Talk:William W. Momyer

message: Introduction needs work. "General William Wallace Momyer was commander of the U.S. Air Force Tactical Air Command." When? What conflicts did he participate in? Why is he significant or notable? When was he born, and when did he die? All of these things should be in the first sentence or two or three. LordAmeth 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:MILHIST Assessment 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating 

message: No mention of his involvement with the Tuskegee Airmen; obviously a less suitable thing for an inclusion in the official military biography. GregorB (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is absolutely correct. Two Free French P-40 squadrons were formed in November 1942 with aircraft acquired from the 33rd FG and known collectively as the "Lafayette Escadrille."  (The actual unit designation was GC II/5, or "Fighter Group 2 of the 5th Wing", with the designation "Lafayette" because GCII/5 was the unit E/N.124 was a part of in The Great War) In the wiki article you linked, there is a list of pilots, and #38 is Harold Willis, who was on Eisenhower's staff during Torch and suggested that the Sioux Indian head insignia of E/N.124 be used for the new Free French units. If you're interested in more than making uncivil remarks about other editors, check out Mayock's work cited, which was also the basis for Craven and Cate's history of the North African air campaign in Volume II of Army Air Forces in World War II. I not only documented the edits I made cleaning up the article, but linked the source itself, which explains in detail the methodology and sources of the study.--Reedmalloy (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Your search was rather limited and narrow. I found it easily (hint: "French P-40"), and your failing to "ever read about such a unit" is hardly credible rebuttal.  The unit was Groupe de Chasse II/5, Lafayette.--Reedmalloy (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

text: In addition, other critical excerpts have been inserted elsewhere in the article which do give an appearance of a "hatchet job" being done on Momyer, whether or not that's the case. Sarcasm to objecting editors doesn't help one's basis. I personally am not a particular admirer of Momyer, but I know a fair shake when I see one. One man's "aggressive and reckless" (Francis) is another man's "illustrious combat record" (Boyne). So you have to question the agenda underlying the choice of words. Disparaging characterizations have no place in an encyclopedia biography without a LARGE consensus of sources. I have attempted to balance the reporting by editing out loaded words such as "overwhelming" here and there and leaving the core of the facts, but the claim about Doolittle seems at first take a bit overwrought. Commanding Generals of air forces do not give tactical advice to subordinate commanders that is ignored. IAC, I will delve further into this as time and sources permit for possible future clarifications.--Reedmalloy (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

text: The DUC was not earned for activities while attached to the 33rd FG, but while attached to the 324th FG from 29 June to 19 July 1943, and all of the squadrons of the 324th were awarded the decoration for this period. The Francis book has been taken to task several times by Dr. Daniel Haulman of AFHRA for repeating misconceptions about the Tuskegee Airmen. The link to his most recent paper is in the references for the Momyer article. Take a look, why don't you? The assertion about assigning to ground v. air combat is at best questionable. The higher echelon (XII ASC) assigned and specified types of mission to its groups in daily field orders right down to # of aircraft required.  Groups did not go about assigning themselves missions, much less what role they were going to perform. I trust Dr. Haulman's accuracy of research and neutrality of point of view. btw, Francis' book is on-line. Chapter 6 "The Dark Days" and 19 "The Organization of the 477th" are the two relevant chapters. In the first instance a member of the 99th (Spann Watson) anecdotally makes the assertion that Momyer criticized the 99th's lack of air combat victories, which he (Spann Watson) attributes not to being assigned to ground attack instead of air fighting, but "because we didn't go with the invasion force to Italy." (p. 86) Watson mentions "tactical duty" in Sicily as the catalyst for the scurrilous charges, and links the 99th to the 33d, but the 99th was  under the operational control of the 324th at that time. In the latter chapter, it is Francis himself making the characterization of Momyer acting "recklessly and aggressively", but the source he footnotes is "Craven" (Craven and Cate) listing only a page number but not the volume, of which there are three or four (his References attribute "Volumes I, II, II, IV" and refers to Cate as "Gates") that Francis states he used. imo the work is at best of dubious credibility to stand alone as a source for any definitive statement, and at worst polemic agenda-driven junk. The text of the wiki article that caused all of this flap was taken virtually word-for-word from Francis's book, but omitted the phrase "to group commanders", implying that Momyer was personally admonished by Doolittle and Craig and disregarded the warning. Such was not the case.--Reedmalloy (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuskegee Airmen 

message: Just read his obit in NYT.  Has anybody ever speculated that he was basis for the character "Bus" Beal in Pulitzer Prize winning noble Guard of Honor by James Gould Cozzens.  His war time career is very similar.
Peter Reilly (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting thought. Momyer was much younger and his and Beal's personalities are starkly different (Momyer had much more in common in age and attitudes with Benny Carricker) but the plot of GoH does have many similarities.--Reedmalloy (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guard of Honor 

message: some of my questions finally get answered. Some of my Talk page entries also. Which is like  backtalk to a time capsule.
The article has even developed some citations besides mine. All to the good. And there has been some real quality effort put into it by Mr. Malloy (who may not have realized he was shouting down the rain barrel 30 months into the past when he addressed me above).
The bad faith term "hatchet job" was uttered above. It seems to refer to the fact I was the first to notice that the Tuskegee Airmen were not even linked to, or mentioned in, this biography, back in 2011. I then committed the double sin of not only inserting the 99th Fighter Squadron into the article, but actually listing a source–the very first inserted into virginal text.
The opposite of "hatchet job" is "hagiography". And a hagiography that read like a "he walks on water" performance review is exactly what I edited two and a half years ago. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that the bio, at that point, was pretty much lifted from U. S. Air Force common domain uncopyrighted materials. 
Thank heavens (and Reed Malloy) this is no longer true.
Georgejdorner (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying. Please also note, however, that I did not state it was a hatchet job, but might give the appearance of one, given the points I specified.Obviously perceptions are key here, but I was not the only one to have that perception. For any offense I may have given, I apologize, but my perception of the Francis book as a source is unchanged. The shame of it is, the 99th FS has a proud unit history, but to elevate them to demi-gods for the sake of political correctness while cherry-picking facts to villainize someone with an otherwise distinguished record, as Francis did, does their real accomplishments dishonor.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  After a tiny 2 1/2 year lapse 

message: This article on Momyer refers to a congressional investigation that supposedly occurred in the aftermath of a report he prepared on the 99th Fighter Squadron. I have seen no evidence that there actually was such an investigation. Sometimes books or films/documentaries make a fleeting reference to a congressional investigation. Sometimes the Senate is referenced. Sometimes the House. In the Wikipedia account it suggests it was done by the House Armed Services Committee. At the time of the Momyer report, there was no such House committee by THAT name. That has been the name of the committee in the post-WWII era. If one does an exhaustive computerized search of available resources at the Library of Congress, one will not find any evidence of a congressional investigation. This reference in the Momyer article should be deleted, in my opinion, because it can not be supported by the available evidence. One would think, for example, that Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. would have mentioned it if it had indeed occurred. One would think that any number of the influential newspapers making up the Afro-American press would have had a news account about the congressional hearings, before, during or afterward, providing a detailed account. Check for yourselves. There was NO congressional investigation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DzienDozynki74 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrote the paragraph to reflect facts in the neutral sources. Any future reference to a "congressional investigation" will have to be documented by a verifiable source to remain. That statement was one of the last remaining edits of the earlier negative edits regarding Momyer's role in the controversy. The sources those statements arose from were themselves not properly sourced in that either the assertions themselves were not footnoted per se (as in this case) or often had errors in what documentation was provided.--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Don't know how I missed that one. A case of hiding in plain sight, I guess. I've changed it too.--Reedmalloy (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional investigation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on William W. Momyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322152554/http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9680 to http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9680
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029192052/http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130905-006.pdf to http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130905-006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified