Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 F-14 Tomcat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article:	F-14 Tomcat
State:	Closed
Requested By:	Mmx1 (talk · contribs)
Other Parties:	Wiarthurhu (talk · contribs)
Mediated By:	CQJ (talk · contribs)
Comments:	Case comment.

[edit] Mediation Case:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 F-14 Tomcat/Spangenberg

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

The mediator's comments appear in italics unless otherwise noted. This is not a standard practice.

In addition, the Mediation Committee has accepted the case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/F-14_Tomcat.

Please be aware that due to the flood of information on this page over the last three days, I've had to start an archive of the information. You are viewing a refactored page, for the original information, please follow the appropriate links. CQJ 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Executive" Summary

The parties have agreed to cease editing the F-14 article for the time being.
The parties have agreed to cease trading comments in-between each other's talk pages.
The parties have agreed to follow WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:NPA throughout this process.
The parties have agreed to try and follow the mediation compromises to the best of their ability.
The parties agree that as of 1969, the F-14 was designed for an air superiority mission according to Navy doctrine at that time.
The parties have yet to agree that the F-14 was designed to be more maneuverable and agile than other long-range Navy interceptors of the late 60's and 70's, yet the Navy was aware of the need for short-range dogfighting capability due to the Vulcan cannon's addition to the design. This was due to the fact Navy specifications and doctrine of the 60's and 70's called for fleet defense via interception as a primary consideration and maneuverability as a secondary consideration.
The parties have agreed that the F-14 was designed as a long-range interceptor.
The parties have agreed that air superiority and maneuverability are not mutual in an aircraft.
The parties have been invited to list their user conduct disputes.
The parties have been invited to list any other content disputed at hand.
The parties have been asked to stop editing aircraft-related articles.
The case has been closed since one of the parties has escalated the dispute to RfC.

[edit] Brief Recommendations/Findings

As of 1969, the F-14 was designed for an air superiority mission as stated in Flight International Magazine.
The F-14 was designed to be more maneuverable and agile than other US Navy fighters of the time.
The F-14 was designed as a long range interceptor.
Air superiority and maneuverability are not mutual traits in an aircraft.
The F-14's variable-sweep wings were used for dash/loiter/land applications in a mixed mission profile.
Maneuverability was not proven or disproven as a design concern - this point is up to consensus at WikiProject Aircraft.

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Mmx1 21:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?: Primarily the F-14 Tomcat page, though the content has spilled over and has been copied (sometimes verbatim) into articles including F-15, F-111, Robert McNamara, air superiority fighter, and the vitriol has extended into several AfD's.

Who's involved?: Primarily User:Mmx1(Myself) and User:Wiarthurhu (who signs as matador300).

What's going on?

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-07 F-14 Tomcat/Archive1

Mmx1 filed this dispute after a brief edit war between him and Wiarthurhu at the F-14 article. Another editor suggested that the two editors take a break from editing the article. Mmx filed an RfM and Wiarthurhu (for brevity, Matador) continued to edit the article. The RfM was rewritten, loss/win conditions were added to it by Matador, and a personal dispute continues between the two editors.

Mmx stated in his original claim that he felt that he had reserved comments to describe content and not editors, however, he did state that he had called some edits made to the article, "nonsense". He likewise felt that he should refrain from inflammatory comments in violation of WP:CIVIL. Mmx did claim that he has been the target of Matador's defamation and questioning his qualifications, specifically going as far as making the following statement;

As far as I know, I have no reason to believe that you have even a bachelors degree, ever taken a course in writing or logic, ever wrote a computer program, or even held a job, let alone an IQ over 100, purchased, borrowed, browsed or even read a single book, magazine, watched any media or even visited an aviation museum exhibit on the F-14.

Mmx also states that Matador has taken AfD's personally and is in violation of WP:OWN and provided a diff and straight inline text to that effect. Matador was at that time reported to ANI by Mmx and another editor.

What would you like to change about that?

Mmx requested the following -

A moratorium on aircraft-related articles by both involved parties until the verifiability of the information at hand can be resolved by consensus or a mediator.
Some level of mediation on the content dispute at hand
Some action be taken to encourage the user to understand wiki policies and guidelines, particularly WP:OWN and WP:RS. What's at the heart of the content dispute is that he's taking selective sources that agree with his assertions, without examining the reliability of the sources, nor in many cases completely reading beyond what his search terms turned up. When the point was brought up to him User_talk:Wiarthurhu#Except....you.27re_wrong...again, his reply was A source is a source. Not being reliable is only a problem if it's wrong..., sidestepping the point that our only ability to discern right from wrong is the reliability of our sources. My biggest beef with this editor is not his POV, but the nature of his contributions. He's started with largely amateruish statements of personal opinion (which formed the basis of the articles I AfD'd), into selective quotation of sources that agree with his opinion, masquerading as citations. History is more complex than that, and when sources disagree, some judgement has to be made about how to resolve the conflict. His method of resolution seems to be "what I believe to be right".

My main comments to Mmx were that RfM does not secure a non-edit agreement, so Matador was well within his "rights" as an editor, but there were significant places where WP:CIVIL was an issue within the article, talk spaces, and other locations on Wikipedia. I also stated that there was a bit of WP:STALKing going on within the articles. I further stated that we could not enforce a moratorium on editing articles but that could be a mutually agreed term, we could attempt to mediate in the dispute, and we could suggest but not enforce a course of action. I have removed my original refactored comments from the archive since I have summarized them here.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: No preference. My email is turned on if you wish to discuss discreetly but I have nothing to hide.

[edit] Matador's Comments

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-07 F-14 Tomcat/Archive1

Matador states that Mmx is engaged in WP:STALK, reverting his edits, and that he (Matador) has equally engaged in WP:STALK and reverted Mmx's edits. He accuses Mmx of "sinking an article that did not suit his tastes". He states that numerous other editors will have similar complaints once they realize what Mmx is doing to the article set.

Matador has stated that Mmx has used "detestable" tactics of nominating pages for deletion due to the fact that he added an assertion to the F-14 article that Mmx finds incorrect. Matador's primary issue with the article is that Mmx holds the position that the F-14 was not designed to be an agile or air superiority fighter, but Matador has a source from 1969 that the F-14 was designed to do exactly that. Matador equally accuses Mmx of WP:OWN on the article.

Note to be clarified: It is possible that the 1969 claim is correct for that time and the Mmx claim is correct for this time, this is something that I'm attempting to clarify and/or seek consensus on.

Matador claims that he has an MIT education, references and magazines, and is published in the subject as a freelance columnist and takes offense to some of Mmx's comments made towards him as his content is "misinformed crap" and "made up shit". Matador alleges that Mmx is camping out on the article and preventing any of Matador's edits from remaining in the article. He calls into question Mmx's feelings that several sources, Aviation Week, Jane's Defence Weekly, Flight International, the Navy home page, a Grumman VP and F-14 test pilot, Modern Marvels, and Aero books are unreliable sources.

At this time, Matador mentions the air superiority issue and how it is not mentioned in one of Mmx's sources, how that does not necessarily mean that the air superiority claim on the F-14 is false. Matador specifically violates WP:CIVIL in the next sentence by calling Mmx a loser.

All I ask for is

Mmx should study the F-14 page as it now stands. Every claim that the F-14 is an A/S fighter is verifiable not only by dozens of web pages but dozens of printed primary source articles from actual magazines pulled from 1966-69 from the Seattle Public Library. He also needs to study how to do real research, not just read non-facts into a single open source article. Mmx has presented only one original FAS source of dubious research quality which merely omits that which he claims does not exists, and does not conflict with evidence I have that the VFAX spec on which the VFX was based did call for maneuverability. His second Rand reference was supplied by me, also a source contradicting his claim.
Any impartial judge should be able compare the quality of my editing and supporting research. The research done over the past month from primary sources has created a picture documented the the WP article which offers a more complete picture of the F-111, F-14 and F-15 story than exists in any one printed reference, which is one of the reason for Mmx's confusion since no one reference (and he evidently only looked at one) has anything resembling the complete story, including the VFAX project. Any attempt by Mmx to "correct" will require deleting verifiable information backed up by primary citations, and knowingly doing so is deleting valid information, which under bad faith is vandalism.
Mmx1 needs to understand the publications like Aviation Week and Janes, and a Grumman VP and test pilot are the gold standard of proof. The word of a person who himself constructed an understanding who has no credentials is not strong proof.
Mmx1 should defer from erasing any edit which claims the F-14 is an air superiority fighte

r as he understands it.

Mmx1 evidently also gets into conflicts with other users. He should defer to other users until the quality of his work and judgement improves rather than always insisting he is in the right.
As the quality of the work of Mmx1 is pretty minimal, and his ability to discriminate between a good source and logic and constructing a horrible source is pretty much nonexistent, I would recommend that he restrict himself from considering himself to be the final expert on matters of aviation (or anything else for that matter) and that he learn to respect things like primary sources, age and depth of experience. I believe that with the help of another editor, Mmx1 can make positive contributions, such as speculating the relationship between McNamar's commonality and the JSF project of today.
If this does not happen, it will be quite impossible for any one to correct his errors unless they have similar limitless drive and energy to simply create the last edit standing.

--matador300 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly in this case, sources considered by MMx1 to be invalid (Janes) are much more credible than his own (FAS website and misreading of "Return of the Air Superiority fighter). People in WP use POV and verifiable as excuses to get rid of good information and replace it with their own version. --matador300 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mmx1's Reply

I stand by the accuracy of my assertions (if not the language) regarding the CONTENT in dispute, and will debate them in the proper forum rather than clutter this page up like we have the F-14 talk page. The RAND study which he found is an example of the correcting I've had to do - he provided a selected quotation as a citation; a full reading of the paper paints the opposite picture of what he's telling.

I fail to see how nominating articles that he didn't create constitutes a personal vendetta; in any case as both articles were deleted as a result of the AfD process.
I find it ironic that the quality of my work is being questioned. Take a peek at [1]. List_of_unpopular_tactics_on_Wikipedia or at both our edit histories. I have not asked for a "muzzle" on Wiarthurhu as he as for me based on the quality of his edits, just a cease-fire while the issue is sorted out rather than an edit war.
Wiarthurhu is continuing to threaten me: [[2]] Remember the bad guys always get it in the end --Mmx1 00:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Threat? That's just a reminder of what happens to bad guys when they reap what they sow. I intend no harmful actions. --matador300 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The record will show that Wiarthurhu has indeed "followed me around" and reverted back to his POV on a number of articles in question, and has expanded to include the content on numerous other pages, even while it has been under dispute and even after agreeing to the RfM. ** Who's following who? I even thought I saw Mmx reusing some of my edits in the F-111. I went to other articles before MMx was there, and he followed me to the list of failure, which he then was considerate enough of his fellow editors to destroy without asking most of them what they thought of the idea. Most people who voted to delete the page didn't care about or for the page.--06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Upon further review, I object to his condescending tone that I can make positive contributions "with the help of another editor". --Mmx1 00:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Upon further review, by "action be taken to encourage the user to understand wiki policies and guidelines", I meant verbal actions only, not any sort of punitive or administrative actions. --Mmx1 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

What the hey, I'll pick this one up. Contacting via talk pages. CQJ 06:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As you both can see, I've gone through your case request and made quite a few comments and asked a few questions. I have no doubt that you're both attempting to make sure that this is the best article on the F-14 possible. Listed in the compromise section are a few things that I think you guys ought to both consider as we continue through the mediation process. Please take a look at them and indicate whether you agree or disagree with the statement/condition/suggested action. CQJ 08:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

I need some time to read a good portion of the content and diffs. Can we compromise on editing the article until I can get a handle on exactly what this is about?
Can we hold off on trading comments back and forth on your respective talk pages and the article talk page? It would seem to me that you're both well within the definition of WP:CIVIL.
Can you both agree to abide by WP:OWN and WP:STALK, in addition to WP:CIVIL through the course of the mediation?
Can you both agree to try your best to work through the mediation process and whatever compromises we may work out here? CQJ 08:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mmx1 has agreed to the temporary conditions of the compromise per his comments below.

User:wiarthurhu has agreed to the temporary conditions blah blah --matador300 06:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The following comments by Wiarthurhu were refactored for ease of navigation by CQJ 23:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC). No content has been modified.

I'm done for while. It is cited well enough to withstand Mmx1 provided we can get him to respect sources like Jane's defence and the F-14 test pilot and engineering manager...It's hard to be civil when he's trying to delete two of your articles, and succeeds. I assume he'll soon be getting more uncivil comments when people realize where their article went, and who did it.--matador300 18:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise One: Air Superiority, 1969

After review of the material, it is my (CQJ's) understanding that at the time that the F-14 was designed, engineered, and put into service by the Navy that its primary mission was to make contact with the enemy, engage the enemy, and destroy the enemy in an air-to-air combat mission, which was at that time defined as air superiority by Naval and combat doctrine. This claim is verified in my view by Matador's 1969 Flight International article and could be supported by further documentation.

Acceptance of this compromise does not assume that the F-14 has continued to be used for air superiority as the definition has changed with Naval and general aerial combat doctrine, it only assumes that as of 1969, the F-14 was designed for what the Navy considered at that time to be an air superiority mission.

Please indicate whether you agree with or disagree with this compromise below, in addition, please do not flood the section with source arguments or other comments. A simple Accept or Reject will suffice. We will discuss the merits of the compromise at a later time.

Accept --Mmx1 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Accept --wiarthurhu--matador300 20:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The compromise in regards to Air Superiority in 1969 as shown by the Flight International article is accepted by both parties. Therefore, the mediator recommends that any mention of air superiority and the F-14 take place in the proper context, that when the F-14 was designed, the Navy considered it to be designed for an air superiority mission. Should consensus be reached on this issue beyond the disputants, the mediator further recommends adding a notation of general consensus at the F-14 and other applicable talk pages to avoid the dispute from occurring again in the future. CQJ 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Two: Maneuverability and Agility

Once again, after review of the material and the diffs provided, it is my understanding that at the time, ~~the F-14 was designed to be more maneuverable and agile as a long-range interceptor such that it could engage hostile targets at short range if necessary, however, this was not its primary mission.~~

~~This is not to say that it is the most maneuverable and agile fighter fielded by the Navy, only that it was more so than other fighter aircraft of its time.~~

Let me clarify. One of the sticking points in the dispute is the "secondary design aim" verbage that you'd prefer, Mmx. What I was trying to articulate was your POV that the F-14 wasn't designed to be exclusively maneuverable and agile, while mention Matador's POV that it was a consideration in the process. Basically, this aircraft is more maneuverable and agile than other long-range Navy interceptors of the late 60's and early 70's (other aircraft of it's time, with the exception of the A-4), the Navy knew that it needed short-range dogfighting capability because of some fighting over a little country called Vietnam (backed up by the fact that they had a Vulcan cannon mounted on the thing as Dabarkey says), but they mainly intended for it to fly out at high speed or on escorting missions, shoot some bad guys, and fly back to the carrier Top Gun/Tom Cruise style.

After the third review of arguments on the third compromise, I am revising it to state that the F-14 was designed to be more maneuverable and agile than other long-range Navy interceptors of the late 60's and 70's. The Navy was aware of the need for short-range dogfighting capability as a Vulcan cannon was added to the design. The main intended mission for the F-14 was as a long-range interceptor, as the Navy specifications and doctrine of the 60's and 70's called for fleet defense via interception as a primary consideration and maneuverability as a secondary consideration.

Mmx, please provide two verifiable sources of the bolded claim above for review.

Mmx's only opposition is to the second one. Mmx is not quite sure what the F-14 was designed to be more maneuverable and agile as a long-range interceptor means. What is wrong with just stating that maneuverability was a secondary design aim? Also "moreso than other fighter aircraft of its time" is a bit vague. Time of introduction? Time of service? The latter is definitely not true. The former....possibly on a technicality, as it reached service a few years before the F-15. Not sure about contemporaries in other militaries, but even the A-4 was about par and superior in some aspects, so it's not at all clear.

Reject see comments below. --Mmx1 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Accept --wiarthurhu 21:48, 8 July, except the two goals were actually co-equal, since interception was a slam dunk, most engineering effort actually went into maneuverability.

The compromise was rejected by Mmx and revised by CQJ 18:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC). Please re-review the compromise and accept or reject. Two verifiable sources of the claim "except the two goals were actually co-equal, since interception was a slam dunk, most engineering effort actually went into maneuverability" beyond what seems anecdotal sources have not been shown. In addition, the bolded claim above has not been verified by source diff or link either.

Mmx1 has accepted this compromise per his comments below and the rest of his comments have been snipped and moved to a new section for the next compromise. CQJ 22:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Three: Design Mission of the F-14

It is my understanding that the Navy developed the F-14 as a long-range interceptor capable of what it deemed at the time to be an "air superiority" mission and included in its design requrirements the capability to maneuver such that it could defend itself if necessary. It was designed to be able to fly from a carrier, defend it, and return at high speed. If it found a Mig in-between, it could shoot it down with ease, although this does not seem its primary mission.

This is not to suggest that it was designed specfically as a dogfighter, but the Navy wanted something that could dogfight if it had to.

Please indicate whether you agree with or disagree with this compromise below, in addition, please do not flood the section with source arguments or other comments. A simple Accept or Reject will suffice. We will discuss the merits of the compromise at a later time.

Accept --Mmx1 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Accept --User:wiarthurhu --matador300 20:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC) except that for all practical intents, dogfighting was certainly the most pressing issue with regard to Vietnam.

Wiarthurhu - please provide two separate, verifiable sources to show "dogfighting was certainly the most pressing issue with regard to Vietnam." CQJ 23:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Please do so briefly within this section and on this topic only. CQJ 23:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The military in general has never doctrinally aimed to fight a "Vietnam". Elements did, but not as a general rule. As an institution the focus was on the Soviet Union up to (and past) its downfall. "pressing issue with regard to Vietnam" is irrelevant doctrinally. --Mmx1 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Absent verification of the "dogfighting was certainly the most pressing issue with regard to Vietnam" statement, the compromise was accepted by both parties. Absent verification of that claim on the appropriate talk pages, it is accepted that the F-14 was designed as a long-range interceptor in line with the Navy's air superiority mission of the time. However, with that said, I will accept further discussion of the design intent as that seems a major issue. CQJ 18:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Four: Air Superiority vs. Maneuverability

By the content and the reading that you guys have left me, it would appear to me that air superiority and maneuverability are not mutual traits in an aircraft. Just because an aircraft is designed for air superiority does not mean that it's maneuverable, just because an aircraft is maneuverable does not make it suited for air superiority missions.

*Accept --Mmx1 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
*Accept --wiarthurhu

The compromise has been accepted by both parties. The mediator recommends that air superiority and maneuverability be dealt with separately in the future, and if consensus is reached on this issue beyond the disputants, a proper consensus template be placed at any applicable talk pages. CQJ 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Five: Variable-Sweep Wings

As stated by Mmx1 above answering another compromise, a major part of this debate is whether variable-sweep wings were motivated by maneuverability or the mixed speed mission profile (dash/loiter/land).

Per Mmx, by Brassey and NASA, the mixed speed mission profile explains the variable-sweep wings.

Both disputants are invited at this time to provide sourced, verifiable claims in regards to the variable-sweep wings and whether whey were motivated by maneuverability or the mixed speed mission profile. All non-sourced or non-verifiable material will be automatically and summarily removed. Please provide diffs, links, or brief in-line text.

According to Modern Marvels, the Grumman 303 VFAX did _not_ have the Phoenix requirement. Bob Kress is quoted that the swing wings gave excellent maneuvering turn performance, and the fact that the submitted design for VFAX without the interception requirement pretty much supports they thought it would be a plus, in addition to the mach programmed wing. Mmx keeps forgetting the F-14 was a VFAX dogfighter first before they came up with the idea of grafting the weapons system of the F-111B. Their wing box was titanium, so as far as Bob Kress would tell us, there was really no compromise for the intercept mission other than providing a space big enough to hold the missles. MMx's own open source page that he claims supports his claim actually says the wings make the plane more maneuverable. It is true McD thought swing wings were a bad idea, but that wasn't Grumman's thinking. There was never a concious attempt to create a compromise, as is implied by MMx's initial edit that caused this whole ruckus. --matador300 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

What is the "Phoenix requirement"? Does it have to do with variable-sweep wings? Was it motivated by maneuverability or the mixed speed mission profile? You quote this Bob Kress fellow, but you can't provide any other source other than this "Modern Marvels" episode that you keep quoting. The fact, the fact, you keep saying "the fact" but you never mention where "the fact" came from...and it's making things difficult for me because I can't do a thing unless you mention a hard, reliable, verifiable source other than "Modern Marvels", because it's obvious to me that no editor that works on the F-14 or any other aircraft article will accept that as a source.

Is "pretty much supports" from your POV or someone else's? Again, I need a source. We're not talking about compromise on the intercept mission here, we're talking about in the next section down. I need quotations, I need hard, verifiable sources other than "pretty much supports". And Mmx said nothing about a compromise, I did, so quit blaming everything on him and focus on the issue at hand. CQJ 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's intentionally misleading to talk about the VFAX, 303 design, and the F-14 synonymously. The VFAX is not the program or specification that lead to the F-14, the VFX was. In some way the VFAX was a predecessor to the VFX but only in spirit. Similarly, there were many variants of the 303 and the design changed drastically - see the following link for a list of the variants. I won't presume to speak for Bob Kress, but the design as submitted for the VFAX could not have been the winning design - it would have been vastly smaller without the requirement to carry Phoenix missiles (as outlined by Dabarkey), especially as the VFAX was a specification for a lightweight strike fighter. Any claim otherwise is promotional hype.

What sources do support my assertion?

from Brassey's Modern Fighters by Mike Spick, Development: Long range AAM's and a compatible radar and weapons control system developed for the defunct F-111B were specified for the F-14. These needed a big fighter to carry them, making two powerful engines essential. the only real candidate at that time was the Pratt & Whitney TF30 turbofan, as used in the F-111, but it was known to be sensitive to disturbed airflow. To minimize this, a "straight-through" configuration was used, with a huge radome and two-man cockpit in a frontal nacelle, flanked by variable intakes needed for Mach 2 plus. The engines, following straight lines from the intakes, were thus well spaced, and were joined by a pakcake aft fuselage. This had the added advantage of giving extra lifting area. This was just as well. The combination of supersonic speed, extended loiter time, and a low speed, low alpha approach, was met by a variable-sweep wing. but these are inevitably small, giving a high wing loading; the additional lifting area provided by the pancake offset this by a remarkable amount.
From NASA Langley Research Center The multirole F-14 fighter employs many Langley technical concepts that permit it to accomplish diverse requirements such as supersonic dash and landing on an aircraft carrier in adverse conditions. Grumman relied on existing NASA databases and consultation during the design of the F-14. Langley staff tested and analyzed the competing designs in the Navy Advanced Fighter (VFX) Program competition that resulted in the F-14....During the development of the variable-sweep wing at the Langley Research Center, researchers recognized the advantages of applying the concept to multimission aircraft. One ideal application was for naval fleet defense fighters, which must be able to quickly intercept threats and yet slowly approach aircraft carriers to land. Variable-sweep wings in the fully swept (high-speed) configuration permit efficient supersonic dash and the carrier-approach requirements could be met with the wing in the unswept (low-speed) position. Inspired by the potential of this application of variable-sweep technology, Langley conducted several in-house studies of fighter configurations for naval applications. In 1967, Langley published the results of in-house studies of a variable-sweep fighter configuration known as LFAX-4 that incorporated several features that are evident in the F-14 aircraft.

--Mmx1 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As shown above, Mmx has satisfied the two source claim from Brassey and NASA Langley Research Center. Wiarthurhu/Matador, if you can show me two verified, sourced claims to refute what Mmx has found or to prove that the variable-sweep wing design was due to maneuverability and not a mixed speed profile (or both), please do so. CQJ 02:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See note above that Bob Kress used Mach sweep and checked swing wing for excellent turn performance. The FAS article cited by Mmx actually states that the swing wing gives more, not less maneuverability. NASA and McD opinions that swing wing are less suitable indicates SOME people think the swing wings are a bad idea, but this has no bearing as to whether Grumman thought it was a bad idea. Like I said, the original VFAX design was optimized for dogfighting, not interception. The VFAX was designed to work with the F-111B, not replace it. This a rather import point because Mmx1 has been policing the swing wing article as well against any allegation that they are good for maneuverability. Several web page articles explain how pilots use forward swept wings for the "bat turn" which appears to be have named for an f-14 tactic. matador300.

See multiple requests above for sources other than "Modern Marvels", because the editors within WikiProject Aircraft appear not to accept that as a source and any thing you add in the articles along those lines will probably be rejected due to that fact. If you could provide a link for the FAS page in question, it would be helpful. In addition, please list the swing wing article in the disputed article section and we'll take a look at it when we get the F-14 article cleaned up.

If you can't use another source than Bob Kress' statements in "Modern Marvels" to verify your claims, and consensus (not just Mmx has commented to that point) doesn't accept "Modern Marvels" as a research source, I'm afraid that the Langley and Brassey claims will stand as accepted, because I can't mediate a view into an article that consensus won't accept nor encourage you to place that view into an article knowing that your changes will be reverted. CQJ 13:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The FAS link is [3]. Readers may judge for themselves if it supports the assertions made. I won't waste my breath trying to explain what it doesn't say.--Mmx1 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

By my reading, it didn't say anything about the sweep wings beyond a general description of what they do/did. Perhaps I'm not reading it close enough? CQJ 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. --Mmx1 17:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In absence of further claims from Wiarthurhu, the compromise was rejected by Wiarthurhu and accepted by Mmx1. I recommend that the disputed section on the variable sweep wings be modified along with the Brassey and Langley assertions so long as Mmx secures a proper consensus from WikiProject Aircraft and any other concerned user on the article before making the proper changes. CQJ 03:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Six: Maneuverability as a design concern

As stated by Mmx1 above, another major part of the debate was whether maneuverability was a primary or secondary design concern. Mmx contends that maneuverability was compromised by the sweep wings mentioned above. Other users adding content to the debate also mention that the Navy's interceptor requirement hurt the maneuverability of the aircraft.

Mmx has mentioned that the decision to go with a swing wing aided interception and hurt maneuverability, in the spirit of fairness, this will need to be sourced accurately.

Both disputants are invited at this time to provide sourced, verifiable claims in regards to maneuverability as a design concern. All non-sourced or non-verifiable material will be automatically and summarily removed. Please provide diffs, links, or brief in-line text.

Modern Marvels F-14 quotes engineering manager Bob Kress, test pilot Charlie Brown, both say that the aircraft's first considerations is that it would have to be a maneuverable dogfighter, and explain design considerations to make this so, of which a swing wing was only one of many innovations, detailed in History of the F-14. The flight 1969 magazine states the promise to be twice as maneuverable than the F-4, which would not be possible if it were not a design goal. The primary reason the F-111B was not maneuverable was not that it was not technically possible, it is that there was nothing in the specs asking for it. They Navy got exactly what it asked for, a plane that was as agile as a Greyhound bus. This is essentially the only difference between the TFX and the VFX .--matador300 00:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, "Modern Marvels" is not going to be enough to drive consensus on the issue between all the other editors on WikiProject Aircraft. I need something with more teeth. Yet again, I'm asking if it was a primary or a secondary design concern. And we're not discussing the F-111 here, we're discussing the F-14 or the VFX or the VFAX, whatever the project name for the F-14 was. Once again, please stick to the issue at hand. CQJ 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What is not in dispute is whether maneuverability was a design goal; that much is clear. What is in dispute is what compromises were made. Grumman says none were. Every source mentions fleet air defense as a primary design goal. Most sources, including Globalsecurity, the RAND piece, and David Isby, stop there and list it as the only primary design goal. A few other sources, primarily Grumman, state that both were co-equal design goals. I've so far not seen any sources other than Grumman that state the latter POV. --Mmx1 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fighter combat in the Jet Age, by David Isby, p126 After their disappointing combat debut in the 1960's the improved Sparrow AAM reaped much success over north Vietnam in 1972 and over the Middle East the following year. This drastic reversal in the missile's fortunes had at last underlined the increasing importance of the BVR weapon. As always, one of the primary practitioners of these type of fighter operations was the USN, whose F-14 Tomcat, armed with long-range Phoenix AAM's, was introduced inthe 1970's. It was intended to defeat both missile-armed Soviet bombers and the weapons themselves when launched from submarines or warships against US carriers. (break) The British faced a similar threat in the North Atlantic.... --Mmx1 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And if we want to digress into the F-111, the Air Force did require a maneuverable aircraft - the whole point of the F-111 was that it was to satisfy everyone's requirements....as everyone suspected, it didn't work out that way. The difference between the TFX and the VFX was that the VFX was unhindered by Air Force requirements. --Mmx1 01:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The compromise was neither accepted or rejected by either party. I recommend that the maneuverability as design concern issue be discussed at the F-14 talk page and WikiProject Aircraft, and their finding be adopted by consensus.

[edit] User Conduct Disputes

Without descending into the depths of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, please list your user conduct issues here. Please be aware that I do not retain administrative oversight on user conduct and will only issue advice at this page. If you do not feel that a discussion of the user conduct dispute is necessary, please state Not necessary and I will not discuss the issues at hand. CQJ 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean Mmx1 is encouraged to continue to construct factually incorrect Original Research, and categorically reject all contrary references, or does WP have guidelines to prevent such editing?? People may note that while I am not perfect, just about everything I write, no matter how provacative or different from common wisdom is backed up verifiable research. --matador300 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, we do not permit original research to become part of Wikipedia. In this circumstance, the contrary references to which you are referring may have been placed out of context (and I'm presuming you're speaking of the 1969 Flight Int'l articles and Janes Defence). It may help to discuss changes that you would like to see implemented discussed in the talk page in the future, rather than making a change and then expecting it to stick. In addition, it's generally helpful to use citations or links rather than post entire passages from books into the talk pages. I personally think that building consensus on a change is better than edit warring... CQJ 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Content Disputes

Please list any other content disputes in this section.

[edit] Other Related Pages

Please list any other related pages that may or may not need to be modified as course of this mediation.

F-14 Tomcat

VFAX

Air superiority fighter

History of the F-14 Tomcat

[edit] Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Mmx agreed to the four base compromises almost immediately. He also stated that he has refrained on commenting on content after the RfC or Rfm were filed and that his talk page largely reflected the maneuverability issues and not the air superiority issues, thus showing two separate issues in the content of the article: Maneuverability and Air Superiority.

Matador spoke of the procedural dispute and what he saw as Mmx's reverts. He then posted a copy of the articles in question from the Seattle public library.

At this time, I asked a question: Okay. I said this earlier. Has this POV changed since 1969? Is it possible that this POV has changed since 1969? Coming out of left field, I believe that in the early 80's, Saddam Hussein was one of our friends in the conflict against Khomeini (sp), yet today, Saddam is public enemy number one and being tried for his actions. If this POV has changed since then in the eyes of a credible expert, then wouldn't it be logical to include the original Grumman position and the current position in the article? In addition, I'd like to remind everyone that their submissions are licensed under the GFDL and subject to merciless editing by anyone with an Internet connection at any time, for any reason, good or not in reference to WP:OWN.

[edit] Wiarthurhu's content assertions

Matador quoted the F-14 article as stating that the F-14 was one of the most maneuverable and agile airplanes of its generation, with the section between the engines acting as an airfoil to provide additional lift. He stated that the meaning was significantly twisted by Mmx stating that the F-14 was designed as an interceptor for high speed at the expense of maneuverability, it was one of the most maneuverable and agile of its generation. Matador states this is not correct as it states that the F-14 is not an air superiority fighter. Med. note: If that was the Navy's definition of air superiority at the time, where is the reversal?

Matador further states that although there is no mention of the F-14 not being a dogfighter, that doesn't mean that the F-14 wasn't a dogfighter. Not to quote pop culture as the aerospace types simply hate, but isn't that what we saw it doing in Top Gun? Wasn't that the purpose of the Top Gun program at Miramar in the first place?

The main issue here as I see it as the mediator is the splitting of hairs between what was called air superiority in 1969 and what we're calling it today, hence the first compromise offer.

[edit] Mmx1's Content assertions

This section was especially important to refactor with comments from all three of us interlaced into them.

Mmx asks what the primary design considerations of the F-14 Tomcat were. He answers his own question in stating that it was designed to be a high-speed dash aircraft, with maneuverability as a second requirement, hence the addition of swing wings rather than fixed wings. He states that Matador feels maneuverability was an equal requirement in the process. Matador answers him by saying that the VFAX project (another name for the F-14) was brought about to dogfight Mig fighters because other aircraft in the fleet could not.

Matador answers in addition stating that Mmx has no direct supporting source for his claim. He states that Global Security and the Federation of American Scientists are not complete sources that do not detail the VFAX program. He states that as a fact, Grumman built agility first, missiles second and that this is not shown in the record of the Rand report, further, that his sources confirm these facts.

Mmx's argument continues in which he states that air superiority and maneuverability are not mutually supporting terms. He further states that it's a doctrinal term, not a static, objective term. The air superiority debate continues briefly here, those comments have been archived, moreover, so has the rest of the debate that was in this section.

Mmx1 clarifies that the VFAX is not another name for the F-14. The history is as follows: VFAX was to be a lightweight, maneuverable strike fighter complement to the F-111B. By George Spangenberger's testimony, when the F-111 was cancelled, the interception requirement was rolled into the VFAX to form the VFX. However, the official Navy procurement program that resulted in the F-14 was the VFX, and it is not clear what features got lost in the shuffle from VFAX to VFX. Clearly "lightweight" and "strike" were removed. What is in dispute is if "maneuverability" was also removed. The VFAX was later revived and became the F/A-18. Given Mr. Spangenberger's strong opposition to the new VFAX (F-18), it stands to reason that he had a motivation to say that the F-14 could perform all the missions of the VFAX/F-18. --Mmx1 20:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

VFAX, as the WP article states, was 2 projects. The Grumman 303 was the 1st VFAX, with the addition of F-111B systems, it was the F-14/VFX. The original Grumman 303 was 1st a dogfighter with no interceptor requirement. --matador300 00:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"As the WP article you wrote states", you mean. The Grumman 303 was a series of designs for several requirements that changed as the requirements changed. Spangenberger says the VFX was "essentially" bolting the F-111B systems onto the VFAX requirement. "Essentially" glosses over that the "lightweight" and "strike" parts were dropped from the specification. How again does "lightweight strike fighter" + "interceptor armament" = "fleet defense fighter"? Let's not take analogies as gospel. --Mmx1 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by LWF

LWF is an active contributor to the F-14 article. He provided an outside view of the conflict. His original comments appear on my talk page, and I copied them here so I could refactor him. They do not appear in the archive for brevity's sake.

LWF states that the driving issue is that Matador believes that the F-14 was designed to be agile and an sir superiority fighter, and that Mmx does not.

LWF states that Matador has stated that just because some sources don't mention the maneuverability issue, that doesn't mean that the F-14 wasn't designed not to be maneuverable. In addition, he states that Matador's information tends to be anecdotal and some of the sources he uses tend to be unreliable on some subjects.

[edit] Dabarkey's outside view

Dabarkey has a BS in Aero/Astro from MIT, an MS in Aeronautical Engineering from USC, and 15 years in related fields, in addition, he is a licensed pilot and has background in engineering and design in aeronautics and defense.

He again reiterates the two issues: Air superiority and maneuverability. He looks at the aircraft itself and states that the F-14 is both capable of maneuverability and satisfying the air superiority mission of the Navy as defined as "a fighter that is employed in air-to-air combat as opposed to air-to-ground strike". He states that the aircraft has design characteristics that confirm it as such (glove vanes, maneuvering flaps, large stabilators, slats) as to maneuverability, and the presence of the Vulcan cannon confirms the Navy felt it likely that it would be involved in short-range dogfights.

Dabarkey states that all aircraft designs are compromises and that it was obvious that its primary design purpose was to carry missiles, although it was improved in speed and power over the F-111. He also states that it was designed to carry the standard Navy electronics package and heavy long-range missiles and is generally a heavy aircraft.

He states that it was obvious that the F-14 was designed as a long range interceptor and that it's possible to dogfight with an F-14, although this is not the aircraft's primary mission.

Dabarkey doesn't know the background of the VFAX, he's guessing based on the design. --matador300 00:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dabarkey's offering his professional view of the design compromises inherent to the design - he has both certifications and experience in the field. And how about you stop calling it the VFAX? You know full well that the F-14 originated from the VFX. Your deliberate sleight of hand is not going unnoticed. --Mmx1 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

After my initial post, I've been content to sit back and let the two parties involved in the dispute argue their cases; they don't need any help from me in that regard. Since my initial post has been brought up again, however, I feel a need to interject briefly. Unfortunately, Wiarthurhu has no idea what I know about the VFAX program, so I would appreciate it if he would not disparage my knowledge of it. I actually know quite a bit about it, but don't see any point in repeating what's already been said. So, if the F-14 is simply the light-weight VFAX design with the Phoenix system spliced onto it, how is that its empty weight is nearly 50% greater than the F-4B and F-15A? (40,000 lbs, 28,000 lbs., and 27,000 lbs., respectively) How is it that the F-14 weighs so much more than the F-4, even though the F-4 was also designed for fleet air defense, carries a two-man crew, and actually uses older material, structure, and propulsion technology? Six tons is a lot of extra weight to carry into a dogfight. Dabarkey 05:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrapping up the real issue

Matador once again calls into question whether Mmx can summarily revert any edit and dismiss references that the F-14 was designed to be maneuverable or an air superiority fighter.

He states that the F-14 was designed with the ability to outmaneuver Migs as at least one requirement, proven by Spangenberg, Flight International 1969, and Bill Gunston. It would appear that it was indeed given this ability, but this may/may not have been the F-14's primary mission.

He states that the claim that the F-14 was not designed with maneuverability as a requirement is false, verified by the Rand report, the Global Security page, and FAS.

Matador asserts that Mmx continues to use original research in the article. He also cites Bill Gunston as a verifiable and appropriate source. He further continues to talk about other issues in the article and finally accuses Mmx of editing with a "bipolar behavior", for which he was warned in regards to WP:CIVIL.

Further comments in regards to the content dispute are available on the archive page.

[edit] Time out.

I see that there's more going on than I anticipated and that this dispute has spread from F-14 articles to other aircraft and related articles.

It seems that the trend on this article is continuing elsewhere.

So I must ask you very nicely, but very firmly.

Please stop editing any article having to do with aircraft, things you shoot from aircraft, or anything that otherwise flies. We've got enough to deal with as it is.

Thanks. CQJ 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Following the request to stop editing aircraft or aircraft related articles, User:Wiarthurhu continued to edit eleven separate aircraft articles and engaged in two separate personal attacks on three different users, User:Mmx1 being one of them. On 16 July 2006, User:Mmx1 notified me by e-mail that he was moving the dispute to RfC as his next step in resolution of this dispute. In absence of further comments from User:Wiarthurhu, the compromises on the table are being dealt with in the manner that they were left in. CQJ 03:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, the case is closed and the matter is remanded to RfC, WikiProject Aircraft, and the F-14 talk page for review.

Now see what you've done Mmx.... grumble --matador300 00:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How in the heck does Mmx get to dogfighting when there isn't even any reference to F-14?? Top Gun, you can get by searching for F-14 (but why search, why is he only showing up anytime any F-14 reference shows up??) He can only be tracking my edits by my user identity. That's wrong isn't it?? He says I'm a total moron and my sources are wrong, then he steals my sources, turns them upside down, and follows me around trying to improve on topics he'd never visit himself. Sheesh. --matador300 00:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

thank you for caring --matador300

Paranoia ?? If you look at the article history you should see Mmx1 editing the article several times long before you started to arrive here. Ever heard of Watchlist ? --Denniss 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia Medcab closed cases