Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/F-14 Tomcat

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request: Provide diffs showing where RFMF was added to the talk page(s) of the involved article(s), and RFM-Request was placed on the talk pages of the other parties.


 * Article talk pages:
 * Talk:F-14 Tomcat
 * Talk:General Dynamics F-111
 * Talk:Robert McNamara


 * User talk pages:
 * User:Wiarthurhu
 * User:Mmx1 posted this RfM

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted:
Having used article content RfC previously with little success in drawing in additional eyes, and given the very specific nature of the information in dispute, I posted informal RfC's on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history in the hope of drawing interested and qualified editors. Indeed, this succeeded in drawing two editors to comment, resulting in a unofficial truce on the F-14 Tomcat article and talk page (I agreed but Wiarthurhu has not expressed it verbally, but has also refrained from editing the page in question. However, given that the content in dispute has spread to other pages, I feel a mediation is appropriate at this time. Wiarthurhu has expressed openness to mediation, though has not specifically assented to the one I am posting now.

Issues to be mediated
Few will recall that it was McNamara who directed the Air Force to adopt the Navy's F-4 Phantom and A-7 fighters. But he is best remembered in aviation history as the father of the debacle that was the TFX / F-111 dual service fighter project. His experience in the corporate world led him to believe that adopting a single type for different missions and serivce would save money. He even insisted on the General Dynamics entry over the DOD's preference for Boeing because of commonality issues. The F-111 pioneered perhaps too many new technologies such as swinging wings and pylons, afterburning turbofans and even the only operational ejecting crew escape cabin. Popular media heralded the fighter than could fly slow and fast, fly farther with more payload, and shoot down planes from farther away from any other plane.
 * I don't go around guarding pages against content which go against my POV. I enjoy when somebody adds or improves or even adds another viewpoint--matador300 03:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the following content, which in slightly modified form has been inserted in three articles and currently (at the moment of the unofficial truce) resides on two, supported by WP:Reliable sources? IF so, MMx loses ==matador300 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A product of the age of missles, the one item missing from the laundry list that was the TFX specification was the decisive factor in all previous air battles, maneuverability. Starting in 1965, US pilots in supersonic jets in Vietnam were shot down by post-Korean vintage Mig-17s in alarming numbers. Grumman dutifully reported that the F-111 would be "unable to cope" in a dogfight, and was much less maneuverable than the F-4 that was then tasked with downing MiGs. The Navy's F-111B would prove an utterly embarrasing and expensive failure, cancelled and replaced by the nimble F-14 Tomcat. The Air Force F-111 suffered extensive problems and accidents before it was effective in the single role of medium bomber. A lasting legacy of the F-111's lesson in how not to build a fighter would be that the US would ultimately develop not one, but 4 more new highly successful air superiority fighters essentially similar to the F-4 in payload and speed. The shadow cast by the accountant's approach to fighter design was so thoroughly discredited that planners stripped multiple roles from both the F-15 Eagle and F-14 Tomcat until the 1990s. The F-111 project is often remembered as one of the most spectacular failures in aviation history, at least in terms of its initial cost saving objectives. However, it is a somewhat fitting footnote that the Australian Air Force will proudly fly their F-111s long after the retirement of the naval TFX replacement, the F-14.
 * More specifically the content issues are:
 * Should MMx continue to be permitted to automatically revert all edits (if so Mmx wins) --matador300 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)on F-14 on the basis of being an uncited, unsupported edit Air superiority fighter Air superiority F-111 stating that a) e F-14 in an air superiority fighter (many citations) b) the F-14 was designed to be an maneuverable air superiority figher (supported by Modern Marvels, several books, and a Grumman F-14 test pilot and president)--matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Should MMx continue to discount (if so, Mmx wins) --matador300 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)as worthy of reverting any source from a) book b) magazine c) broadcast media d) U.S. Navy website e) internet aviation website f) Grumman vice president g) F-14 pilots h) Janes --matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Should MMx continue to respond with coarse and insulting language (if so, Mmx wins) --matador300 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)including !@#$ and @#% and (*&(*^) and (*%^*(&Y%^%??
 * Should MMx continue to act as if he is the final authority (if so, Mmx wins) --matador300 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)on aviation topics over other editors who have a) more education at institutions such as MIT b) more professional experience in aeronatical engineering c) more articles published in Aviation Week magazine and Asian Week newspaper d) owns more reference books and magazine e) has built more models of the F-14, F-111, F-15 and F-16 f) has read more books, magazines, reference books such as Janes All The World's Aircraft and Aviation Week since the late 1960s when the F-14 was being developed g) seen more actual F-111s, F-14s F-15s and F-16s at airshows h) demonstrates a higher level of intelligence as measured by standardized test such as the SAT? h) has written actual research papers with typewriters with footnotes and primary sources since 1974? Is MMx in a position to assert his right to revert demonstrating absolutely no ability even recognize or accept the most blatant and obvious evidence? (such as Grumman VP)
 * Should wikipedia state that the F-14 was designed with maneuverability as a primary consideration? (if so, Mmx loses) --matador300 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)(Hey, that's A primary consideration, easily edited without reverting an entire edit)--matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Should wikipedia state that the TFX was cancelled primarily due to its lack of maneuverability? (if so, Mmx loses) --matador300 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (According the Flight Journal and Janes, Conally's testimony "killed the F-111B", with citation. Other justifications were also supplied, as per most other sources)--matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Should wikipedia state the maneuverabiity was the decisive factor in all previous (pre-Vietnam War) air battles? (if so, mmx loses) --matador300 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (That's A factor again, you should be free to edit without substantially reverting the original meaning) --matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Does the quoted passage "F-14 was designed to be an air superiority fighter" --matador300 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)above accurately reflect the RAND Report which is cited as a source for the above passage? (if so, Mmx loses) --matador300 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)(MMx claims that the Rand report proves that the F-14 was NOT an air superiority fighter. The chapter in question is titled the "Return of the Air Superiority Fighter", and covers the development of 4 fighters, including the F-14. The source he claims supports his position states that the Navy wanted a fighter that was unhindered by Air Force air superiority, meaning maneuvering requirements. This however is not inconsistent with air superiority being added to the considerable interception capability of the F-111B. The inclusion of the F-14 clearly means that the paper classifies the F-14 as an air superiority fighter, as does every hit on a google search "F-14 air superiority". The article goes into much detail how the downing of sophisticated supersonic US fighters by primitive Russian fighters meant that the Navy badly needed a fighter which was more, not less maneuverable than the F4, and even details a Grumman study which comes to just such a conclustion, and that the Grumman 303 design (the F-14) was designed just to do this. This clearly demontrates the inablity of MMx to discrminate between when a source that I provided to him supports a position contrary to his.--matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend that Mmx be allowed to add or edit without substantially changing the meaning of articles. However, he must not be permitted to be given a blank check to impose his POV freely over any author that does not have the stamina to engage in an edit war and remediation. (if so, Mmx loses) --matador300 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My research shows that MMx himself edited the F-14 article for many months before in March 2006 removing the statement that the "F-14 was designed as no-comprimise air superiority fighter" and adding "while the F-14 was not designed to be maneuverable at the expense of ....." After this point, a web search of F-14 and "maneuverable" turns up primarily his passage, and several web pages which have mirrored this wikipedia page. I have found two (2) other persons on the internet who seem to agree. However a community of 3 on the Wikipedia does not make a consensus when they are in disagreement with a test pilot who was a direct witness and participant in the actual design of the F-14. At the very most, they should be allowed to add a note that there are differences in opinion with respect to this point, though given the large volume of evidence, I don't see why any reasonable person would continue to hold such a view.
 * Considering that if you had to say one sentence about the F-14, it would be "The F-14 was the Navy's first supersonic fighter designed to be agile in air combat". Many articles state exactly this of the F-15, that it was the first USAF A/S fighter since the F-86, it is also true of the Navy's F-14. The active guarding of this page by one or more persons who would remove any information supporting this seriously damages the value of the WP, and the crediblity that WP articles are being maintained by people who are knowledgeable, or at least open to verifiable information.
 * This is symptomatic of an effect I have seen on all of the other high traffic pages, which are effectively patrolled by editors who deem themselves the final arbitor of what can and will not be allowed on the WP, summarily reversing verifiable and reasonable edits without review, without any credible qualifications, who I will not name at this time.--matador300 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional issues to be mediated

 * What weight do we assign to sources not available to other editors for examination, and what weight should be given to them if they conflict with openly available sources?
 * Can an author use the illogic: If FAS omits "air superiority" in explanation of design goals of the F-14, does that mean it was not even one design goal? This appears to be the sole source of his belief, not repeated in print or even elsewere on the internet. I do not believe such logic can be used to construct a citation for the position that the F-14 was NOT designed for agility or air superiority, especially when he rejects every contrary citation, regardless of source or quality. This is a typical arguing tactic, reject every positive evidence, and construct negative evidence out of a lack positive evidence. There really should be a Wiki section on logic and what does and does not support a position. I do find it annoying that editors are encouraged to delete any uncited information, not just verifiably incorrect information--matador300 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous F-14 Article "uncompromised air superiority" and "most maneuverable"

Here is the content of the article before MMx substantially changed the tone and nature of the article. Notice that prior to that no one else had ever challenged these assertions:


 * The Tomcat was intended as an uncompromised air superiority fighter and interceptor, charged with defending carrier battle group


 * The F-14 is perhaps the most maneuverable and agile of all swing-wing [No reference to uncited assertion "although it was not designed to be maneuverable" as inserted by Mmx, and since impossible to fix due to his diligence]

The real issue is that should one editor, with zero credentials and questionable ability to discrminate between valid citations and sources that support or contradict arguments who believes he is god's appointed final arbiter of truth be permitted to rudely defend this article against all attempts to state the F-14 was designed to be a dogfighter??

Nothing wrong with writing a wiki paper, backing it up with proof, and putting a citation to it and adding a controversy section to the article. But in the presence of at least one conflicting authorative opinion, a Grumman VP, he cannot stand that his is the only allowable point of view in the article since even if he is correct, the point is disputed at best. --131.107.0.81 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of a information that would be automatically excluded by MMx:

-- start banned text

http://www.georgespangenberg.com/vf1.htm


 * VFAX was designed to complement F-111B, F-14 would replace both **

The F-111B was most nearly useful when employed in a fleet air defense role, in effect acting as a MISSILEER but with half the capability. Other fighter missions, such as escorting attack airplanes,


 * had to be done with a higher performance, more maneuverable, ***

and more versatile airplane than the F-111B. Grumman, associated with General Dynamics, had performed F-111 improvement studies, under contract, ranging from minor changes to complete redesigns. McDonnell had also studied, under contract, various improvements to the F-4, including a design with a variable sweep wing. A new airplane, to complement the F-111B, was also under study by everyone. This design finally evolved as a multi-mission airplane, VFAX, capable of performing better than a F-4 as a fighter, and better than the A-7 as an attack airplane. The concept was valid only under the premise that it was complementary to the AWG-9 and Phoenix capability represented by the F-111B. However, as the latter design degraded in attractiveness, by 1967 and 1968, very serious study efforts were undertaken to find a true solution of the Navy's fighter problem. In essence, this finally evolved as upgrading the VFAX to carry the AWG-9 fire control system and the Phoenix missiles. The first definitive studies were completed by Grumman and provided the information by which the Navy convinced itself and the Congress, if not OSD, that a new fighter, VFX, could be produced which was more effective and less costly than continuing the F-111B and providing an adequate complementary fighter.

of the projected threat against the fleet, was finally on its way. ***
 * The F-14, the only fighter designed to counter the full spectrum

-- end of banned text

As you will note, it contradicts the position of MMX that the VFX or F-14 specification did not address maneuverability needing to be better than the F-14. As long as this condition is true, Mmx will accept no citation, and no authority, even a VP of Grumman or a broadcast TV watched by thousands, or, presumably, even Aviation Week or Jane's All The World's aircraft, both professionally written sources. This is the really the core issue.--matador300 01:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as Mmx will permit the restoration of the general tone of the article regarding this issue to pre-March 2006, I will be satisfied. If Mmx refuses to desist from similar ownership behavior in refusing to defer to more knowledgeable parties and more reliable sources, I would consider stronger measures. I find his attitude that "my expertise in this subject gives the Wiki right to revert all unsuitably cited articles" extremely destructive. and harmful matador300

Similarly, Mmx has flatly stated the that F-111B was not killed because of maneuverability. I have found this reference:

DEFENDING THE CARRIERS: FROM MISSILEER TO TOMCAT http://www.northshire.com/siteinfo/bookinfo.php?isbn=0-00-472254-x&item=0 F-14 Tomcat Holmes Tony Additional photos Price: $18.00 Availability: Special Order Paperback ISBN: 0-00-472254-x David C. Isby is a Washington-based attorney and defense consultant. A special correspondent for Jane's Intelligence Review, he has contributed to many military and aviation publications and written extensively on the Russian armed forces. He lives in Washington D.C.

"the Navy's F-111B was cancelled in 1968 for being overweight and not nimble enough for either carrier operations or fighter work. "

Mmx has previously stated that sources such as Janes that charge $1,000 for internet access to corporations such as Boeing are biased, and not acceptable for scholarly references such as WP. I have submitted this source for his approval. Can the mediators conceive of any reference that could pass such a test?--matador300 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article: Jane's Information Group From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "The books and trade magazines published by Jane's are often considered the de facto public source of information on warfare and transportation systems."


 * As of today, Mmx1 is guarding the Air Superiority Fighter page, and replaced a well researched, well written piece with a poorly written POV gobbdy gook, after I have supplied him with full information of additional evidence after going to the Seattle @!#$%ing library and getting a hold of a real life 1969 magazine article that I have posted on the F-14 article page. This has got to stop. Mmx is also tossing IED bombs requesting deletion of other pages with F-14 or F-111 content. Please stop him now from doing more harm--matador300 01:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only signatures and "agree" or "disagree" should appear here; any comments will be removed.


 * Agree --matador300 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree --Mmx1 00:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee
Accepted.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ( Talk  •  Connect  )  06:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to mediate this, if that's okay with the two of you. (Please indicate your consent, or lack thereof, below.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, please indicate whether you would prefer public or private (e-mail) mediation. (See here for the advantages of private mediation.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Closed Case was taken by MedCab and later brought to RfC. Parties do not seem interested in help from MedCom at this time, nor does the MedCab mediator (CQJ) believe mediation should be resumed at this time, but another request may be filed in the future. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)