Talk:Dogfights (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dogfights (TV series) article.
Article policies
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Episode List — Original Air Dates

Hornfischer, in the episode list, you updated the entry for "Death of the Japanese Navy", expanding the description. Thanks for that. You also changed the date for the episode from 12/15/06 to 12/29/06. The dates after the episode names are the original air dates for the episodes. These can be seen by going to the external link "Episodes for Dogfights on IMDB", near the bottom of the page. Per IMDB, that episode originally aired on 12/15/06. So, I'm changing the date back. Keep in mind that these episodes are often repeated by the History Channel. For all I know this episode was also shown on 12/29/06, and you may have seen it then. If you'd like to discuss this further, please reply here. -- Mudwater 00:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original air date of "The Greatest Air Battles"

The two hour (including commercials) episode "Dogfights: The Greatest Air Battles" was the pilot episode for the series (no pun intended). It was made and originally broadcast about year before the rest of the episodes. It's included in the DVD box set of the first season that was released on 4/24/07. In trying to figure out when it originally aired, I found this discussion board thread on historychannel.com. On 9/17/05 they're saying that they saw it "Friday night", which seems to indicate that it aired on Friday, 9/16/05. I've put that in the article as the original air date. If anyone can confirm or refute that, please reply here. — Mudwater 12:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a talking head on the series and will forward this to the producers. B Tillman 6-15-07

[edit] Possible correction re ME-109

please correct the verbage in the WWII episode as the narrator refers to an ME 109 German vs. a P-47 USA aircraft . the plane in the graphic is a German FW 190 not a ME -109 . d.crowley 7-27-07

I'm looking at the article and I'm not quite clear on what should be changed to what. Can you explain the exact correction you're suggesting? Or better yet, you can just go ahead and fix the article. You don't have to sign in to change articles if you don't want to, you can edit them anyway. — Mudwater 01:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the commercial, and there's both a Bf-109 and an Fw-190. But I think we should wait until the episode airs, then make the correction. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Pilot" or "aircrew"?

In a recent edit the word "pilot" was changed to "aircrew" in a number of places in the article. I'm voting for changing it back. The vast majority of the show deals with pilots. Other aircrew members are involved or even interviewed occasionally, but since the show focuses on fighter airplanes dogfighting, the major emphasis is on the pilots. Anyone else have an opinion on this? — Mudwater 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back. The only two episodes with aircrews in them were Long Odds and Kamikazes. The rest were pilots. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I made that change from "pilot" to "aircrew" and while I disagree with going back to "pilot," I'm not going to bother getting in an argument over changing it back. However, I'd appreciate if you'd try to understand where I'm coming from. The assertion "The only two episodes with aircrews in them were Long Odds and Kamikazes" is not correct. Besides Long Odds and Kamikaze, crews are featured (at minimum) in The Greatest Air Battles, Hell Over Hanoi, Hunt for the Bismarck, Death of the Japanese Navy, and the upcoming The Bloodiest Day. For the oft-featured F-4, the pilots alone couldn't have pulled off the engagements or feats depicted -- the NFOs/WSOs were an integral part of the action. The vast majority of the public reflexively attributes every action to "the pilot" when talking about aircraft, but since that is often not the case, I believe the use of the word "aircrew" is more appropriate; use of "pilot" is exclusionary, whereas the use of "aircrew" is inclusionary. Shawn D. 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could say "pilots" when it was a pilot and "aircrew" when it was an aircrew". Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That would work, but doing so for every episode could get unwieldy and detract from the flow of the article. At least the issue has been acknowledged! Shawn D. 12:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Dogfights (TV series) → Dogfights —(Discuss)— this is the usual way of disambiguating. The hatnote at the top should suffice. —Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 22:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Best not to move. "Dogfights" by itself usually means merely "more then one dogfight". Anthony Appleyard 11:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Right now, "Dogfights" redirects to "Dogfight (disambiguation)". As a point of interest, this article started out, on December 16, 2006, being named "Dogfights". On January 30, 2007, it was renamed "Dogfights (TV)". On July 8 it was renamed to "Dogfights (TV series)". Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), the article should definitely be named either "Dogfights" or "Dogfights (TV series)", the question of course is which one. As it says on the naming conventions page, "Remember the disambiguator ["(TV series)"] should only be added if multiple articles would normally have the same name. If the title of the television program is the most common usage of the phrase, let it be the title of the article for example The Apprentice or Guiding Light." — Mudwater 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One episode or two?

I propose listing "Kamikaze" and "The Luftwaffe's Deadliest Mission" as two separate episodes, both with original air dates of 7/13/07. As noted in the current version of the article, the first episode of the second season was apparently a two hour episode. The first half was about Japanese kamikaze pilots, and the second half was about the German Sonderkommando Elbe. Subsequently, the second half has been shown as a stand alone episode. What I believe happened is that they were made as two separate episodes, then shown together as a single episode when season two premiered. Now they're being shown separately, it seems. "Kamikaze" hasn't been shown as a stand alone one hour episode yet, but I bet it will be at some point. — Mudwater 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been several weeks and no one's said anything about this either way, so I'm going to go ahead and make this change. — Mudwater 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
It's actually two seperate episodes, They were originally listed for broadcast in the listings and the HC Website under the title "Kamikaze" as Part 1 and Part 2. What was broadcast as Part 2 had the actual title of "The Luftwaffe's Deadliest Mission". "Part 2" was later broadcast under it's correct title as a repeat episode. Also, these two episodes were combined into a single two hour episode in the last week of November by cutting the credits of episode 1 and the intro and title splash of episode 2 and inserting a commercial break, as far as my recorder shows this was a once only thing so far. They might rebroadcast the two hour version again sometimes in the future, but I think it will add nothing but more confusion to what was the actual episodes. I still have my copy of the original broadcast of both episodes 1 and 2 on DVD with the airdate and listed title written on them the day they were broadcast. It doesn't tell me a whole lot about the HC's commitment to consistancy. ;-) I corrected the note in the episode list to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.213.103 (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's happened to D-Fights!

Does anybody know what's going on with Dogfights? I think we should include it in the article. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please clarify this question by being more specific? Also, why did you add the NPOV template to the article? That says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed". I wasn't aware of any neutrality disputes about the article, please explain. Thanks. — Mudwater 13:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I mean it has been off for quite some time. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
True, they haven't shown a new episode in about three weeks. I'm not sure that's worth mentioning in the article at this point though. — Mudwater 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
A new episode, "Night Fighters", is on now.... — Mudwater 03:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

The P-47 Thunderbolt, or "jug" as it was known, distinguished itself as one of the most lethal dogfighters of World War II, a classic warbird best remembered for its size, ruggedness, and reputation for protecting the pilot.

Some of the greatest fighter pilots of all time engaged in epic duels over the battered landscape of France and Belgium in World War I.

Bob Lodge and Roger Locher pioneer electronic warfare and engage in one of the most exciting air battles of the war.

I put the neutrility tag there because they don't read NPOV to me. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. It looks like someone who wasn't signed in added the original season two episode descriptions on July 11th.[1] I'm guessing that that original text, which has since been expanded upon considerably, was copied from something written by the History Channel. At least that's how it reads. I agree with you at least somewhat -- those parts of the descriptions could be written in a more neutral, encyclopedic tone. — Mudwater 03:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the episode descriptions to be more neutrally worded. The results are less colorful and exciting, but hopefully more appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I've removed the "NPOV" template that said, "The neutrality of this article is disputed". — Mudwater 20:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

Ok, has the show been cancelled or something? Look, [2] Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Documentary or Propaganda?

Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." So, rather than talking about the TV show itself, or comparing it to Nazi propaganda or the Bush administration's justification of the war in Iraq, let's talk about the article. I think it's fair to say that Dogfights is intended to be entertaining to American audiences, and does not attempt to present a complete or balanced picture of the history of dogfighting, as shown for example by the fact that the Battle of Britain is not covered. Should the article talk about this, other than the one sentence it already has ("...so far mostly Americans or their allies...")? And if so, what should it say, exactly? The best thing in my opinion would be to quote published reviews of the show, or other reliable third party sources (not blogs or internet discussion forums). Can anybody find any of those that discuss this point? — Mudwater (Talk) 02:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I credit Mudwater for restarting the title to this Discussion point of Befudder's that was deleted as a whole.
That being said, I have issue with your comments here Mud, and I'm sure I saw a reply to you here before also, again apparently deleted, though I recall no reason why.
1st the topic "Historical Documentary or Propaganda?” IS a totally appropriate point of discussion regarding the article paragraph literally titled “Historical Documentary format”. 2nd since that is totally appropriate to address as a call for change in the article as written, then the description of the term ‘propaganda’ is relevant too. At first I thought the use of the term Nazi excessive until checking his sources, I found in the Thesaurus that lo and behold, they do use that term to help describe the term ‘propaganda’. I thererfore disagree with whomever is deleting posts using actual dictionary and thesaurus quotes as sources.
Mud, we have a TV series here called “Daily Show” with Jon Stewart, a comedy news program. The very same night I noticed Befuddler’s comments deleted, the lead skit was EXACTLY on point to what he said about the American media being highly criticised recently for the lack of balanced reporting leading to the war in Iraq. Therefore, like millions of viewers who applauded, I find the inclusion of that lack of balanced reporting as an example to the unbalanced reporting in Dogfights also totally appropriate. I know they often scan Wikipedia to see where their name is mentioned and often use it in skits, so I’ll laugh if we’re mentioned here. I’ll be proud if we’re even kept in their archives for material.
No, it is not FAIR to declare that ‘Dogfights’ is intended to be entertaining American audiences; nor it being excused from reporting "a complete or balanced" representation of history. That's the very argument against it's claim to 'historical documentary' or 'all the world's greatest dogfights'. First of all, ‘historical documentaries’ are intended to inform, not entertain. That’s the difference between ABC News and Entertainment Tonight or TMZ. Second of all, they advertize themselves out as reporting on ALL the world’s(not just US) greatest dogfights. You can’t say you’re selling cars from around the world then only sell American-made. Thirdly, by the comments here it should be obvious that ‘Dogfights’ has peddled itself out to many foreign countries own subscribed history channels. Therefore it is obviously being sold to other nations' viewers, not just American.
Absolutely the article should talk about this. Befuddler is/was correct, I looked it up, out of all the dogfights in history, Americans participated in less than 10% of them. You might as well have an article on soccer(football to everyone else but us), report on only British and American soccer heros and matches, then ask if the article should report on bias and why? I believe that’s a fair analogy you like Cree true?
It should say ‘exactly’ that the series is blatantly biased, one-sided and American-biased. That it NEVER stars an enemy fighter pilot shooting down an American fighter pilot. That the series, therefore, does not qualify under the definitions of historical documentary but rather our own propaganda. That proof of ‘propaganda’ label is the portrayal of unheard of obscure dogfights while deliberately refusing to portray the internationally most well-known dogfights in history such as the Battle of Britain.
Again, wikipedia is supposed to be an ‘international’ encyclopedia. Using the soccer example above, there is no doubt in my mind that if there was an article on the history of soccer that portrayed only British and American heroes and matches, that the MAJORITY of the article would be on criticism with examples from around the world of said article.
I too ‘guarantee you’, as he apparently likes to say, that if someone did a wiki article on a TV series on the history of baseball that portrayed only Cuban and Nicaraguan baseball heroes as the stars of episodes and only their victories, mentioning America only in passing as the losers of this or that match…I GUARANTEE YOU, that the MAJORITY of the article would include criticism and explanations for criticism of that article.
You aren’t going to find a ‘neutral’ third part publication on the series. I’ve searched. You’ll find either advertizements(which obviously aren’t neutral), fan or critics pages. I did find proof where Squadrons like RCAF418 have written in protest to the Dogfights producers and disgust at no reply, but again, that’s not ‘neutral’. As a member of numerous military forums around the world, not just in English, I can tell you that American-hosted forums have some criticising the series but are put down by the majority of American posters, even deleted. I’ve even seen posters critical of the series on Tubes deleted by Tube hosts. This is where the censorship accusation comes about. While on foreign forums, you’ll see far more criticism of the series and the use of the term ‘propaganda’ as well. But again, those are not ‘neutral’. I agree with you that I’d like to see a ‘Siskel and Ebert’ for History Channel programs, where the critics weren’t financially tied to the channel’s ratings or compensated by them in any way. So very good point Mudwater!
I believe wikipedia Discussions were supposed to represent international opinion on articles and hopefully thereby represent a more ‘neutral opinion’. But I agree with you completely that there should be some professional critic of such programming, and not just on the History Channel. I’ve seen inappropriate programming on other specialized channels too, like the sci-fi channel for instance. Good point Mudd.

TheBalderdasher (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numerous Unjustified Discussion Deletions

No fewer than 4 agreeing contributions, some 4 pages long with properly sourced evidence such as dictionary definitions and the series own episode story Discussion posts and article suggestion changes deleted without justification.

My own post addressed every part of the article with suggestions of changes offered and reasons/proof refering to your other posts where I didn't think it necessary to repeat what you already proved, and it has all been deleted without explanation nor justification. I've checked my deletion log and heard from others who've checked theirs. All claim no explanation given.

Some of us have watched the entire series, done weeks of research confirming facts before we brought them up here. Who has the ability, who has the right, and who did delete all these Discussion posts?

Who in Wikipedia is going to take responsibility for this?

I notice under the IMDb profile that many if not most have made the exact same complaints and suggestions as these deletions, yet where are their posts here in the Discussion section?AthabascaCree (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the comments that were deleted -- see my post in the #Historical Documentary or Propaganda? section. I would hope that future comments on this page can be more to the point of changing the article, less carried away by emotion towards the TV show, and also briefer if possible. That having been said, it's generally better not to remove talk page comments. I think the removal of those comments was not justified under Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. If an editor disagrees with a talk page comment, or thinks it's inappropriate, they should respond to the comment rather than deleting it. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
ME TOO!! Oh I am so PO'd that even my short posts were deleted, without justification, in the Discussion area no less(not even the article itself) AND like you guys, mine don't show up under the 'deletion record' either to show admins there was no justification. Something's not working as advertized here.
I'd started off disagreeing with these guys, but then I was convinced. Balderdasesher's "Historical Documentary or Propaganda?" was directly relatable and obvious, though long-winded, direction at the paragraph titled "Historical Documentary format". He came nowhere near to offensive language as the WTF above and I've noticed his deleted posts do not even show up under the 'deletion search' on Wikipedia let alone justification given. That's inexcusable for Discussion area. It's not as if he did it in the article.
What outraged me was when Cree's perfectly indexed point-by-point, paragraph by paragraph post was deleted. He even referred to Befuddler's properly researched dictionary and encyclopedia definitions to save on space. Again, no justification, not even on the deletion search engine to bring up in protest.
Because of this, I contacted those in the IMDb(who the majority of which obviously agree with the proposed changes) who are still with Wikipedia & they also claimed their discussion posts suggesting the changes were deleted with no justification so they don't see any reason to come back to Wikipedia.
I started out against Befuddler, but now especially with Cree, agree now that I've considered their arguments and checked their sources. I've noticed that like mine, their deletions do not show up under Wikipedia conflict resolution deletion search either, so something fishy is going on here.
I'm not just a PO'd veteran, I'm also a teacher now too. Next Convention I'm definately going to sit in on criticisms of Wikipedia for schoolboards. Obviously I haven't to date. I am all for signing a petition against this article's problems if anyone knows who to send the petition to?<br />
I was paged YOU were the culprit behind the deletions Mud. It's obviously none of the majority here for changes. So if not you, do you know who it was Mud?

DuckDodgers21.5 (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking whether or not I deleted those talk page sections, the answer is no. You can actually see exactly what was deleted, when, and by whom, by looking at the talk page history. To do that, click on the "history" tab at the top of this talk page. I'm looking at that now, and I see four deletions of talk page comments. The first two, on May 8 and May 13, have edit summaries explaining why the comments were deleted, and I hope you will review those and think about what they say. The next two deletions, both on June 6, don't have edit summaries. By clicking on "last" for each edit you can see what was deleted, added, or changed. For more information on how to use the page history, for talk pages or articles, see Help:Page history. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The deleting party was someone called 121.220.58.151 . Though I can find no evidence of who he is nor what authority he has to delete entire discussions.
I would disagree with the reasons given for the deletions. The article is a description of the TV Series. If posters believe that description is incorrect, then they have only references to the TV Series itself as evidence why the article's description and representation should be changed. That is not being off topic imho.
At first I agreed with Befuddler's deletion, though never in entirety, and would've preferred to see a discussion like Mudwater as to what parts of a post were appropriate to discuss and which were too off topic. But then when researching his sources, I found he did have reason to make certain analogies.
However, I see no explanation for the deletions, which i thought was required.
I am COMPLETELY against the deletion of AthabascaCree's post. Imho it was totally on point taking the article paragraph by paragraph making changes suggestion and explaining even sourcing why. Though one reason I was against the deletion of ALL of Befuddler's rant was because AthabascaCree used those valid parts of his post as evidence for his suggestions rather than wasted space recopying someone else's material all over again.
I see no justification for the deletions of what I've seen in the Discussion area especially. I see no evidence of who had such right nor their explanation, nor the method of appeal by the rest of us on eachother's or own part. If anything Mud wrote was deleted I too would speak out. I too would sign a petition against these deletions. I too am rethinking my membership to wikipedia now.
Imho this article, given the international anger at the series obviously, is more of a promotional advertizement for the TV series and it's products for sale, than it is a 'neutral and objective' report as wikipedia claims.
Imho from what I see Cree wrote, I'd like to see most of those suggestions put in place as they seem, with credit to Befuddler's credible parts, the most neutral, objective and impirical description of the TV Series and future potential I like he points out.

TheBalderdasher (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)