Talk:Red Tails

Revival

According to Variety, casting was finalized today. Filming "begins soon" in Europe, so per the notability guidelines for future films, let's keep an eye out for a reliable source to confirm the start of principal photography and recreate the article with the confirmation. If the article is recreated, it may be worth requesting an admin to make available the page history that existed before its numerous deletions. Development history will become more relevant if there is an actual film in the making. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, its about time.Logjam42 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the plott really about America "winning" the war in the air in 1944 - when Germany was back then just capable of sending 2 (!) figther planes in total against the invasion fleet at D-Day??? Hollywood get your history lesson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.47.156.91 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Red Tails → Red Tails (film) — "Red Tails" should match "Redtails" and redirect to the Tuskegee Airmen, since the film is named after them, and they, not the film, is the primary and more encyclopedic topic. 70.24.249.190 (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support – the movie title "Red Tails" refers to the Tuskegee Airmen, which should be the primary topic for that title. The disambiguator (film) is therefore required. Dicklyon (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I'm suspicious that "Red Tails" is really that commonly used for the airmen since the "Red Tails" article has been about the movie from its creation. —  AjaxSmack  03:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Red Tails: World War II's Tuskegee Airmen"

Red Tails: An Oral History of the Tuskegee Airmen

Red Tails Black Wings: The Men of America's Black Air Force

Black Knights: The Story of the Tuskegee Airmen "... to become known as the Red Tails."

The Tuskegee Airmen: The Men Who Changed a Nation (Chapter 9: The Red Tails)

The Fighting Red Tails: America's first Black airmen (1978)

70.24.249.190 (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am 100% AGAINST moving/renaming this article. Red Tails is a movie, and while somewhat based on the exploits of the Tuskegee Airmen, it is fictionalized and a stand-alone etitity. We have seperate articles for the movie Titanic and the actual ship, and I feel this is a similar situation. Honestly I can't even believe an IP user would propose such a silly idea! Sector001 (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Titanic redirects to RMS Titanic, the ship, and is not the movie article, which is located at Titanic (1997 film). 70.24.249.190 (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to know the history of the Tuskegee Airmen. The movie is named "Red Tails" because the Tuskegee Airmen were called that, because they painted the tails of their fighters red.

"White American pilots on the European battle front called the black flyers the Red Tails" -- 'Tuskegee Airmen Proved They Were Heroes' - Lewiston Morning Tribune - 1979 Aug 14

"They were the Red Tails to their comrades, but to the Germans..." -- 'Tuskegee pilots: Men on a mission‎' - USA Today - 1992 Jul 30

"Out of that group, five became America's first black fighter pilots of the 99th Squadron - later known as the Red Tails" -- 'Spotlight finds Black Fliers' - Charlotte Observer - 1995 Aug 26

"Davis was commanding officer of the famous "Red Tails," an all-Negro fighter squadron in North Africa and Italy during World War II" -- 'Negro Named for Rank of Major General' - Chicago Tribune - 1959 May 23

70.24.249.190 (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• STRONGLY Oppose Red Tails is an article about a film, which derives its name from the distinctive color scheme that was used on the aircraft that the Tuskegee Airmen flew. I would not be opposed to a (film) descriptor if an article about "red tails" ever materializes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

We already have an article about the Red Tails, it's called Tuskegee Airmen. 70.49.124.157 (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

Plot Outline

There needs to be a plot outline for this movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.31.46.14 (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• done Bzuk (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

The plot outline begins with "In 1944, after enduring racism throughout their recruitment and training in the Tuskegee training program, the 332d Fighter Group of young African American USAAF fighter pilots are finally sent into combat in Italy," The racism, recruitment and training of the Tuskegee program is not adressed in the movie. Suggest this be replaced with; "The movie opens in 1944 with bombers under escort by allied P51 aircraft attacked by german Luftwafe fighters. After luring the allied escorts away with a decoy squadron the germans attack the now unescorted bombers inflicting heavy losses. The film then finds airmen from the Tuskegee training program, the 332d Fighter Group of young African American USAAF fighter pilots in combat in Italy,

98.164.69.215 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Compare/Contrast with History

I'd love to see a section detailing the bits that were conspicuously historically accurate (victory rolls upon returning to base) and inaccurate (Black Jesus seemed like Aaron McGruder's knowing wink to the audience). 75.161.70.32 (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• A commanding officer that would condone a victory roll would be out of keeping with the typical response, in that an aircraft returning from battle might have unforeseen problems and many instances of "hotdogging" pilots killing themselves was a testament to that response. On the other hand, the practice of "beating up a field" was commonplace and despite the official sanctions, continued throughout the war, and I suspect, till modern times. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

• German FW-190 aircraft were absent from the film even though they were prevalent in the latter years of WW-2 in the European theater. *The Red Tails flew no P-47 or P-39 aircraft in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.29.1 (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably spent all there money computerizing the jets.Ovr'apint (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong. One of the pilots mentioned that his father was a 'Judge'. Wasnt the first Black judge _after_ WW2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.75.196.230 (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• William Henry Hastie became the first African American to serve as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Virgin Islands from 1937 to 1939. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

German ME-262 jets never defended Berlin from bombing attacks. The Messerschmitt jet fighters were introduced in April 1944, and the last bombing of Berlin by American forces occurred a month sooner on March 8, 1944. The British bombed Berlin on March 25, 1944, but that was still before the jets rolled off the production lines.

was soll > das < denn ???

eine flieger-staffel aus lauter negern solche halb-affen kann man in afrika freilassen

von der handlung her ist dieser film ein schuss in den ofen

statt amerikanische kriegs-verbrecher zu heroisieren sollte man lieber die deutschen jagdflieger hochleben lassen

> das < waren damals die wahren und wirklichen helden der lüfte

sie haben diese kriminellen terror-angriffe auf die deutsche zivil-bevölkerung so gut es ging abgewehrt und haben damit vielen menschen das leben gerettet

manchen enkeln und ur-enkeln ist überhaupt nicht klar das sie ihre existenz unseren jagdfliegern verdanken

wären sie früher in der schule besser informiert worden dann wüssten sie heute den einsatz der deutschen jagd-geschwader gegen englische und amerikanische terror-bomber besser zu schätzen

wenn wir mal diese komischen neger ausser acht lassen und uns auf die filmische botschaft konzentrieren dann ergibt sich ein groteskes bild

da werden gezielte terror-angriffe auf frauen und kinder zu einem helden-epos verklärt

das ziel der alliierten luft-offensive war es möglichst viele deutsche umzubringen aber keine soldaten an der front sondern zivilisten in den ballungs-räumen der gross-städte

bei diesem bomben-terror starben in deutschland > 800.000 < menschen

davon waren > 130.000 < kinder

amerikanische tiefflieger schossen auf junge mädchen bei der feld-arbeit und sogar auf spielende kinder

wenn solche terror-piloten durch dämlich grinsende neger dargestellt werden und der massenmord am deutschen volk auch noch als helden-saga präsentiert wird dann dreht sich einem aber echt der magen um

nachdem goebbels abgeschossene feindliche flieger für vogelfrei erklärt hatte wurde die lynch-justiz zum allseits beliebten volks-sport

ich kenne das noch gut von den erzählungen meiner oma an ihrer goldenen hochzeit

sie war damals beim BDM und hatte den vollen hass auf diese sogenannten "alliierten"

als die flak einige ami-bomber abschoss kamen die flieger mit dem fallschirm herunter und landeten in einem waldstück

daraufhin gab die sturm-abteilung waffen aus und veranstaltete eine treibjagd bei der jeder mitmachen durfte

alles rannte in den wald - da spielten sich bizarre szenen ab - das war wie in einem zombie-film

die oma bekam von der SA ein M 98 gewehr aus dem ersten weltkrieg und brachte damit vier luft-piraten zur strecke

daraufhin wurde sie vom förster zur schützen-königin ernannt

in einem anderen fall wurde ein tiefflieger von einem deutschen jäger abgeschossen

die oma rannte sofort los aber die leute aus dem nachbar-dorf waren schneller als sie dort hinkam hatten die den schon zu hackfleisch verarbeitet

bei amerikanischen terror-angriffen in japan starben über eine million zivilisten

dieser film ist eine "george lucas" produktion

abgesehen davon das STAR WARS absoluter schwachsinn ist kann man "RED TAILS" als typisches beispiel für den üblichen hollywood-schrott verbuchen bei dem die amis die grossen helden sind und sogenannte "verbrechen gegen die menschlichkeit" nur im rahmen der ENDLÖSUNG wahrgenommen werden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DB:C3D7:B414:B8FE:BB4A:D81E:3CA3 (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Critics versus audience reactions

Although a constant reversion of Rotten Tomatoes reviewer's reaction has been made, the reason behind including reviews from the "unwashed" is that it illustrates the dichotomy of a film that is receiving predominately negative reviews from traditional media while the film is being received well by audiences. Regardless of the reasons for the attendance, and bearing in mind, the aftermath of a social media campaign to support the film, the situation is akin to many other films who received a trashing from critics, yet went on to a successful outing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

The recent edit in the reception area groups the critics response into one paragraph and the unique social media/audience reaction into a second passage. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC).

"Directed by..."

Taking the cue (and formatting) from the articles on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and Gone with the Wind (film), George Lucas should remain listed as an uncredited director, given that we have sources who worked on the picture saying he worked as director on the reshoots. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Myths need a real source

I tried to remove the section on myths because the references were not about the movie. Those myths probably weren't in this movie. I was reverted on the basis that the claims were referenced, but this isn't so. One of the references is from 2007. The other one is from last November. This movie came out last month. These references talk about movies without it specifying that it was this movie. You need to find real references if you want to keep this section. Suppertyme (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite a source for this claim: "The film also states in the epilogue that the Tuskeegee airman holds the best fighter records in the US". Suppertyme (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked with somebody who knows. The quote isn't exact. It does say something like "among the best" or "one of the best". It's too wide a statement. It could be interpreted in any number of ways. It can't be called "false" on the basis of whether or not they had any aces because they never claimed to have had aces. Suppertyme (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I moved these comments into its own talk page since some editors were reverting while obviously not reading them.

None of these two sources pertain to this film. It would be more understandable if you put the section back in again, but removed the sources and added citation-needed tags. The bogus sources are worse than no source at all because they make it appear that it is sourced.

I'm reverting it again if I don't get a response. Suppertyme (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It can be rewritten. It should also be noted that none of the characters in the movie portray actual named pilots. The film claims they were among the best, which is hardly correct, which is why they never had any aces and killed so few enemies. The best equals the most flights and enemies killed. What is a real source? http://tuskegee.edu/ is a university and it is from a written report from the university. These aren't bogus myths. The epilogue states in the movie at the end "The highly decorated Red Tails compiled one of the best records of any of the air fighter groups in World War 2." <-- Which is completely false. This would mean that they shot down the most enemies and had the most aces of any of the US air fighter groups. A lot of mainstream media is reporting a lot of these falsehoold about the Tuskegee airmen, including that they lost no bombers during escort. I have provided the actual air force report as a source about this myth. --Wis (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You are making an assumption that the word 'best' means they were in the top whatever-number percent. It could literally mean they were in the top 49%. That's what I meant when I said it's too wide a statement.

You are also making an assumption that 'best' means they shot down the most enemies. That is certainly not true. You don't have a source for that. It could also mean they had a good on-time record, or a good maintenance record, or whatever. The word could be used in any number of ways. Some of them might be shady, but some of them could well be accurate that you just hadn't thought of.

For a real assessment, you would need to compare their impact on the battlefield, which definitely includes a lot more than air-to-air kills, with the resources at their disposal taken into account.

In short, you need a source for what the word means in whatever context the film makers intended, and you don't have one. You cannot assume it means whatever you would want it to mean at the moment. Suppertyme (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"The highly decorated Red Tails compiled one of the best records of any of the air fighter groups in World War 2." is a direct quote from the movie's epilogue. Its a pretty big claim to make given that their record has so few kills compared to other American figher groups, British figher groups and German fighter groups and when they haven't produced a single ace. Saying they were the best of any fighter groups in world 2, would mean that they were best in everything they did, flying, killing the enemy and escorting. A lot of the people in the media who talks about this movie, make it seem that the movie is based on facts, when it is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/357th_Fighter_Group currently holds the record of US aces and kills. Saying the Tuskegee Airmen had the best record is simply not the truth and historical inaccurate. --Wis (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If they said they were the "best of any" then you'd have a point. But your quote reads "one of the best" which says right there that there are many in that set.

Forget the "not a single ace" standard. That requires certain kinds of missions at a certain point of the war. You have to look at entire picture. I'm reminded of the phrase attributed to Omar Bradley, "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." You need a more complicated yardstick to judge what makes one squadron better than average.

This is really beside the point. Wikipedia rules (WP:SYNTH) don't allow the kind of analysis you want. What you need is some reliable source critic to say this stuff that you can then cite. At the moment, we still only have the sources that aren't talking about this movie, which is why it needs to be fixed or removed. Suppertyme (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have largely rewritten the section as there was a definite connection between the claims made in the film, that have recently been been the subject of dialogue between historians and members of the Tuskegee Airmen. Red Tails portrays largely fictional events based on the exploits of the Tuskegee airmen, although many viewers were left with the impression that the film was entirely historically accurate. Through a series of three webinars held on February 4, 9 and 12, sponsored by the Commemorative Air Force's Red Tail Project, surviving Tuskegee Airmen Colonel Charles McGee and Colonel Harold Brown attempted to put the film in perspective. Three claims were the most contentious, according to period records, it was believed that the Tuskegee Airmen did not lose a single bomber due to enemy fire. However, this claim has been proven inaccurate and an Air Force report from 2006, showed that at least 25 bombers or more were lost to enemy fire. The film also states in the epilogue that the Tuskegee Airmen hold the best fighter records in the US Air Force, this is also inaccurate, officially, the Tuskegee Airmen did not produce a single fighter pilot ace, although Lee Archer (pilot)'s record is still in dispute. (Lee Archer had four confirmed victories and although involved in shooting down a Messerschmitt Bf 109, the victory was given to another Tuskegee Airman, who initially had considered Archer as the one who had shot down the Bf 109. They were also not the first fighter pilots from the US who shot down Luftwaffe Me 262 jet fighters. Two P-47 pilots from another unit had that distinction. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

Aside from the general point that the plot was fictional, most of what you're saying would be perfectly suitable for the article on the Tuskegee Airmen. It doesn't fit here without a source saying that it was used in the movie.

The "one of the best" claim is only thing I see pertaining to Red Tails, and you are stretching that beyond limits. It is entirely a matter of opinion to measure "best" solely by the number of air-to-air kills. Suppertyme (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the section again; the historical accuracy of the film was discussed by two Tuskegee Airmen veterans, and a large number of the participants in the webinars brought up the discrepancies in the film compared to the historical record. The three major areas of contention were identified that have become part of the myth of the Tuskegee Airmen. I am still not fully satisfied with the section as it is not part of the major rewrite and only appeared recently, submitted by another editor. As already considered by a number of other editors, the section is appropriate and deals with the specific as well as implied claims made in the film. Reading the reviews that appeared on the launch of Red Tails, makes it sufficiently clear that nearly all reviewers took the film to task as to the departures from the historical record. Many of the viewers had similar concerns, commenting on the lack of fidelity to actual events, although Lucas made it clear from the outset that the film was not done in documentary style `a la Battle of Britain or Tora! Tora! Tora!, both earlier efforts in documenting significant events in World War II. This film has a closer affinity to productions like Memphis Belle that dramatized events, although based on a true story. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

I haven't seen the webinars in the new source yet. The reference goes straight to the main page of the website, not the exact page of the webinars. I'll try to find and read it tomorrow.

That new source isn't linked to any of the claims in the movie that I was talking about. In other words, the part I was talking about are still unreferenced. Don't forget that this is an article about the movie. The section should be about any myths the movie might have pushed. Any myths about the Tuskegee Airmen that aren't in the movie should be in that article, not this one. Suppertyme (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW: You are absolutely right about Memphis Belle. It would have been better if Spielberg had made this film. Suppertyme (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As you can imagine, the webinars were only hosted for a short period and the original site is now down, but I now have a secondary link added from the main CAF Red Tail Project website. The section is still not completely satisfactory, but like all of wikiwackywonderland, is a work in progress. FWiW, I was involved in the webinars as a participant, and was able to discuss the salient points made in the production related to historical accuracy. Bzuk (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

Lies and inaccuracy

So it's ok in Hollywood to rattle off a string of lies at the end to make it a feelgood film?
The movie The Great Debaters did the exact same thing. It ends with this impressive listing of achievements. When you look into it further, it's a listing of fabrications.
If (cast===black) result=crock.
Varlaam (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You do know how this sounds?? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

Bzuk, What's the problem with the edit concerning the inaccuracy of the movie's claim that allied fighters abandoned the bombers to chase german fighters? 98.164.96.28 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are cited, verifiable and authoritative references to disprove this statement, all that is left is either personal opinion or unsupported statements. It is a matter of record that until early 1944, Allied escort fighters could not stay with the bombers throughout "deep" missions due to a lack of range. Tying the fighters to close escort also had detrimental effects as the Luftwaffe strategy was to amass large formations that would sweep past the escorts and attack the bombers with devastating effect. Nevertheless, the new German strategies (using both heavily-armed Fw 190s as bomber destroyers, and Bf 109Gs to escort them) in the so-called Gefechtsverband formations led to new tactics as the U.S. fighters, kept in close contact with the bombers they were protecting, could not chase down the attacking fighters before they were forced to turn around and return to the bombers. Lt. Gen. Jimmy Doolittle, commander of the 8th Air Force from the end of 1943, responded by "freeing" the fighters, allowing them to fly far ahead of the heavy bomber formations in an air superiority "fighter sweep" mode on the outward legs, then roam far from the bomber streams and hunt down the German fighters - especially the Sturmböcke Focke-Wulfs, from their limited maneuverability with their heavy cannons - before they could begin to approach the bombers. Though the change was unpopular with the bomber crews, its effects were immediate and extremely effective. The Red Tails employed a more tight escort with some of the force deployed ahead, while others stayed close to the bomber stream. FWiW (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC).

For the record, the claim, made several times in the movie, that the allied fighters abandoned their escort mission primarily to "chase glory" by fighter kills was inacurate as well as offensive to the allied fighters. 98.164.96.28 (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the note above; the Allied fighter sweeps ahead of bombers started in 1943 when they were released from close escort duties. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see your point. You admit in your reply that "It is a matter of record that until early 1944, Allied escort fighters could not stay with the bombers throughout "deep" missions due to a lack of range." as well as a number of other tactical reasons. Yet you still seem to disagree with it being in the article.

98.164.96.28 (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The escort fighters were "tied" to the bombers until being released by orders from Lt. Gen. Jimmy Doolittle, commander of the 8th Air Force, to go "hunting". The bomber crews felt that close escort was more effective and resented that their fighter escort's mission had been changed to destroying the Luftwaffe rather than staying close to the bombers. When the Tuskegee Airmen took on the role of bomber escort, a closer escort mission was employed, although the Red Tails also did their share of going after the enemy defenders. No aspersions were cast on Allied fighter pilots who were tasked to shoot down the Luftwaffe, as the 8th Air Force high command had determined that shooting down the intercepting German fighters would be more effective in protecting the bombers, as the enemy would be reduced significantly in numbers before reaching the bomber streams. The fighter missions continued to be adapted to attacking the Luftwaffe, even to the extent of hitting airfields as Luftwaffe flights were taking off (and in the case of the Me 262s and Me 163s, timing their strikes to shoot down the jet and rocket fighters when they were returning to their bases and were highly vulnerable). The fact that bomber crews felt that they were in jeopardy when they observed their fighter escort leaving, to strike out against the defenders, was a point of contention throughout the war, note the similar circumstances of bomber-escort tactics when the Luftwaffe bombers attacked Britain in 1940, and the B-29 raids over Japan. The Red Tails gained the respect and gratitude of bomber crews because their mission was specifically to protect the bombers, as both the 8th Air Force and 9th Air Force struggled with how to most effectively counter German fighter opposition to the Allied daylight bombing campaign over Europe. When the Tuskegee Airmen began their fighter escort missions, the Luftwaffe had already been significantly reduced so that a close escort mission, which was the most difficult to achieve as the disparity between the speeds required to stay with the bombers and the need to reach the interceptors roaring in at high speed from the advantage of altitude and orientation, was a formidable hurdle to overcome, yet achievable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you would be agreeable to an edit of the article that includes some of the additinal reasons you point out as well as limited range as my edit pointed out for the fighters leaving the bombers in addition to, or in dispute of, the claims made in the movie that they left the bombers exclusively to chase glory? 98.164.96.28 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The claim made in the movie that other escort fighters were not closely tied to bombers, and were assigned the task of shooting down the Luftwaffe is accurate. Their role was to fly with the bombers on long penetration missions but then take off to intercept the German fighters before they were formatted, typically trying to catch them on their long climb to altitude or even at their forward bases. The bomber crews believed that a close escort was necessary and attributed the tactics that the Red Tails employed, as the reason for their greater chances of survival, and led to the so-called Red Tails' myth of "no bomber lost under escort." The only thing that would be inaccurate is that bombers were lost while under Red Tails' escort, an issue which is already addressed.

Have you read any of Anderson or Yeager's account of their P-51 missions, especially Chapter 9 of Fly and Fight or Chapters 6, 7 of Yeager where the ethos of the fighter pilot, especially the premier airmen of the 8th Air Force, is described in some detail. The frustration that senior officers had in the "hotdogging" of the aces, including Don Gentile who wiped out his P-51 in a stunt, led to blanket decrees that "victory rolls" and "beat-ups" were not sanctioned and would lead to disciplinary action, yet those acts continued throughout the war. Some, not all, reveled in the deadly combat in the air over Europe, counted their victory totals and had them painted on their aircraft. Yes, there was "glory" to be had. The race to become the U.S. "ace-of-aces" is very well documented and involved pilots in all theatres, leading to the calamitous end of at least two of the contenders, Thomas McGuire in the Pacific and "Gabby" Gabreski in Europe. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You say "The claim made in the movie that other escort fighters were not closely tied to bombers, and were assigned the task of shooting down the Luftwaffe is accurate." That's a straw man.

The movie clearly depicts "the other escort fighters" as leaving the bombers only due to a character flaw. No mention is made in the movie of the historical facts of the multitude of bomber escort exegencies and strategy as you well know them. Were there "hot doggers"? Sure. Was that the primary reason, as depicted in the movie, for the fighters leaving the bombers? No. As you well know. My question for you is have you seen the movie. I can't imagine how someone as obviously well read in the history of WWII flight as you could have seen the movie and not be offended by its innacurate depiction of the white pilots which is tantamount to charater assasination. Either you havn't seen the movie or your problem with the edit is that you see the depiction of the white pilots in the movie as derogotory to the pilots and don't want it pointed out with referance to more accurate historical reasons in the article.

98.164.115.172 (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wp:Stick and WOADB now applies. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You undid that edit again even though I added referances to tactical and strategic causes in addition to limited range as cause for the escorts leaving the bombers. I can't leave messages on your talk page as it's locked. Your last message WOADB (water off a duck's back?) Implies you don't want to discuss this further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.115.172 (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You have to assume that there is no consensus for the consistent addition of a controversial submission, under the dictum of WP:BRD (Bold-Revert-Discuss). The WOADB statment refers to personal remarks made which are consistent with Wp:Incivil, an aspect of wiki editing that is unacceptable. Note, my concerns with the statement in question can be basically summarized as:

1. Characterization of a tactical strategy as being "inaccurate" when this was the standard operational orders for U.S. fighter escorts after 1943 to intercept Luftwaffe defenders in an offensive "sweep".
2. Disregarding the impression that U.S. bomber crews had that close escort was necessary and why there was a request through channels in 1944 to have this in place, a role that the Tuskegee Airmen were to fulfill.
3. Stating that U.S. fighter pilots were acting "due to a character flaw" when there were standing orders to destroy the Luftwaffe defensive forces, an effort that would eventually result in a number of U.S. fighter pilots building up their victory totals.
4. The film does not resort to "character assassination" of "white" pilots, merely stating the obvious, that when the "Red Tails" were finally able to undertake a significant mission, they were ordered to "stay with the bombers" while all other fighter escort missions continued the "hunter/jaeger" sweeps. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Addressing another issue that references were made; there were No references sources cited, and that is the requirement needed in order for any contentious issue to be added. The reference source must also be from a verifiable, authoritative tertiary or secondary source and properly noted in citations and bibliographic notations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Once BRD is enacted, it is also contingent on all parties to remain in a discourse rather than to re-insert an obviously challenged statement that has no consensus for further acceptance. That action is also unacceptable as it violates the WP:3R rule that is one of the linchpins of Wiki collaboration. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is very little we have in contention about the article. I am in contention of your mischaraterization of my replies to you. "# Characterization of a tactical strategy as being "inaccurate" when this was the standard operational orders for U.S. fighter escorts after 1943 to intercept Luftwaffe defenders in an offensive "sweep"."

I referance the movie. The characters in the movie make no referance to strategy, limited range or tactics. The characters in the movie only refer to it as glory seaking. That is what is inaccurate.98.164.115.172 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"# Disregarding the impression that U.S. bomber crews had that close escort was necessary and why there was a request through channels in 1944 to have this in place, a role that the Tuskegee Airmen were to fulfill."

I don't disregard this. I referance the movie. The characters in the movie refer to the loss of escort only in disparaging terms of glory hunting, and quoting directly from the movie, "chasing rabbits". The movie makers may be granted literary liscense to "simplify" the loss and/or lack of escort in those terms. But That "simplification" makes it inaccurate.98.164.115.172 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"# Stating that U.S. fighter pilots were acting "due to a character flaw" when there were standing orders to destroy the Luftwaffe defensive forces, an effort that would eventually result in a number of U.S. fighter pilots building up their victory totals."

I didn't state that in the article. I didn't state that in my response to you. I stated in my response to you that the characters in the movie make statements that are disparaging of the character of the allied fighter pilots for the loss/lack of escort and make no referance to the real historical reasons for the loss/lack of escort. I referance the movie for those statements made in the movie.98.164.115.172 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"# The film does not resort to "character assassination" of "white" pilots, merely stating the obvious, that when the "Red Tails" were finally able to undertake a significant mission, they were ordered to "stay with the bombers" while all other fighter escort missions continued the "hunter/jaeger" sweeps."

The only thing in the movie that is "obvious" and accurate about the loss/lack of escort is that it happened. The only statements by characters in the movie treat the loss/lack of escort as lack of character of the pilots. That is historicly inaccurate. All the pilots in reality, bombers, escort fighters, and german atackers too, knew why the escorts had to leave and it was not due to lack of character as depicted in the movie. Any reasonably accurate history of the WWII bombing campaigns contains essays on the loss/lack of escort due to strategy, tactics and lack of range. Is this what you are contending? Is this what you are demanding referances for?98.164.115.172 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, don't "interlace" your responses as this is considered re-writing the original statement and is again, unacceptable in terms of protocol and talk page decorum. You do understand that "referencing" the film is considered WP:OR (Original Research) that is not usable as only secondary and tertiary reference sources are accepted; and in the case of a contentious issue WP:RS (Reliable Source) is required in the form of an authoritative and verifiable source of information.

After 1943, U.S. fighter escorts were ordered to go and fight the enemy; it was a planned operational strategy to deplete the resources of the Luftwaffe. Once drop tanks and dedicated long-range fighters were available, the U.S. escort fighters could stay with the bombers throughout the mission, but it was considered a better tactic to intercept the oncoming defensive armada as it was being formed up and vulnerable, rather than try to stay with the bombers and be forced to stay on station, and at a tactical disadvantage. The U.S. fighter pilots were expected to down the enemy in such numbers that an adequate defense would not only be unprofitable but also costly, and the tactic worked. By the end of 1944, the Luftwaffe was no longer able to put up sufficient numbers to do anything but harass the bomber fleets, however, they still proved to be a formidable foe, especially after the introduction of technically superior jet and rocket-powered interceptors, such as the Me 163 and Me 262. The bomber crews had the occasion to see escorting fighters come back to shepherd the "wounded ducks" back home and knew how effective it was to have a determined and committed fighter escort. These crews campaigned for close escorts, despite resistance from U.S. 8th Air Force Command. The "Red Tail" squadrons were primarily drawn from the 9th Air Force that was detailed to fly and fight over Italy and the Mediterranean Combat Theatre. The escort missions in which they first encountered returning bombers, led to them adopting a protective close escort, resulting in bomber crews demanding that the "Red Tails" become their escorts. Postwar, former crew members such as Norman Lear (writer/producer of "All in the Family" fame) remarked that having the red-marked P-51s close by assured them that they were being adequately protected. The myth that the Tuskegee Airmen never lost a bomber came from that period, even though it was later determined that up to 25 bombers under their care, were brought down. There are numerous instances of other U.S. fighter pilots "racking up scores" (and consequently, "going for glory") but the "Red Tails" did not even have an official "ace" (a score of five aerial victories qualified for ace status), as they were committed to their role as close escort. Despite the more single-minded purpose of bringing the bombers home, the Tuskegee Airmen did engage and shoot down Luftwaffe aircraft. That the bomber crews made the distinction between escort fighters that seemed to abandon them while the "Red Tails" stayed close by, even to the detriment of their own safety, was adequately addressed in the film. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you appear to be a bit unsure of some of the Wikipedia format, I have sent you a message on your talk page that includes some "pointers" to the basic structure of the Wikipedia project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

I did not "interlace" your post. I left it alone and in my response quoted your post point by point. You must have just skipped past your post and thought my quotes and responses were "interlaced" with your post. I didn't edit the quotes so you couldn't accuse me of misquoting.

The wiki policy says that primary sources are acceptable for direct quotes that "anyone of reasonable intelligence with access to the primary source can confirm". The primary source for the direct quotes "scalp hunting" "chasing glory leaving our asses unprotected" (in the first minutes of the movie) and "chasing rabbits" (later on by the bomber commander) are direct quotes from the primary source which is the movie. The secondary sources about the history of fighter escort regarding limited range, stategic and tactical history are general sources which you are not in contention of. Forget your lengthy lectures on the history of the bombing campaigns and fighter escort. (forget your WP rules game too. I don't think I'm out of the rules.) Your contention with my addition to the article, In terms of WP rules, is that the characterization, by the characters in the movie, of the fighters as "scalp hunting" "chasing glory leaving our asses unprotected" and "chasing rabbits" is historicly accurate unless a third party "reliable source" publishes an article pointing out that it isn't in terms of historical general referances to the limited range, stratecic and tactical reasons. 98.164.115.172 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In order to have your view accepted in the article, you require consensus which is obviously not forthcoming. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Then the next step is to request third party opinion. I'm supposed to ask if you intend to submit to third party questioning. If not I can go immediately to a request for arbitration. 98.164.115.172 (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I will post the request on both Aviation and Military forums. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

=Section break

Hi, I've wandered along from the Milhist talk page. If I've understood the above correctly, the issue at hand is that the film contains an inaccurate portrayal of fighter pilots (by showing them abandoning bombers during missions). Is that correct?

If the film does misrepresent these events (I haven't seen it), that is pretty frustrating - although no more than Hollywood's versions of Enigma or the Bulge to name but a few. But unless there is a documented, reference-able criticism of it from an expert or in the media, I can't really see that a criticism of the film on this point can be included in the article. The Tuskagee webinars are a good example of well referenced criticism (in fact were this criticism made in them, it can certainly be put into the article). Unfortunately the most recent addition isn't referenced and, whilst it might be true, isn't suitable for inclusion unless a suitable source can be found. The way that Wikipedia works means that something needs to have already been said, by someone else, before it can be included in the article. Ranger Steve ^Talk 22:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My contention is that the statements by bomber pilots were period accurate, in that they did not accept the premise that their escorting fighters would leave to intercept the oncoming Luftwaffe fighters, a role that was dictated by U.S. Air Force command from late 1943 on, as a more effective means of protecting the bombers. The film accurately depicts bomber pilots' frustration with fighter pilots who were ordered to shoot down enemy aircraft, rather than stay close to the bombers. This close support tactic had that not only had proved to be wholly ineffective, but had hampered the escorting fighters from acting in a defensive role, leading to an operational change that freed up the fighters to shoot down the enemy. The high command sought to decimate the formidable Luftwaffe fighter arm, with some later historians postulating that the bombers were the "carrot" in order to draw out the Luftwaffe and eventually through a tactic of attrition, destroy their effectiveness as a defensive force.

When the Tuskegee Airmen were requested to act as bomber escorts, it was in response to their shepherding home a damaged bomber by providing close escort. The film documents the different tactics that were employed by the "Red Tails", who were tasked with close escort, a role that led to the enviable record of protecting the bombers (nonetheless, suffering losses in staying close to the bombers and not looking after their own survival or in shooting down the enemy in great numbers). There are voluminous reference sources that validate this exact scenario, and that LtCol Lee Archer, one of the Tuskegee Airmen, was "on board" as a historical and technical adviser, indicates that effort was made to be historically accurate in an essentially dramatic (and somewhat fictionalized) account. I was an active participant in the follow-up "Red Tails Project" Webinars and the topic was never one that came up in any of three forums that were hosted by surviving members of the Tuskegee Airmen. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

It wouldn't surprise me if Hollywood attempted to summarise a military strategy with a few duff lines, it probably wouldn't be the first time. I'm sure that all that you've said is true, but basically I don't think its relevant. If no-one else has discussed the way in which the film handles the historical situation on this particular issue, neither should the article. Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur, and refer back to the very first statement made when the issue was discussed: "Unless there are cited, verifiable and authoritative references to disprove this statement, all that is left is either personal opinion or unsupported statements." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ranger Steve as well. The guidelines at WP:FILMHIST follow this, and the webinars are a great source to use here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the wiki rules is to make better articles. What you all are doing is known as wiki lawering. That is against the wiki rules. You all agree that the depiction of allied pilots abandoning the bombers, "lured by german decoys" to "head hunt", "chase rabbits" and "glory" is untrue. But you still don't want it in the article hanging your objection on your interpretation of one wiki rule. We are the editors of the article. The rules are that if it means anything to the editors to have an accurate article then it should be accurate regardless of what a rule can be interpreted to mean by wiki lawering. You all should read the fifth pillar of wikipedia. "break any rule if it makes the article better." "be bold but not reckless". The edit under discussion is neither bold nor reckless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.69.215 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are applying your own interpretation of the rules and attempting to insert your own interpretation of the movie. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth to find out why this can't be included. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have posted on the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the original research issue of the edit concerning the bomber escort inaccuracy in the movie. 98.164.89.101 (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

== First sentence

Commercial reception

The existing "Reception" section makes no mention of the box office performance, which the infobox indicates was quite poor. natemup (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)