Jump to content

Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Consistency

As is to be expected when several editors are active in one place, inconsistencies are bound to occur due to variations in style and personal preferences. I'd like the team's opinion on the following differences that I've noticed before making any changes:

  • U.S. or US - I prefer US but is U.S. more correct?.
  • Bolding the first instance of an F-4 version in each section - I vote yes.
  • Linking dates and/or years - I don't see the point and so vote no.

--Red Sunset 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

US/YES/NO. MilborneOne 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There is actually a Wiki format spelling note about: U.S., USA, USAAC, USAAF and USAF – these are the correct conventions for spelling. As for dates and years, there was a considerable debate a while back (2006) in establishing under WP:AIR/PC guidelines, an acceptable format, with the consensus to use a "formal" date 13 November 2007 format to accommodate foreign users as well as to allow users with browser preferences set for date formats to read the dates in their preferred style. As to "bolding" the first mention of a variant/sub-variant, e.g. F-4E, that is also the convention established under WP:AIR/PC guidelines. Bzuk 23:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Bill, that answers the first two questions, but not whether we should link dates, especially if they're not particularly notable in any way. --Red Sunset 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The "rule," as such there is, is not to "wikilink" individual dates/years but that the first mention of the year in the infobox can have a year in aviation link, e.g. 31 August 1935. This issue was also determined through a consensus established under WP:AIR/PC guidelines. FWIW, note "rules" are what they are in Wikipedia. Bzuk 23:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
What about US Navy? Snowman 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
From the US Navy wiki page it seems that "U.S. Navy" is used. Snowman 22:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Consistency about using emboldened text in links.

Headings do not include wikilinks and it is not necessary to bold links as they are automatically highlighted in blue and stand out from the body of the text. Bzuk 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC).
Minor headings with wikilinks now un-emboldened. Snowman 15:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

On checking between this and the main F-4 article I noticed some date discrepancies in the "Israel" section:

  • According to the F-4 page the Kurnass 2000 aircraft first flew 11 August 1987 and entered service 5 February 1991, but on this page deliveries commenced 11 August 1987: a little confusing.
  • The F-4 page states that the first example was shot down 2 April 1970, whereas here it says 4 April 1970.

Anyone got further refs on these dates? --Red Sunset 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lake's Phantom Spirit in the Skies has first flight of Kurnass 2000 as 15 July 1987 and formally accepted 11 August 1987. It also has first F-4E shot down on the 2 April 1970 by an Egyptian MiG-21, an aircraft was also lost earlier (no date given) for mechanical failure and not enemy action. MilborneOne 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers MilborneOne. --Red Sunset 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

List of units using the F-4 Phantom

I have just made some suggestions concerning the List of units using the F-4 Phantom following improvement to this article. Comments welcome at Talk:List of units using the F-4 Phantom. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

List or article

Is this page a list or is it an article? I brought this for discussion following the recent change to be listed with the Wikiproject:aircraft lists. I think that there are reasons for it to be classified as a list or as an article. Snowman (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbers with Egypt

The info box gives us 46 F-4s operated by Egypt, but most sources state an initial first delivery of 35, later followed by another 7, and then 3 attrition replacements totalling 45. IMO the replacements statement should be ...er replaced, and the info box amended unless Fricker's numbers differ. Any comments? --Red Sunset 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fricker states 35 originals + 7 in 1988. It does not mention any additional attrition replacements.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-If the 3 replaced lost F-4s on a 1-1 basis, then the net effect would be 42 in service. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Just out of interest I note that all the list of serials for Egyptian F-4s list 35 from the 1980 delivery and three attrition replacements. Cant find any reference to the additional seven actually being supplied, Lake says they considered acquiring seven more but no mention of any actually being delivered! MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK then, based on the existing evidence the net result is a total of 42 in service, but 45 received (as we have refs for the additional 7 and serial numbers for the attrition replacements). I suggest changing the info box to 45 since the column is for the number of aircraft received, but then a mention of the attrition replacements will need to be reinstated. --Red Sunset 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Rethink; because we're using Nigel's ref, and pending a reputable written source for the attrition replacements (since Baugher and Goebel are now apparently not regarded as being suitable even as web sources – no comment), I'll change the info box to 42. If an acceptable ref can be found we can reinstate the attrition statement and alter the number to 45. --Red Sunset 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Lakes Phantom - Spirit in the Skies page 209 mentions the three attrition replacements as 67-0328, 67-0332 and 67-0366. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks MilborneOne. Sorry for the delay in responding, having difficulties with the Internet this evening so it might take a while to implement the changes. Cheers. --Red Sunset 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging info

I've merged the US info from List of units using the F-4 Phantom to F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators. I believe all the non-US units left in the units article are listed in this article. Could someone double check that? After that's checked, I plan to make "List of units using the F-4 Phantom" redirect to "F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators", since it appears there were more US units than non-US ones. If that doesn't seem fair or you have a better idea, please reply. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are merging the articles, then there is are wiki guidelines to follow. This is to make sure that the editing history is not lost. It is fairly easy, but there is more to it that making one page a redirect. Snowman (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It says that you do a full cut and paste first and then to the editing. I think that you are doing the editing and then doing the full cut and paste; see Help:Merging and moving pages. Snowman (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the non-US units left in the "List of units" article, and transferred the small amount of information that was lacking into the "F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators" article. --Red Sunset 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How about redirecting to a dab page (if that's the correct term) linked to both the U.S. and the non-U.S. operators articles, if that's not a silly idea? --Red Sunset 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think a disambigious page applies in this case. I don't see what good a page with 2 links in it would be. I just just put it up for deletion instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. It has to be kept with the edit history in tact. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I merge pages with a full cut and paste and then add the correct page tags and edit summaries exactly as it says on the wiki help page. Then the post-merge editing and tidy up can be done. It is because the edit histories have to be retained, which is a legal requirement of the copyleft. You end up with the source page having a special tag which is a bit like a redirect. I do not think that you need a dab page there. Snowman (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you like me to do this merge? I can not do the post-merge tidy up though. It is late here now, so it is less confusing to strike this out now. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Your partial page merge is fine. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Renaming??

Why was this article moved without any discussion? There is supposed to be 2 articles on operators; US and non-US. This name does not work with that. Also, it is not a list. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Should not have been moved - it is not a list but an article about Phantom operators (and has been agreed only non-us) - not the same thing. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Op Nickel Grass

The statement "U.S. President Richard Nixon authorized the delivery of 36 ex-USAF F-4s under Operation Nickel Grass, from USAF 4 and 401 TFW. Some US-owned jets were flown directly from Mediterranean Fleet carriers to Israel, still carrying their original markings." has been added by User:72.0.180.2 on several occasions. It was removed twice by me and one other editor for being unsourced and a contentious enough statement to be challenged under Wikipedia:Verifiability which says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

The IP editor restored text for a third time and cited the following refs:

I have removed these bad refs and fact tagged the statement. I have been unable to find a ref to support the statement and in fact a couple of books I have on 1973 Yom Kippur War do not mention F-4s being delivered in US markings. In my opinion this statement is a serious enough charge against the US government in supplying arms to Israel that it needs a reliable source to back it up. The insults and personal attacks that User:72.0.180.2 has left in his edit summaries are no substitute for cited references.

Incidentally the Wikipedia article on Operation Nickel Grass also mentions incidents generally similar to the ones entered in this article, saying:

Consequently, 36 F-4 Phantom jet fighters were sold to Israel under Nickel Grass. They were flown to Lod, where American pilots were swapped for their Israeli counterparts. After the replacement of USAF insignia with IAF insignia if needed, the planes were refueled and ordered to the front, often taking to the air within hours of having arrived. Interestingly, some aircraft came directly from the USAFE fleet and operated in USAF camouflage, but with Israeli insignia.

However there is no ref cited in that article either. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So what's the problem? Perhaps the affermation about aircraft carriers, Nixon or the number? Hey, this is my preferite wiki-page. I have read as well about some USN aircraft romoured in HHA service, no proofs found but an article (Aerei august 1998) reported this words. Even A-6 Intruder were seen in Israeli markings. However, no wonder if this stuff is secret, mr. president was Nixon, after all.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User map problem

Since this article is about "non-U.S. operators", it shouldn't include the U.S. as well. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good point! I wonder how the green U.S. splodge can be removed from the map? --Red Sunset 19:15, May 2008 (UTC)
I've left a request on the creator's talk page on Commons. --Red Sunset 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont think the map should be changed just because of the title of the article - it would look strange not including the US since its an American plane. --Roke 10:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

...but if the title over the map is specifically "non-U.S. Operators", then the U.S. shouldn't be highlighted Good Skoda (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

65 inline cites is plenty

I am removing the olde cites needed tag which I think doesn't seem accurate. Tag individual sections or sentences at this point but not the whole article. Or at least thats my opinion. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Frickerp60" :
    • Fricker 2000, p.60.
    • Fricker 2000, p. 59.

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

UK section needs work

according to McDonald the first aircraft received by the UK were not until 1968. Not 1966. Also the wording on the RR being more powerful then the GE. This is only through the use of afterburners. During normal cruise the GE thrust was at 17,000 roughly and the RR was 12,500, this is where the fuel saving comes from, but they way it is written, it sounds like the RR was a more powerful engine on listing the afterburner thrust. I also see through out Wiki the F4 used by the UK, is listed as the British version. This is also misleading. The F4 Sold to the UK were all manufactured and test flown in the US. There were none built in the UK. This is not mentioned, any reason why???? jacob805 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.86.87 (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Australia section

I can't understand this section.
"The first six aircraft were returned in October 1972, with another five returned in November 1972" - This is the one of the sentences. "The first six F-111Cs were delivered in June 1973, and the rest of the F-4Es were returned to the United States Air Force.[5]" - The rest, you mean, except the 11? "In 1972 the United States offered to sell the leased aircraft to Australia" - after they returned it? befor? "Earlier the Americans had offered to sell 48 aircraft, including RF-4Es..." - When? What aircraft? those which had been leased? "The F-111C programme was resumed in December 1971" - why does it written only now? It was resumed befor they got the F-111, wasn't it? I'll happy if someone can explain me. Thanks, Ofekalef (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

At the top of the article talk page are two banners, signifying that this article is currently under the Aviation WikiProject and the Military history WikiProject. I suggest going there, and requesting for comment instead in their discussion pages, as there would be more editors knowledgeable about the topic than in the Help Desk.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This is all from memory, so it might be not quite correct; anyway, Australia never wanted to operate Phantoms but got them as a stop-gap measure because the F-111s the RAAF had on order were not accepted due to their problems and were kept in the USA for several years. When the problems with the F-111s were fixed and they started being delivered (IIRC about six or seven years late), the Phantoms were returned to the USA. The USA offered to sell 48 Phantoms to Australia in the 1960s, when Australia said it would not accept delivery of the F-111s; when Australia decided to keep the F-111s but wait for them to be fixed, that is when the agreement to lease 24 was made. When the 23 surviving Phantoms were no longer needed by Australia the US suggested that Australia buy them instead of returning them, but as I said Australia never wanted them in the first place. I assume that the first Phantoms were returned before the first F-111s were delivered because the crews would have been training to fly the F-111s before delivery and there wouldn't have been enough people to fly the Phantoms as well as the F-111s. So, 11 F-4s were returned to the US in '72, then six F-111s were delivered in mid-'73 and the other 12 F-4s were then returned to the US. YSSYguy (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Maybe you can change the article a little to clarificate it? Thanks again :) Ofekalef (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I actually don't see the need to clarify anything, I thought it was pretty clear - but then I did have knowledge of what happened before I read this article. YSSYguy (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Turkish F-4 shootdown

should a new article for the F-4 shootdown be started? it's now officially a NATO incident and deserves it's own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. Have a careful read of WP:NOTNEWS to decide. - Ahunt (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Seems if we stick to the facts, it would make a good entry.

Just On X Date and Y time a RF-4 Phantom owned by Turkish air force was shot down in waters off of by Syrian military forces. This was in [Syrian |International] waters and has contributed to hostilities. The piilot was not recovered.--Patbahn (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

F-4s from Israel to Turkey

This article does not seem to mention that the last squadrons of the F-4Es and RF-4Es belonging to the Israeli Air Force were sold to Turkey, with the permission of the American Government. I clearly remember reading about this in the newspapers and magazines, but there is the remote possibility that this deal fell through.
This deal made sense because Israel and Turkey are both allies of the United States (with Turkey in NATO), so the permission was no problem, and the Turkish Air Force already had F-4Ds and F-4Es. Furthermore, Turkey is a moderate Moslem country that usually has good diplomatic and military relations with Israel.
Also, the Israeli Air Force had been spending years upgrading its fighter force to F-15 Eagles, F-16 Fighting Falcons, and Israeli-made Kfirs. Its F-4 Phantoms IIs had become surplus warplanes.

Incidentally, Turkey, Greece, and Egypt also bought F-16s from the U.S. to upgrade and supplement their forces of F-4 Phantoms. Thus there were several different air forces in the same geographical area all flying various kinds of American fighter planes:
Israel: F-4, F-15, and F-16
Egypt: F-4 and F-16
Greece: F-4 and F-16
Turkey: F-4 and F-16
Iran: F-4 and F-14 Tomcat (long grounded due to lack of spare parts and technical help).
Spain: F-4 and F-18 Hornet, and now getting Eurofighter Typhoons.

The Italian Air Force has had a wide variety of European and American fighter planes:
F-104 Starfighter (left service in 2004 - the very last ones in the world),
Pavavia Tornado ground attack version, still in service
Panavia Tornado air defense version, on lease from the U.K., but returned now.
F-16 Fighting Falcon, on a 10-year lease from the USAF, now over and F-16s returned to the U.S.
Eurofighter Typhoon, the new one entering service and taking over.

Italy was on the team that made the Tornadoes, along with the U.K. and West Germany.
Italy is on the team that make the Typhoons, along with the U.K., Germany, and Spain.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was allowed to buy F-15 Eagles decades ago, but at one time when the Kingdom wanted to by more, the U.S. Government turned them down. Saudi Arabia bought several squadrons of Panavia Tornadoes instead.
A couple of Saudi F-15s shot down two Iranian F-4s over the Persian Gulf one time, and it was no contest: the Iranian aviators never even saw or detected the F-15s.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.225.226 (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, but we need references to add this to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II_non-U.S._operators/Archive_2&oldid=1219240512"