming quietly at 10 kn. Although crewmen on all three ships observed flares or gunfire from the battle south of Savo or else received Patterson's warning of threatening ships entering the area, it took some time for the crews to go from Condition II to full alert. At 01:44, the Japanese cruisers began firing torpedoes at the northern force. At 01:50, they aimed powerful searchlights at the three northern cruisers and opened fire with their guns.

Astoria's bridge crew called general quarters upon sighting the flares south of Savo, around 01:49. At 01:52, shortly after the Japanese searchlights came on and shells began falling around the ship, Astoria's main gun director crews spotted the Japanese cruisers and opened fire. Astoria's captain, awakened to find his ship in action, rushed to the bridge and ordered a ceasefire, fearful that his ship might be firing on friendly forces. As shells continued to cascade around his ship, the captain ordered firing resumed less than a minute later. Chōkai had found the range, and Astoria was quickly hit by numerous shells and set afire. Between 02:00 and 02:15, Aoba, Kinugasa, and Kako joined Chōkai in pounding Astoria, destroying the cruiser's engine room and bringing the flaming ship to a halt. At 02:16, one of Astorias remaining operational main gun turrets fired at Kinugasas searchlight but missed and hit one of Chōkai's forward turrets, putting the turret out of action and causing moderate damage to the ship. Astoria sank at 12:16 after all attempts to save her failed.

Quincy had also seen the aircraft flares over the southern ships, received Patterson's warning, and had just sounded general quarters and was coming alert when the searchlights from the Japanese column came on. Quincy's captain gave the order to commence firing, but the gun crews were not ready. Within a few minutes, Quincy was caught in a crossfire between Aoba, Furutaka, and Tenryū, and was hit heavily and set afire. Quincy's captain ordered his cruiser to charge towards the eastern Japanese column, but as she turned to do so Quincy was hit by two torpedoes from Tenryū, causing severe damage. Quincy managed to fire a few main gun salvos, one of which hit Chōkai's chart room 6 m from Admiral Mikawa and killed or wounded 36 men, although Mikawa was not injured. At 02:10, incoming shells killed or wounded almost all of Quincy's bridge crew, including the captain. At 02:16, the cruiser was hit by a torpedo from Aoba, and the ship's remaining guns were silenced. Quincy's assistant gunnery officer, sent to the bridge to ask for instructions, reported on what he found:

"When I reached the bridge level, I found it a shambles of dead bodies with only three or four people still standing. In the Pilot House itself the only person standing was the signalman at the wheel who was vainly endeavoring to check the ship's swing to starboard to bring her to port. On questioning him I found out that the Captain, who at that time was laying [sic] near the wheel, had instructed him to beach the ship and he was trying to head for Savo Island, distant some four miles (6 km) on the port quarter. I stepped to the port side of the Pilot House, and looked out to find the island and noted that the ship was heeling rapidly to port, sinking by the bow. At that instant the Captain straightened up and fell back, apparently dead, without having uttered any sound other than a moan."

Quincy sank, bow first, at 02:38.

Like Quincy and Astoria, Vincennes also sighted the aerial flares to the south, and furthermore, actually sighted gunfire from the southern engagement. At 01:50, when the U.S. cruisers were illuminated by the Japanese searchlights, Vincennes hesitated to open fire, believing that the searchlight's source might be friendly ships. Kako opened fire on Vincennes which responded with her own gunfire at 01:53. As Vincennes began to receive damaging shell hits, her commander, Captain Frederick L. Riefkohl, ordered an increase of speed to 25 kn, but at 01:55 two torpedoes from Chōkai hit, causing heavy damage. Kinugasa joined Kako in pounding Vincennes. Vincennes scored one hit on Kinugasa causing moderate damage to her steering engines. The rest of the Japanese ships also fired and hit Vincennes up to 74 times, and at 02:03 another torpedo hit her, this time from Yūbari. With all boiler rooms destroyed, Vincennes came to a halt, burning "everywhere" and listing to port. At 02:16, Riefkohl ordered the crew to abandon ship, and Vincennes sank at 02:50.

During the engagement, the U.S. destroyers Helm and Wilson struggled to see the Japanese ships. Both destroyers briefly fired at Mikawa's cruisers but caused no damage and received no damage to themselves. At 02:16, the Japanese columns ceased fire on the northern Allied force as they moved out of range around the north side of Savo Island. Ralph Talbot encountered Furutaka, Tenryū, and Yūbari as they cleared Savo Island. The Japanese ships fixed Ralph Talbot with searchlights and hit her several times with gunfire, causing heavy damage, but Ralph Talbot escaped into a nearby rain squall, and the Japanese ships left her behind.

Mikawa's decision
At 02:16 Mikawa conferred with his staff about whether they should turn to continue the battle with the surviving Allied warships and try to sink the Allied transports in the two anchorages. Several factors influenced his ultimate decision. His ships were scattered and would take some time to regroup. His ships would need to reload their torpedo tubes, a labor-intensive task that would take some time. Mikawa also did not know the number and locations of any remaining Allied warships, and his ships had expended much of their ammunition.

More importantly, Mikawa had no air cover and believed that U.S. aircraft carriers were in the area. Mikawa was probably aware that the Japanese Navy had no more heavy cruisers in production and thus would be unable to replace any he might lose to air attack the next day if he remained near Guadalcanal. He was unaware that the U.S. carriers had withdrawn from the battle area and would not be a threat the next day. Although several of Mikawa's staff urged an attack on the Allied transports, the consensus was to withdraw from the battle area. Therefore, at 02:20, Mikawa ordered his ships to retire.

Allied

At 04:00 on 9 August, Patterson came alongside Canberra to assist the cruiser in fighting her fires. By 05:00, it appeared that the fires were almost under control, but Turner, who at this time intended to withdraw all Allied ships by 06:30, ordered the ship to be scuttled if she was not able to accompany the fleet. After the survivors were removed, the destroyers USS Selfridge (DD-357) and USS Ellet (DD-398) sank Canberra, which took some 300 shells and five torpedoes.

Later in the morning, Vandegrift advised Turner that he needed more supplies unloaded from the transports before they withdrew. Therefore, Turner postponed the withdrawal of his ships until mid-afternoon. In the meantime, Astoria's crew tried to save their sinking ship. Astoria's fires eventually became completely out of control, and the ship sank at 12:15.

On the morning of 9 August, an Australian coastwatcher on Bougainville radioed a warning of a Japanese airstrike on the way from Rabaul. The Allied transport crews ceased unloading for a time but were puzzled when the airstrike did not materialize. Allied forces did not discover until after the war was over that this Japanese airstrike instead concentrated on Jarvis south of Guadalcanal, sinking her with all hands. The Allied transports and warships all departed the Guadalcanal area by nightfall on 9 August. During the naval surface battle of Savo Island, three U.S. heavy cruisers, USS Astoria (CA-34) (219 killed), USS Quincy (CA-39) (370 killed), and USS Vincennes (CA-44) (322 killed), and one Australian heavy cruiser, HMAS Canberra (D33) (84 killed), were sunk or scuttled. The commanding officers of Canberra and Quincy were also killed in action. USS Chicago (CA-29) spent the next 6 months in drydock, returned to Guadalcanal in late January 1943 and was promptly finished off for good in the campaign's last engagement: the Battle of Rennell Island.

Japanese
In the late evening of 9 August, Mikawa on Chōkai released the four cruisers of Cruiser Division 6 to return to their home base at Kavieng. At 08:10 on 10 August, Kako was torpedoed and sunk by the submarine USS S-44 (SS-155) 110 km from her destination. The other three Japanese cruisers picked up all but 71 of her crew and went on to Kavieng.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto signaled a congratulatory note to Mikawa on his victory, stating, "Appreciate the courageous and hard fighting of every man of your organization. I expect you to expand your exploits and you will make every effort to support the land forces of the Imperial army which are now engaged in a desperate struggle." Later on, though, when it became apparent that Mikawa had missed an opportunity to destroy the Allied transports, he was intensely criticised by his comrades.

Tactical result
From the time of the battle until several months later, almost all Allied supplies and reinforcements sent to Guadalcanal came by transports in small convoys, mainly during daylight hours, while Allied aircraft from the New Hebrides and Henderson Field and any available aircraft carriers flew covering missions. During this time, Allied forces on Guadalcanal received barely enough ammunition and provisions to withstand the several Japanese drives to retake the islands.

Despite their defeat in this battle, the Allies eventually won the battle for Guadalcanal, an important step in the defeat of Japan. In hindsight, according to Richard B. Frank, if Mikawa had elected to risk his ships to go after the Allied transports on the morning of 9 August, he could have improved the chances of Japanese victory in the Guadalcanal campaign at its inception, and the course of the war in the southern Pacific could have gone much differently. Although the Allied warships at Guadalcanal that night were completely routed, the transports were unaffected. Many of these same transports were later used many times to bring crucial supplies and reinforcements to Allied forces on Guadalcanal over succeeding months. Mikawa's decision not to destroy the Allied transport ships when he had the opportunity proved to be a crucial strategic mistake for the Japanese.

U.S. Navy board of inquiry
A formal United States Navy board of inquiry, known as the Hepburn Investigation, prepared a report of the battle. The board interviewed most of the major Allied officers involved over several months, beginning in December 1942. The report recommended official censure for Captain Howard D. Bode of the Chicago for failing to broadcast a warning to the fleet of encroaching enemy ships. The report stopped short of recommending formal action against other Allied officers, including Admirals Fletcher, Turner, McCain, and Crutchley, and Captain Riefkohl. The careers of Turner, Crutchley, and McCain do not appear to have been affected by the defeat or the mistakes they made in contributing to it. Riefkohl never commanded ships again. Bode, upon learning that the report was going to be especially critical of his actions, shot himself in his quarters at Balboa, Panama Canal Zone, on 19 April 1943 and died the next day. Crutchley was later gazetted with the Legion of Merit (Chief Commander).

Admiral Turner assessed why his forces were so soundly defeated in the battle:

""The Navy was still obsessed with a strong feeling of technical and mental superiority over the enemy. In spite of ample evidence as to enemy capabilities, most of our officers and men despised the enemy and felt themselves sure victors in all encounters under any circumstances. The net result of all this was a fatal lethargy of mind which induced a confidence without readiness, and a routine acceptance of outworn peacetime standards of conduct. I believe that this psychological factor, as a cause of our defeat, was even more important than the element of surprise.""

Historian Frank adds that "This lethargy of mind would not be completely shaken off without some more hard blows to (U.S.) Navy pride around Guadalcanal, but after Savo, the United States picked itself up off the deck and prepared for the most savage combat in its history."

The report of the inquiry caused the U.S. Navy to make many operational and structural changes. All the earlier models of U.S. Navy cruisers were retrofitted with emergency diesel-electric generators. The fire mains of the ships were changed to a vertical loop design that could be broken many times and still function. During the battle, many ship fires were attributed to aviation facilities filled with gas, oil, and planes. Motorboats were filled with gasoline and also caught fire. In some cases, these facilities were dead amidships, presenting a perfect target for enemy ships at night. Ready-service lockers (lockers containing ammunition that is armed and ready for use) added to the destruction, and it was noted that the lockers were never close to being depleted, i.e., they contained much more dangerous ammunition than they needed to. A focus was put on removing or minimizing flammable amidship materials. Admiral Ernest J. King, the commander in chief of the United States Fleet, ordered sweeping changes to be made before ships entered surface combat in the future.

title: Battle of Savo Island


text:
Talk:Madame Bovary

i need more in formation
I'd like to add some more information on the summary. Any suggestions? Ilexia 11:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

--

Why is Don Quixote a 'related topic?' >_< SirMaur 8:59 AM EST
 * Well, IMHO :) Two similarities:
 * - The effect of the fictional books in the main character
 * - The ambivalence of the feelings that the narrator trasmits about the main character
 * (Sorry for my english)--Mig21bp 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- it's one thing to make a case for the link (could be that there's a good one), but an unadorned reference doesn't make much sense. Molly Bloom's soliloquy, likewise. (Anna Karenina I can see.)

I wonder if anyone has a strong opinion about the best translation of M. Bovary?

No strong opinions.

I like the Steegmuller translation. I read a different translation the first time (and hated the book), but rereading it with Francis Steegmuller's translation, I really enjoyed it.

What's with the undergraduate essay under "themes"? Reminds me of that "social issues in Buffy" essay that stayed on Wikipedia for months until it was AfDed. 203.173.12.40 15:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the book was based on the story of a childhood friend - I'm not sure if this is true, but I know it is based (also) on a news article of a woman who took a lover, killed her husband, and eventually killed herself. Does anyone know more about this? - K.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.148.51 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Time Top Ten
Hmm. It seems that someone has added a reference to every book on the top ten list at http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1578073,00.html as being "named by Time as one of the top ten books of all time." This statement isn't really accurate; the online Time article is actually about a recent book (The Top Ten) which is just a compilation of various contemporary authors' personal top ten lists. To say that Time named any of these books as the "ten greatest of all time" is basically just incorrect.

Yes, Contributor-Without-a-Signature, you are absolutely right. From the best I can tell, there was no one user who inserted these references - they seem to have been added by lots of different people to different articles independently - but for my part, I am responsible for the reference on this particular page, and so I will fix it immediately. Still, anyone whose top ten list doesn't include Madame Bovary. . . Hubacelgrand 23:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Themes section removed
I've removed the themes section because it was just copied and pasted from Sparknotes (nearly seven months ago, nonetheless!) FYI. Gershwinrb 09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

An observation about the patterns of this novel
According to the article, the art of this novel lies in its "hidden patterns", and the article expertly shows all the hidden patterns, that the writers of the secondary and the tertiary literature have moved into the light. It would be nice, if some of the same energy could now be invested into also writing a few words about the unhidden patterns, the patterns, that can clearly be seen in the book itself.

One unhidden pattern to note is, that Emma does not have the same position value in the book as in the literature about the book. She does not figure in the beginning or the end, and also not in the center, and her name is not even in the title, which is very unusual and certainly no coincidence with a writer of Flaubert's class. The book begins with the youth of Charles Bovary (charbovari) and ends with the total triumph of M. Homais (receiving the croix d'honneur). And the center - both in reality and as an image - is occupied by Flaubert's brilliant description of the ingenious scientifical measures, that these two pillars of society set in motion to heal Hippolyte's club foot.

An article, that fails to mention well visible patterns like these, cannot yet be called complete. -- Hanno Kuntze (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section
Can the trivia section be removed? The passages cited are so minute in the context of the overall novel that I don't think that they can be integrated into the article which concerns itself with broad, overarching themes and plot points. Portia1780 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Chapter by chapter summaries
Since there is a plot summary of the novel, I think that the chapter summary is redundant and unnecessary. I'm considering reorganizing this article per the novel template at the Novel Wikiproject, and if I do this, this section will probably be gone. Portia1780 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The cab ride
In the plot synopsis, we read that the infamous cab-ride is a synecdoche. Please explain in what way the cab scene is a synecdoche. Is there some sexual joke that I'm missing here?--199.3.8.109 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Deluded"
Under the section style, its final paragraph contains…

a commentary on the entire self-satisfied, deluded, bourgeois culture…

The word 'deluded' overreaches here, a value-loaded judgment that wants to sell us on a POV. I believe I know what the editor wants to say, that Flaubert's socialist views saw the bourgeoisie as deluded, but that's not the ultimate meaning. This one word needs to be reworded or deleted.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Never mind: Resolved the problem with a simple shift of words, reflecting Flaubert's view.

 * --UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikibooks
This article could mostly be transwiki'd to Wikibooks, it's essentially structured as a Sparknotes style study book. It's a shame because it's one of the most important novels ever written we don't have something better. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Character Summaries
There are a few things in the character summaries section that seem to assume very particular ways of reading the text, such as the following:

"So the question is hardly whether we "like" or "dislike" this character. She is who she is - and was who she was. The question we should be asking instead is what social, sexual, and/or economic conditions drove her to such madness."

This sort of prescriptive declaration about what questions we should or should not ask about the novel seems wrong for wikipedia. I'm going to delete it if there's no opposition. Honestly, I'd prefer that the whole paragraph go; it's essentially opinion and not at all factual, and if it is factual, it isn't sourced. Silverchris9 (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 * You're onto something here. Please go ahead and make your edits. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Top 10 books?
We are told twice in this article that Mme. Bovary is among the best books ever written (apparently according to Time). Isn't anyone else tired of reading these kinds of junk statements on wiki? I reject the concept of top 10 citations for classical literature. Full stop. There is no objective way to make such a list. And if we are to include one magazine's list, why not another's? (rhetorical question). This novel finds itself among the ranks of classical fiction. That should be enough.67.68.47.212 (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

who is M. Binet?
He is mentioned twice in passing without any description of him. —Tamfang (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The prim, punctual, taciturn bourgeois who takes his meals at the Lion d'Or. "Not a hair stood out from the regular line of fair whiskers, which, encircling his jaws, framed, after the fashion of a garden border, his long, wan face, with small eyes and hooked nose. He was clever at all games of cards, a good hunter, and wrote a fine hand; he had a lathe at home, and amused himself by turning napkin-rings, with which he filled up his house." (Part II, Chapter 1) ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Page ratings are BS
Trustworrthy = 3.6? This article has NO citations at all. Udder rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.196.194 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Delphine Delamare
There's no mention of the influence the case of Delphine Delamare had on Flaubert. Has this been either corroborated or discounted? --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  04:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Madame Bovary


text:
1993 Sukhumi airliner attacks

From 20 to 23 September 1993, during the Sukhumi massacre, separatists in Sukhumi, Abkhazia blocked Georgian troops' overland supply routes as part of the war in Abkhazia. In response, the Georgian government used Sukhumi Babushara Airport to ferry supplies to troops stationed in Sukhumi. Abkhaz forces attacked the airport in an attempt to further block the supply routes.

During the siege of the airport, five civilian airliners belonging to Transair Georgia and Orbi Georgian Airways were hit by missiles allegedly fired by separatists in Sukhumi. Over 130 people died in the attacks.

20 September
Two Orbi Georgian Airways' Tupolev Tu-134As (registration 4L-65808 and 4L-65809) were destroyed by Abkhaz small arms fire or missiles with no casualties.

21 September
A Transair Тu-134А-3 (built in 1975 with registration 4L-65893 and factory number 5340120 ) was flying to Sukhumi from Sochi International Airport. The crew consisted of captain Geras Georgievich Tabuev, first officer Otar Grigorievich Shengelia, and navigator Sergey Alexandrovich Shah, as well as two flight attendants; G. K. Kvaratskhelia and O. I. Morgunov. Тhe 22 passengers were mainly journalists. At 16:25, at an altitude of 980 ft, the aircraft was hit on approach to Sukhumi-Babusheri Airport by a Strela 2 surface-to-air missile. The missile had been fired from an Abkhaz boat commanded by Toriy Achba. The plane crashed into the Black Sea, killing all five crew members and 22 passengers. Other sources reported 28 people on board (six crew members and 22 passengers).

22 September
An Orbi Georgian Airways Tu-154B aircraft (built in 1976 with registration 4L-85163 and factory number 76А-163 ) flying from Tbilisi and carrying civilians and internal security forces was on approach to Sukhumi-Babusheri Airport when it was struck by surface-to-air missiles. The plane crash-landed on the airstrip; the ensuing fire killed 108 of the 132 passengers and crew, making the incident the deadliest aviation disaster to occur in Georgia. Georgian media claimed that the flight was carrying refugees, but there was no factual evidence to back up these claims.

Another Tu-154 was attacked later in the evening, but landed safely.

23 September
Passengers were boarding a Transair Tu-134A (built in 1975 with registrations 4L-65001 and factory number 42235) at Sukhumi when it was struck by rockets from an Abkhaz BM-21 Grad rocket launcher. It caught fire and burned, leaving one crew member dead. The aircraft was due to operate a Sukhumi-Tbilisi service.

On the same day, an ORBI Tu-154 (registration 4L-85359 ) was reportedly destroyed by mortar or artillery fire.

title: 1993 Sukhumi airliner attacks


text:
HMS Sussex

Several ships of the Royal Navy have been named HMS Sussex:
 * ENGLISH SHIP Sussex, a fourth-rate Ruby-class frigate frigate launched with either 38 or 40 guns in 1652, later rearmed to 46 guns, and blew up in 1653
 * HMS Sussex (1693), a third-rate ship of the line that sank in the Mediterranean Sea in 1694
 * HMS Sussex (96), a County-class cruiser heavy cruiser, launched in 1928 and scrapped in 1950
 * HMS Sussex (RNR) was the name of the Royal Naval Reserve unit in Brighton that closed in 1994

title: HMS Sussex


text:
Fakaleitī

A fakaleitī (or leiti or fakafefine or lady) is a Tongan male at birth who has a feminine gender expression. The term fakaleitī is made up of the prefix faka- (in the manner of) and the borrowing lady from English. Fakaleitīs themselves prefer to call themselves leitī or ladies.

Although leitī in Tonga do not necessarily associate with LGBT identities in the Western world, those who grow up in Tongan migrant communities in New Zealand, Australia, and the United States may find a greater level of community and affinity to similar identities than leitī in the island kingdom.

Leitī or fakafefine are similar to Samoan fa'afafine and Hawaiian māhū.

The Tonga Leitis' Association organizes the Miss Galaxy Pageant in Tonga. They have also been involved in reforming colonially influenced laws about leitī life that remain in Tonga. In 2018 a documentary film, Leitis in Waiting, was made about leitī leader Joey Mataele and the efforts of the Tonga Leitis' Association. Mataele also works with the Pacific Equality Project, a non-profit group advocating for the decriminalization of LGBT peoples from post-colonial laws in the Pacific Islands.

title: Fakaleitī


text:
Teoma

Teoma (from Scottish Gaelic teòma "expert") was an Internet search engine founded in April 2000 by Professor Apostolos Gerasoulis and his colleagues at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Professor Tao Yang from the University of California, Santa Barbara co-led technology R&D. Their research grew out of the 1998 DiscoWeb project. The original research was published in the paper, "DiscoWeb: Applying Link Analysis to Web Search".

History
The Teoma search engine was officially launched in April 2001.

Ask Jeeves, Inc acquired Teoma on September 18, 2001 for over $1.5 million. On January 9, 2002, Ask Jeeves announced that it had integrated Teoma's search technology into Ask Jeeves.

Teoma 2.0 was released on January 21, 2003, which boasted improvements to search result relevancy, additions to search tools and more advanced search functions.

On February 26, 2006, the Teoma search engine was rebranded and redirected to search.ask.com. In mid-April 2010, Teoma relaunched with similar search results to Ask.

As of December 2010, Ask.com referred to the Teoma algorithm as the ExpertRank algorithm.

Growth
In 2002, Nielsen//NetRatings reported that Teoma had grown by 175%, making it the third most popular search engine in the United States. Teoma's year-over-year growth in terms of number of searches from 2002 to 2003 was 51%.

title: Teoma


text:
Obech, Belarus

Obech is a village in Belarus in the district of Brest, located at 52.43333°N, 24.66667°W, 157.0 miles SW of Minsk. It was formerly a Jewish shtetl.

title: Obech, Belarus


text:
Teaching hospitals in the United States

The United States has more teaching hospitals than any other country in the world.

A teaching hospital is a hospital or medical center that provides medical education and training to future and current health professionals. Teaching hospitals are often affiliated with medical schools and work closely with medical students throughout their period of matriculation, and especially during their clerkship (internship) years. In most cases, teaching hospitals also offer graduate medical education (GME)/physician residency programs, where medical school graduates train under a supervising (attending) physician to assist with the coordination of care.

In addition to offering medical education to medical students and physician residents, many teaching hospitals also serve as research institutes.

Origin
Although institutions for caring for the sick are known to have existed much earlier in history, the first teaching hospital, where students were authorized to methodically practice on patients under the supervision of physicians as part of their education, was reportedly the Academy of Gundishapur in the Persian Empire during the Sassanid era.

History in the United States
The first teaching hospital in the United States was founded at the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania) in 1765. Following that were King's College of New York in 1768, Harvard University in 1783, Dartmouth College in 1798, and Yale University in 1810 to begin the history of notable university-affiliated teaching hospitals in America.

Clinical teaching 1800–1900
Between 1810 and 1910, almost 400 medical schools were opened, however none were yet associated with local hospitals. However, many of them were inferior to those created by the University of Pennsylvania in 1874 and Lakeside Hospital in Cleveland in 1898. This is in part due to publishing of the Flexner Report which revealed the weaknesses of the United States current system for clinical teaching. Of the 400 medical schools established, the majority did not have control of hospital facilities, such as wards, to be used for teaching and research. As a result, these institutions could not adapt at clinical curriculum of learning by doing, which the Flexner Report supported as the most effective method of clinical education. Additionally, many states mandated all physician to earn a state license of practice. By 1895, every state was obliged to create a board of medical examiners to design and administer standardized state examinations in a range of topics from those mainly in medicine to pathology and pharmacology. The introduction of state examinations reduced the number of medical students practicing. The increasing requirements for medical schools and future practitioners led to the immediate closure of many medical schools in the United States.

While the provisions listed above led to closure of many universities, but also an increased quality of teaching at the available medical education schools.

The rise of teaching hospitals in the 20th-century United States
Before the start of the twentieth century, very few university teaching hospitals even existed within the United States. Those that did exist, however, received very little public support and confidence. Following the publishing of the Flexner Report in 1910, clinical instruction was revised and thus led to the development of teaching hospitals across the United States. Many were established with the aim of engaging medical students in clinical practice, improving patient care and services, and expanding the local and global impact of medical institutions through both medical education and research.

The prevalence of teaching hospitals grew with great force. In 1910, three notable universities and hospitals unified: the College of Physicians and Surgeons (Columbia University) with Presbyterian Hospital in New York; Harvard Medical School with the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston; and Washington University Medical School with the Barnes and St. Louis Children's Hospital in St. Louis.

Efforts to establish these teaching hospitals in Boston, New York and St. Louis required the collective efforts on the part of the universities and their medical schools. To do so they had to persuade the hospital's board of trustees or the local and state governments to provide the necessary funds for hospitals to be used for clinical education. As an example, in 1914 the University of Nebraska's Dean of the College of Medicine proposed to the Nebraska legislature reason for why funds should be put towards the development of the university-affiliated teaching hospital. They argued that "every Medical College of any standing in the country is associated either with a university hospital, ... or controls a large number of beds in a municipal Institution."

However, in many cities, local politics was a large force hindering the movement. In 1919, the Denver Colorado School of Medicine, politically appointed city officials assumed the greatest control over the universities teaching hospital. In their position, these officials took decisions without consultation of the medical school, thus limiting the school's control over how they would clinically train their students. It was such issues that caused closure of many medical schools and created discrepancies in teaching practices across medical schools.

Many medical schools struggled to persist as a result of increasingly strict American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines mandating that medical schools secure control over a large hospital. In 1913, for example, Drake University College of Medicine dropped from the highest class of medical schools as the AMA noted that they were not strongly affiliated with a large, local hospital. However, for the university lacked $3,000,000 to build a "first-rate" and thus considered merging their schools with the Iowa State University.

By 1921, every remaining medical school was affiliated with a hospital as either an owner or a partner. As more universities and local hospitals established affiliations, there were improvements in patient care as there was an increased number of doctors available to observe and treat ill patients. For acutely ill patients, teaching hospitals were significant advancements as there was always a medical professional on staff to observe and handle emergencies. As the number of medical professionals on staff increased, there was also an apparent improvement in the accuracy and care taken in the diagnosis of patients. This gave medical professionals a greater understanding of both existing and novel conditions which contributed to effective treatments and remedies.

Additionally, the transition of the country to a more scientific nature of medical knowledge and practice and notable scientific advancements of the early 19th century made practitioners and students skilled in areas ranging from chemistry to immunology. This greater knowledge in science and technology was not only valuable to their clinical practice, but it also helped medical scientists garner more respect in the eyes of the public.

Furthermore, the quality of patient care improved as the American Medical Association enacted stricter guidelines for accepting medical students. Higher entrance requirements ensured that all medical school candidates were more intelligent and good mannered than previous classes of admitted medical students. For example, the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital benefited from its affiliation to the Harvard Medical School as renowned scientists Walter Cannon, William Councilman, and Otto Folin joined their medical staff.

The establishment of teaching hospitals also created more opportunity for scientific research within the hospital itself. As a consequence of the popular viewpoint that the hospital has the responsibility to foster research, there was an increased need of unions between Universities and Hospitals. Many universities were motivated to pursue medical research to bring their universities global recognition.

Such affiliations were also economically advantageous as hospitals served as teaching facilities for medical students that would otherwise be unavailable to them. Similarly, Medical schools made available specialized staff that were equipped and maintained hospital labs. In the case of Washington University in St. Louis, the university's medical school provided the joint Children's and Barnes Hospital with laboratories, salaries for physicians, and even a power plant that served the entire medical complex.

As the 1920s progressed however, the persistent control local politicians control over teaching practices made it difficult to standardize clinical curriculums nationwide. These schools differed on issues such as how many students were practicing each day, at what year students in their education should have clinical experiences, and even what hours these students should be admitted into wards—although it was odd to see a student in these wards during night rotations. By the 1950s, most medical students themselves began to describe their responsibilities as "modest"

General organization and structure
Teaching hospitals rose to prevalence in the United States beginning the early 1900s and they largely resembled those established by Johns Hopkins University, the University of Pennsylvania and the Lakeside Hospital in Cleveland. The hospitals that followed the example of these universities were all very large, technologically sophisticated and aimed to have a global impact through both patient care and scientific research. Additionally, these hospitals had large patient bases, an abundant financial resources, and renowned physicians, advisors and staff. Many of the medical schools that ensued the prospect of being associated to a nearby hospital tended to be private institutions that received philanthropic support.

Hierarchy
In the initial design of the teaching hospital, universities were given autonomy to appoint medical staff of the hospital and hospital trustees gave consent to physicians and medical students for using their hospital for both clinical and scientific work. Under the same model, students were given smaller responsibilities including changing dressings, taking blood samples and analyzing for specimen, handling catheters and treating patients with minor injuries.

As teaching hospitals serve as locations for further medical education, it consists of many levels of doctors/doctors-in-training. The first of these is completing an internship. Sometimes referred to as first-year residents, interns are doctors completing their first year of training after graduating from medical school. This stage is completed under complete supervision, as it is before they are licensed. The next stage is residency. Residency can be anywhere between a four to eight-year process, depending on the hospital. A resident completes at least three years of supervised hands-on training within these years as a transition into their unsupervised patient care. The level of residency also contains sub-levels, being junior resident, senior resident, and chief resident. After this, some doctors move onto fellowship, which is where they declare a focus in a certain type of medicine and work directly under attending physicians. Attending physicians or more simply Attendings are responsible for making most direct patient-care decisions in a hospital. They answer to the head of their department. These are all below the overseer of all staff: the medical director. He or she is responsible for policies, practices, and keeping all others in check.

This hierarchy exists in each of the departments in a hospital, which are divided into broad specialties, all having more specific discipline (focus) of their own. The structure of these specialties began with the Johns Hopkins Hospital in 1888 and the creation of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, with their first four departments being Medicine, Surgery, Pathology, and Gynecology.

Funding and resources
While some funding comes from Medicaid for the GME process, teaching hospitals must consider paying residents and fellows within their budgets. These additional costs vary between hospitals based on funding by Medicaid and their general salary for residents and fellows. Despite these costs, they are often offset by the prices of procedures which are elevated in comparison to most non-teaching hospitals. Teaching hospitals often justify this additional cost factor by boasting that their quality of care rises above non-teaching hospitals, or ensuring the patient that they are improving medicine of the future by having their procedure done with medical trainees present.

Treatment and services
Given its orientation to providing hands-on clinical work to medical and residency students, teaching hospitals use many physicians in order to treat a single patient. In just a single visit, a patient may be observed and monitored by medical students, hospital residents and the primary physician or caretaker. The practice of having a large team of physicians looking after one patient is at the center of debate regarding teaching hospitals. Some patients are strongly opposed being observed numerous caretakers at once while others are in favor of having many individuals involved in their care.

Teaching hospitals are well known for treating rare diseases as well as extremely ill patients, but must do many additional common treatments in order to maintain income. It is often the amount of funding that determines a teaching hospital's perceived quality of care. As the data used to compare quality of care is mainly observational, it is nearly impossible to compare the quality of care between teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals.

In culture
Teaching hospitals gained notoriety in the rise of the American "medical drama" genre of television. These are known to glorify the reality of teaching hospitals, using societal appeals in order to add dramatics. Medical dramas taking place in teaching hospitals are said to be medically inaccurate, simplified, and exaggerated, but they succeed in capturing the dedication of doctors and trainees.

Some popular examples of medical dramas that take place in teaching hospitals are St. Elsewhere, Chicago Hope, ER, Scrubs, House, Grey's Anatomy and The Good Doctor.

title: Teaching hospitals in the United States