Talk:F-14 Tomcat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Military aviation task force United States military history task force Weaponry task force

	F-14 Tomcat is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

Archives

1 2

Contents 1 Adm. Michael Mullen quote about F-14 2 Admiral quote 3 Possible compromise about the CNO quote 4 Content questions 5 F-14 in fiction and popular culture 6 Iranian section 7 USAF considered purchasing the F-14

[edit] Adm. Michael Mullen quote about F-14

Although I asked Emt147 (talk • contribs) not to removes this quote from the introduction, I thought I'd include it here too:

Adm. Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, commented on the plane in an interview held at the time of its retirement:

There's something about the way an F-14 looks, something about the way it carries itself. It screams toughness. Look down on a carrier flight deck and see one of them sitting there, and you just know, there's a fighter plane. I really believe the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way as other legendary aircraft, like the Corsair, the Mustang and the Spitfire.'

(from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-22-F14-tomcat_x.htm)

66.167.139.50 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing it out. People tend to say nice things about a subject at retirements and funerals. Though I'm not sure which one this is. As far as notability, it would have been noteworthy if he had come out and disparaged the aircraft at its retirement. --Dual Freq 19:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, though in this day and age senior military leaders like Mullen can usually be counted on to take some care in their public remarks. It will be interesting to see if Mullen's statement generates controversy among naval aviators (and if it stands the test of time). 66.167.139.50 20:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Admiral quote

Adm. Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, commented on the plane in an interview held at the time of its retirement:^[1]

There's something about the way an F-14 looks, something about the way it carries itself. It screams toughness. Look down on a carrier flight deck and see one of them sitting there, and you just know, there's a fighter plane. I really believe the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way as other legendary aircraft, like the Corsair, the Mustang and the Spitfire.

This is in gross violation of WP:NPOV. Claims made by one man are given undue weight and are clearly used by the anonymous user to advance his or her giddy fanboyism of the aircraft. I will continue to revert this addition mercilessly -- if you think it belongs, call for an arbitration now. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You (1) misunderstand NPOV, (2) leapt to a conclusion about the motivation for including the quote ("giddy fanboyism of the aircraft"), and (3) violated your use of Template:User 1RR on your home page by your threat to "revert this addition mercilessly"...

Since (2) is less important that (1), let me address it first. Let's take a look at one of the bits of objective information about the anon that is easily available to us all: his history of contributions. Click on "contribs" list for 66.167.139.50 (talk • contribs)...notice the various changes he made? No evidence of fighter fanboyism found there. Our "giddy fanboy" does appear to be a fan of activities such as category organization, editing disambiguation pages, utilizing the WP:PROD process, and updating the talk pages of various users about actions he was undertaking that they may be interested in.

But let's get back to NPOV. What you seem to misunderstand is that there's a difference between

The Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way the legendary Corsair, Mustang and Spitfire.

and

Adm. Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations believes that the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way the legendary Corsair, Mustang and Spitfire.

You are of course free to believe that CNO Mullen is guilty of "giddy fanboyism" but unlike Adm. Mullen, your belief is unlikely to warrant inclusion in the F-14 article. But Adm. Mullen's beliefs are legitimate content for the article. He is, after all, the Chief of Naval Operations, with almost forty years of service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.244.207.136 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, it is giddy fanboyism to seize upon saccharine comments spoken for the sake of a funeral as a representative NPOV view of the aircraft, or, for that matter, of Adm. Mullen's views. Wiki is not required to uncritically accept all statements. Go ahead and take it to arbitration you'd like, I'm not budging. --Mmx1 15:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I get all the "wtf dude" replies, here are some quotes from the aforementioned Wikipedia policy article:

• None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth
• The neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Putting a giant quote banner at the top of the article is an obvious violation of this policy, particularly since the quote reflects biased opinions and beliefs of one person that are not substantiated by hard facts. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I only looked at the diff, I didn't realize it was in the intro. I would have deleted it from the lead as well. Sorry about that. My comments above were meant to point out that the CNO was possibly just being polite, as someone would be at a funeral or a retirement. I concur with it's removal from the lead. --Dual Freq 00:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the claims of NPOV violation, whether the quote belongs in the introduction is a valid issue. IMHO the quote can be included in the lead section assuming that Mullen's belief about the plane's potential for legendary status is uncontroversial or being given undue weight. So is it controversial? Any one have a counter-argument from someone prominent enough to disagree with the CNO? 72.244.207.136 (f.k.a. 66.167.139.50) 10:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

Anyone? The burden of proof on Wikipedia lies with the contributing editor. Therefore, YOU are the one who has to prove Mullen's claims of legendary status (how's that time machine coming along?). Do you honestly believe that offset raving text in HUGE quotation marks does not carry undue weight?

Oh, and brilliant. Let's start a separate article quoting every semi-important person about the F-14. Regardless of who Mullen is (and with all due respect to him), his quote still represents one man's totally subjective opinion not substantiated in any way by hard facts. If Mullen personally showed up and edited the article, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because his quote would violate WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. But since it's in quotation marks, it's magically okay. Besides, the quotation is entirely un-encyclopedic -- it contributes nothing whatsoever to the reader's knowledge of the F-14 other than the fact that it apparently makes grown men giddy. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible compromise about the CNO quote

One compromise w.r.t. the CNO quote would be to move it to the section on decommissioning (and leave out the {{cquote}} in the process). Locating the quote in that section puts it in perspective (i.e. the CNO made the statement at that time). Comments? 66.167.141.36 10:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

I agree with this. The quote is from a high level officer and his opinion is relevant. However, it probably doesn't belong in the introduction. Since it was a statement made in response to the decommissioning, putting it in the decommissioning section seems appropriate. Lord Bodak 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Pray tell, what is the encyclopedic value of this quote? In what ways does it expand the reader's knowledge about the F-14? What facts does it contain? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides, wiki is not in the habit of using blockquotes; favoring NPOV statements instead. What is the content of this statement? CNO Mullen believes it will be a legendary aircraft? What value does that statement have? --Mmx1

How is it NOT encyclopedic or relevant to include the statement that the current CNO believes the aircraft will be remembered with the likes of the Corsair, Mustang, and Spitfire? We're talking about the CNO here. Quoting his opinion is not NPOV, it is quoting the opinion of a respected, high-level officer in the Navy. Lord Bodak 13:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Quoting his opinion is not NPOV. Thank you. That's exactly it. Cut and dried. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Please review WP:NPOV--Mmx1 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

I don't particularly care how many times you repeat it, but providing a referenced quote from a respected individual is NPOV, and WP:NPOV clearly says so right there. Lord Bodak 14:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a fact an an opinion. "John Doe is the best baseball player" can be a fact. "F-14 will be remembered like the Spitfire" cannot be.

No fanboyism. CNO is not an oracle, he has no way of knowing how the F-14 will be remembered. This is a PR quote of no encyclopedic value and I will revert it. If you disagree, call arbitration. This conversation is over. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. "John Doe is the best baseball player" cannot be a fact; it is an opinion, as was the CNO's statement. Obviously we don't agree on this one, but I'm not the original person who put the quote in, and if they want to call arbitration for it, that's their choice. Regardless of what they do, this conversation is not "over", since Wikipedia is constantly changing and others are welcome to throw their opinions in here at any time. Lord Bodak 19:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it is valuable to include the CNO's quote in the section on decomissioning. It is self-evident to me that a quote from the Chief of Naval Operations, labeled as such and made upon the occasion of its retirement, is notable and appropriate content for that section. The original NPOV argument for reversion has been repeatedly demonstrated in this talk page as a misunderstanding.

FWIW, there are plenty of examples of quotes scattered throughout Wikipedia (e.g. the Rommel quote in the fighter aircraft article).

Perhaps one way to achieve consensus on this issue would be to include a quote attributable to another naval leader or expert that discounts the CNO's opinion as funereal puffery. I don't know if such a quote exists but the strong feelings that the CNO quote provokes among at least a couple of editors makes me think that such a quote should be easy to find.

At this point, if User:Emt147 thinks the only alternative left at this point is arbitration, I'm willing to participate. What form should the arbitration take? Wikipedia:Resolving disputes says trying the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or perhaps getting a Wikipedia:Third opinion are good options. Perhaps a Wikipedia:Straw poll? There's also the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Is the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee the only option at this point? Kayaker 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Examples of quotes elsewhere do not constitute precedent nor override wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is done poorly elsewhere does not mean it should be done here. I, too am unwilling to budge, take this to whatever mediation method you'd like.--Mmx1 05:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What wikipedia guidelines are violated by the CNO quote? Do you think its an NPOV issue? Kayaker 06:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

WP:NPOV by virtue of undue weight and WP:Verify by virtue of being a source of dubious reliability. Per Wikipedia policy, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight (furthermore, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You honestly think USA Today is a "source of dubious reliability"? And putting the quote in the retirement section is not giving it undue weight. I do agree the original giant block quote in the introduction was undue weight. Lord Bodak 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the CNO is a source of dubious reliability since the words coming out of his mouth do not undergo fact-checking (not that there are any facts in his quote to begin with). The quote is useless in an encyclopedia because it a) states the F-14 looks awesome (I think readers can look at pictures are draw their own conclusions) and b) claims the F-14 will be as famous as the Spitfire (no one can make that claim). If people put half the effort into writing contents that they do into fanboy quotes and anime references, this would've been an FA by now. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Come now, there's a world of difference between anime crap and quotes from the senior serving officer of the primary user of the aircraft in question. One would not remove a quote about the B-52 made by Curtiss LeMay. Or would you? Yes, it's saccharine, but no it's not worth all this vitriol. The Admiral has earned the right to make such statements. I suggest the quote by moved someplace like the popular culture section, since it refers directly to the position the Tomcat holds in popular culture and memory.

The CNO's comments are unreliable because of the context they were delivered in. The CNO's statements to Conress are reliable; his comments at a social function or funeral can be expected to carry bias. In any case it is of little encyclopedic value as the content of the comments are of no use, as Emt explained. --Mmx1 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh hell, three quarters of wikipedia is of little encyclopedic value. Tis best to tuck it away somewhere and move on. Anyone who reads that quote and doesn't see it as the man's opinion is too stupid to worry with anyhow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.181.12.201 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Content questions

It would be more useful to discuss the 6+ paragraphs of Iranian air force material that is currently over weighting this article. A user of 11% of the aircraft built, look at that section size compared to the entirety of the article. The US had 30 years of usage, 30+ squadrons, 600+ aircraft, but we use 6 paragraphs to document the entire Iranian purchase agreement, how many planes missiles and wrenches, who trained whom, who overthrew who, who sabotaged what missiles or maybe didn't, speculative kill numbers etc. There is less material in this article about the actual US R&D, testing, construction, etc. All the origins section says is the F-111B sucks, F-14 is better with most powerful radar in the universe and it was controversially replaced by the Hornet even though the F-14 was the first/best air superiority aircraft or maybe not. It's more worthwhile to trim that section than to put a 64 word quote from the CNO for the aircraft's retirement. And what about the reference section, with its 10 refs, 4 of which are Tom Cooper. Someone must be trying to sell some of his books. I guess what I'm trying to say is the article needs work and we should be discussing that instead of one single quote from one man. --Dual Freq 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Kind of engaged, but i will support your edits. Under the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV, it is necessary to give his views the appropriate weight that they deserve. --Mmx1 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article barely passes "B-class" criteria and needs a substantial rewrite and expansion. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I am keeping the CNO quote issue alive doesn't mean that I disagree with User:Dual Freq. I agree that the content questions listed above are more significant to the article's quality. Kayaker 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Somewhat related comment. Currently there's a subsection under Operational history labeled About. I believe it was labeled Hi lo before. Something more descriptive would be good. I'm just not sure what it should be called since contains the Superhornet and Decommissioning subsections. -Fnlayson 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've prosified the pop culture section. Hopefully that will reduce the urge to add bullet point after bullet point of various types of cruft. I also removed some of the more obvious trivia from the Iranian AF section and requested citations for some of the material presented as fact. It still seems long. I've also trimmed the ref section. If I've removed too much, just add the reference to the appropriate location in the text. We don't need a long list of books that may or may not actually be references. I've merged the sections Hi Lo / about, but it still seems wrong. Still much work to be done, I'm no Shakespeare. --Dual Freq 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia sections in all these articles need to go, see WP:AVTRIV. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] F-14 in fiction and popular culture

Dual Freq has already wittled down the Pop Culture section to almost nothing, as per the guideline's recommentations in lieu of immediate deletion of trivia sections. The two movie references both feature significant use of the F-14, and are worth mentioning somewhere in the article. Currently, there are many more avitation articles containing much longer lists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BillCJ (talk • contribs) . Oops. Thought I had signed it. Thanks --BillCJ 03:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That section is far from being a trivia section. The F-14 is a notable aircraft because its presence extends far beyond the realm of military knowledge into the public arena. Whether that is due to particular mass media productions or merely symptomatic of something else is debatable; however, the section is still warranted because it's one of the most recognizable aircraft from the 80s/90s (hence its inclusion in so many pop culture sources).

That being said, "prosifying" it is counter-productive, IMO; since each source listed is only a sentence or two, instead of having a coherent paragraph it ends up being a series of unrelated sentences (other than their chronological organization). Unless the section is rewritten to analyze the emergence of the F-14 in pop culture and use the sources as milestones in that description (which would most likely be OR, since I can't think of any sources that might have done so), a list is far more concise and intelligible. Of course, IMO it would have been better to split off a List of F-14 appearances in fiction and popular culture months ago and saved everyone a lot of grief. Virogtheconq 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to be a writer. Please, reword it into something that makes sense and analyzes the pop culture role of the F-14. Having a list of bullet points only encourages the addition of more and more useless video games, GI Joe toys, comic books. Making it paragraph form will hopefully deter future expansion. IMO, a separate article would be pointless and likely deleted like the M-16 list was. Would anyone like to improve the rest of the article and get this thing pointed toward FA or GA status? Fix origins section? Expand US Navy operational history section? --Dual Freq 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I can try to write something out for that, but my time is rather limited, so it may take a while. Virogtheconq 03:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot make any anime/cartoon assertions without violating WP:NOR. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can, but only if the creator has explicitly stated it to be so (such as the case with Macross/Robotech). There's no violation if the plane expressly appears in the work (such as the case with the removed Area 88), though that of course is subject to consensus of notability. Virogtheconq 03:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some of the minor details of the Macross info, what we really need here is for someone to sort through the History of the F-14 Tomcat article for information, remove the NPOV stuff and re-add it here to replace the origins section with something more useful. I've been adding images to commons:Category:F-14 Tomcat for VF articles, maybe some of them are useful here as well. --Dual Freq 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a crack, have here a primary source from Connolly which should be fairly even-handed. As for the prose pop culture, an adaptation of the Wikiproject Aircraft guideline on it was adopteed by Wikiproject Military History:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#Popular_culture. --Mmx1 02:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Gunston, the first prototype, B/N 147980, crashed in its second test flight. I wonder if a current aircraft program would survive a similar blow so early in development. Might be an interesting note in the history / development or maybe not. It was also one of the most expensive interceptor aircraft of its time and there was serious pressure on the affordability front as well. Had it not been for the paranoia about the MiG-25, it may have not been purchased in the first place. --Dual Freq 04:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1, thanks for reworking the origins section, still small compared to the Iranian F-14 historical section. That section seems too big, but I don't know what to get rid of. Some of it seems to be decent historical trivia, though uncited, but it seems way too long for a generic F-14 article. Also, I was adding images to the VF articles and I noticed that two squadrons were disbanded September 11, 1994, has someone told those loose change guys? --Dual Freq 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now the two look about the same length; I'd devote more time on cleaning up the operational history part on the US side; it's a bit short and if lengthened, would give the article the appropriate balance. LANTIRN and ROVER acquisition have interesting stories that deserve more than a sentence, and the issue of the missing stores software needs to be addressed. I think a bit much may be being made of the decommissioning, but ah well, so long as it's adquately source, the status quo should be fine. The issue of its replacement needs heavy cleanup as well. --Mmx1 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I also see that this article is missing a "characteristics" section that actually describes the aircraft in detail. --Mmx1 04:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, the History section should be S(electively)merged into this article; there's a lot that can be moved into a "characteristics", some that belongs under History, and some that should outright be moved to the F-111B. There's also a lot of POV stuff that just doesn't belong anywhere. --Mmx1 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian section

I have a question about the following lines in the article: Most Iranian F-14 pilots and technicians trained in the U.S. fled Iran, fearing their association with the Shah's regime, and their time in the U.S. would endanger them. Only two pilots out of the original flight class chose to remain in Iran. Their fears proved correct, and many of the original Iranian F-14 crews and technicians who remained were jailed or murdered by the new regime. Eventually, several F-14 pilots who were jailed were released when war broke out with Iraq. My main question is if only two pilots stayed, how can "many of the original" crews have been murdered or jailed? How many could there have been? This probably came from the Cooper source, can someone clarify this? --Dual Freq 02:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USAF considered purchasing the F-14

The US Air Force was looking for to replace the F-106 Delta Dart, {the plane used to guard the USA against bomber attack], in the early 1980s. The USAF briefly considered the F-14 Tomcat, but, although the Air Force had adopted Navy planes in the past, i.e. the A-1 Skyraider and the A-7 Corsair II; the F-15 Eagle was selected to replace the F-106. It was felt the F-14 was too expensive to be picked, ($38 million for the Tomcat vs. $29.9 million for the Eagle).204.80.61.10 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk