Talk:Tuskegee Airmen

message: Although I have not checked the references, the chart on culture looked impressive. Perhaps, it should be returned to this page or placed on a new page about this culture. Snowman (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the chart looked impressive, but my concern was in its use for popular cultural references which is, at best, an aside to the main focus of the article. There were a few errors also in the chart that first piqued my interest, and on reflection, I thought the chart was useful but excessive in its application to a minor section of the article. I can be persuaded, however, and my words are not actually carved in stone... FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you have done some tidy-up work and the list of culture looks good too.  On reflection I think that you are correct; nevertheless, I appreciate the hard work that went into making the table.  I am sure that tables are needed on some other pages. Snowman (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree that the amount of work in formatting a very presentable and useful table should not be overlooked and I will contact the author to ask him to consider using the same format in other areas. I certainly didn't want to play the ogre after so much creativity and effort was expended  as the table was very impressive. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess I'm not clear on why the chart was removed. I understand your point about popular culture references being less important, but that is the reason I moved the information from the main portions of the article and the trivia section and consolidated them at the end of the article in chart. Most of the items within the chart had Wikipedia articles or were already a part of the article, so I saw it as adding to the knowledge base for someone interesed in the Tuskegee Airmen. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a minor point: the first column did not sort correctly as it contained both alphabetical and numerical items, but I guess that different date formatting would fix this. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the sort function works on the letters. We could probably use only the year in future sortable tables since the actually release day is of less importance. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not tried it but it might work with year-month-day, in that order, when days and months are expressed as numbers, for example YYYY-MM-DD, 2008-01-14. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture chart 

message: Why? Bzuk (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also not sure the series box belongs at the top of the article. I think it was better located in the see also section. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of photographs

message: The article makes the weird claim that the Luftwaffe knew that the pilots of the 99th were black ,and thus gave them the nickname "schwarze Vogelmenschen", but that bomber crews in the USAAF asking for "red-tail escorts" did not know the same fact.  This is hard to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.64.180 (talk) 16:17, February 20, 2008 (UTC)
Soldierofchicago (talk)soldierofchicago- Please read about the Tuskegee airman who was shot down the fall of 1944 in Nazi held territory. Before being sent to the Luft-Stalag the Germans drove him to a huge mansion situated in the German countryside where a Luftwaffe major, probably intelligent chewed the fat with him. This major showed the pilot a picture of himself graduating from flight school. The German officer also told him that he'd spent time in Detroit as the pilot was also from Detroit. Don't take lightly the thoroughness of German intelligence. They knew who the Black pilots, soldiers and sailors by unit designation.  —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange inconsistency

message: In general most American fighter and bomber units were guilty of massive over-claiming. I have added "claim" to most of the text that implies the German losses were exact, meaning for example, that it implies that 13 were claimed therefore suggesting that was the exact number shot down.
On 24 March 1945 the text read that the group were credited with three Me 262s to the 322nd. According to German records, JG 7 actually lost four. But what the article does not say is that 11 were claimed by the American unit, ontop of yet more claims made by the US bombers. This makes it impossible to tell what fighter or bomber units were responsible for those kills. Sources and citations added. Dapi89 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims, particularly on 24 March 1945 

message: Possible. miranda 22:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Lucas Movie 

message: In the article we read:
but in www.german-navy.de they wrote:
and in Iron Men, Wooden Boats. the Epic Story of American PT Boats in World War II by Howard F. West:
In the Wikipedia article - Ciclone class torpedo boat:
In Museum of Black WW II History they do not mention name of destroyer but the date of battle:
but no one Ciclone class torpedo boat was sunk on that day.
The name and type of destroyer sunk by Redtails (and date of this operation) has to be verified. Julo (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  destroyer sunk: TA-23? 

message: We must be exceedingly careful not to promote skepticism under the guise of truth. If bombardier squadrons kept requesting the escort of 332nd then that is a testimony to their prowess in the air and to their commander, Colonel Benjamin O Davis Jr who by the way was a stickler for military discipline. The Germans respected the Tuskegee Airmen. One thing about the Germans they've, always respected a formidable opponent on the battlefield. They did'nt underestimate their enemies(for the most part)and tippped their hats off to them!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldierofchicago (talk • contribs) 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Giving The African American Fighting Men Their Due!! 

message: I've nominated Toni Frissell's famous portrait of airmen from the 332nd during World War II in Italy as a featured picture on Wiki Commons. Editors can support the nomination by voting here. Voting closes in nine days. Thank you. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait of 332nd pilots from WW2 nominated on wiki commons 

message: In band camp years ago we learned a piece entitled "The Tuskegee Airmen". Unfortunately, I've misplaced the sheet music, and google has been of no help. Has anyone ever seen/heard of this piece?Pressondude (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible addition to the "Popular Culture" Section 

message: I'm not sure if this was a good idea (edit mercilessly, critique mercifully), but I added both a prod deletion and merge tag on Erwin Lawrence, and of course, put a merge tag on this page. Please discuss amongst yourselves. --I dream of horses (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Apparently, it's been done. --I dream of horses (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I added a reference to Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian to popular culture references.  The movie made me more aware of them than I had been previously.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.68.59 (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: Originally for the Cessna 172 wiki, better here.  Will shorten and put in Popular Culture, unless better place is noted.
*July 13, 2009 15 year old Kimberly Anyadik completed a round trip flight in a 172S N6048Z (172S10217) from Tomorrow's Aeronautical Museum in Compton, CA to the east coast and back. She is believed to be the youngest black female to pilot an airplane transcontinentally, with Ronell Norman as safty pilot and Tuskegee Airman Levi Thornhill (after whom the aircraft is named, and why its tail is painted red), stopping at Little Rock’s Central Flying Service, where other members of the Tuskegee Airmen signed her airplane http://www.swtimes.com/articles/2009/06/30/news/news063009_06.txt Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is trivia; important for Anyadik but not for this article. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-encyclopaedic, plus the reference doesn't support the claim. Reference doesn't say anything about it being completed, just that she's flown from California to Arkansas. In fact it doesn't even say she got to Arkansas, just that she's scheduled to get there. However it is still entirely unencyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 01:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 year old black girl inclusion 

message: I have requested a citation from a recognized, credible source supporting the claim that the squadron was commanded by whites and Puerto Ricans. I am skeptical of it for several reasons. First of all, while the army did segregate white and black troops, there was no segregation on the basis of Puerto Rican or Hispanic ancestry. In fact, the category of Hispanic didn't even exist back then, and wouldn't even appear on the U.S. census until 1980. Moreover, Hispanic does not denote a specific race; Hispanics can be any race. In the 1940's, a white Puerto Rican (i.e. someone who looked like Ricky Martin) would've been categorized as white, and a black or mulatto Puerto Rican (someone who looked like Roberto Clemente) would've been categorized as black. Since its extremely unlikely a black Puerto Rican would have been appointed to command the Tuskegee Airmen, any Puerto Rican appointed commander would almost certainly have been considered white. Some of the commanders may indeed have been Puerto Rican, but I am skeptical of the suggestion that Puerto Ricans were appointed to command the unit as a matter of official policy.
ResuModnar (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squadron comanded by whites ''and Puerto Ricans''? 

message: I'm curious if anyone has ever heard of a case where a Tuskegee Airmen was murdered by the Klan or some other hate group of the time.  Also, if at anytime during the War, an American bomber or another fighter flown by a white pilot ever fired on one of the Tuskegee fighters on purpose. -OberRanks (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you hear about such cases or you are just curious? - Darwinek (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Lemuel Penn was quite an isolated event, though medially attractive since it came after the Civil Rights Act. I am sure any hate crime aimed at Tuskegee Airmen would be properly documented and well-known. - Darwinek (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder of Airmen 

message: The Tuskegee Airmen: American Heroes sources is not considered a reliable source, Not only is it a junior age novel but it has been described as virtually worthless for research purposes by the American Library Journal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New source

message: The latest edits have introduced a "sea of red ink"; are all these "red links" necessary? Is anyone proposing to write articles on all of these topics? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent re-write

message: I believe this section needs to be rewritten and tightened. After reading the sources cited in the article, I see the following facts as key:
1) The belief the Tuskegee Airmen had never lost a bomber stemmed originally from a press release from their higher command, the 15th Air Force.
2) Apparently, no one ever checked the validity and truthfulness of the press release.
3) Citations for decorations awarded the Tuskegee Airmen referred to losses, as did combat reports made out by them.
4) The Tuskegee Airmen were so highly regarded that the claim was easily believed.
If I were rewriting this section at present, I would shape it around these facts. However, I wanted to allow discussion that I hope will lead to consensus on this section, so that it does not become a battleground of rewrites and edit wars.
Georgejdorner (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The section already covers those points, does it not?  Or is this about emphasis and presentation?  -fnlayson (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some recent editing and revisions, consequently, the section now contains all the pertinent points made above. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All except the origin of the claim, that is. As the article now stands, the origin of the false claim is vague; many readers will blame it on the Tuskegee Airmen themselves. The fact that many of the Airmen came to believe it is not the same as saying a Tuskegee Airman or Airmen fostered the falsehood, but may come across that way. Georgejdorner (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for the PR release? Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The source of the claim that the Red-Tail fighter group while on escort missions had no bomber losses is identified as a newspaper article "332nd Flies Its 200th Mission Without Loss," in the 24 March 1945 issue of the Chicago Defender and that statement is cited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Not at all, The way the section reads is that the story of the bomber escorts never losing a bomber was traced to a newspaper article; other data disagreed. The Air Force did a review. The Tuskegee Airmen themselves through their umbrella organization, also did not accept the original contention and had data that contradicted the popular view. I do not see what your concerns are, the article never says the Airmen believed the story, in fact, they had doubts from the outset. Quoting inaccurate information from one source to another is the only issue, The Tuskegee Airmen never at any time, made the claim they were "perfect" in their role as bomber escorts, it was an example of an urban myth being exploited. Two axioms to apply: "If it sounds too good to be true..." and "when the legend reads better than the truth..." BTW, Billy the Kid was not "left-handed", never had "gunfights" and did not escape the attention of Pat Garrett, but the story continues unabated about the legendary Western outlaw, not the true nature of a young murderer, whose name really was New Yorker Henry McCarty. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I think some rewriting is needed for the section.  It'd probably be easier for all us to say something more specific about the source than the source in the WP article though. -fnlayson (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Knock off the condescension, I read and dismissed your arguments twice. The fact that Tuskegee Airmen knew that bombers were lost on their missions is not challenged. One airmen indicated he did not know of a bomber lost on his missions does not translate to all airmen. The story was a contrived and sensationalized one that was attributed to a newspaper article. The Air Force had records that showed the contrary, they did a report, the Tuskegee Airmen did a report, nearly everyone agreed that the report of no lost bombers was inaccurate. Other voices were heard. I thought you might understand that the inferences of urban mythology, I was wrong. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Rest assured that I have read all your statements, comments and discussion points. I just do not attribute that much importance to what is now a "non-issue" although it once was a contentious one. Are we "beating a dead horse" now? FWiW,  Bzuk (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy over escort record

message: Given Steven Ambrose's reputation for inaccuracy and plaigarism, can he be a reliable source for this article?
Georgejdorner (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No harm done. Judging by a quick look, it seems that Ambie Boy is only mentioned regarding his own work. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Ambrose reliable?

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Tuskegee airman2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 11, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 16:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Tuskegee airman2.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Currently the text states that the surrender of the island of Pantelleria was "the first time in history an enemy's military resistance had been overcome solely by air power."  Is this true?  The resistance of Mahsud tribesmen in South Waziristan in 1925 was overcome by air power alone (see Pink's War).  Maybe there are other examples. Greenshed (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The historical instances of air power overcoming an enemy alone are limited.  The Tuskegee Airmen's action at Pantelleria is still highly significant.  Greenshed (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pantelleria - not the first time for air power 

message: I suspect someone with an agenda is trying to make some kind of point.  We read:
The "white" population of Freeman Field was 250 officers and 600 enlisted men. Superimposed on it were 400 African-American officers and 2,500 enlisted men of the 477th and its associated units. Freeman Field had a firing range, usable runways, and other amenities useful for training. African-American airmen would work in proximity with "white" ones; both "races" would live in a public housing project adjacent to the base. 
HedgeFundBob (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of quotation marks, commonly called "scare quotes" identify the unconventional or unusual use of a word, or term. In World War II Army parlance, there were no "whites" as such, since soldiers were not identified as such, although it is a commonly understood term today. As to "races", that was more often a colloquialism for discrimination, and during the period, often black or African-Americans were not even considered as a racial group, but were often denigrated as sub-human. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please link to some reliable source establishing these points.  In any case, this reasoning does not strike me as compelling and is entirely too subtle.  How could one infer that the frame of reference of the article had suddenly shifted to "World War II Army parlance"?  I'm not even sure what "races" being "a colloquialism for discrimination" means, either.  I always assumed that "races" referred to the various races of human beings, and am confident this was how the term was employed in the period in question.  Please also link to official Army policy establishing that black wasn't a race.  TIA.HedgeFundBob (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the word "white" and the word "race" in quotation marks in this article? 

message: I'm a member of the Tuskegee Airmen Inc. and am quite involved with the group as a youth mentor and aviation instructor.  I'm also an aviation-history writer for both Air & Space Smithsonian and Aviation History Magazines--byline Stephan Wilkinson.  It happens that I'm currently working on an article about the Las Vegas gunnery meet won as a team (not the individual-pilot championship, in which they came in second) by the 332nd Fighter Group.  In the last several days, I have interviewed both James Harvey and Harry Stewart, the two surviving pilots from that team of four pilots plus ground personnel.  (One pilot was an alternate, a stand-by in case one of the three main team members was hurt or whatever).
This article's description of the winning team having been declared "unknown"  at the conclusion of the contest is wrong.  What happened was that the winners were openly known and acknowledged, they were photographed with the trophy at a banquet at the Flamingo Hotel, and the 332nd's name was engraved on the trophy--it's currently on display at the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB, if anybody doubts me.  Many months later, however, the 1949 Annual of the Air Force Association, which lists all Air Force accomplishments, records, etc. for the year--then for some reason declared the winner of the 1949 Conventional Class (piston-engine aircraft, since there was also a Jet Class) to be "unknown."  That one-word description was perpetuated annually until 1993, I believe, when it was finally corrected.  The popular myth is that this was all part of a racist attempt by the USAF to discredit the 332nd, but the truth probably is that it was all part of a typical military screw-up; the trophy itself was "lost" for many years and ultimately discovered in a Wright-Patterson storage room in 1996.
I have no interest in editing Wikipedia, nor do I have the time or interest to come up with any of your beloved "citations" to support the above.  Your text is wrong, however, and you people can do whatever you wish to correct it.   Or not.  what the hell, you can use my article as a citation when it's published in January 2012 in Aviation History.  Again, or not.173.62.12.111 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1949 Las Vegas gunnery contest 

message: "Some claim that after tallying up the score, the organizers announced the third and second place winners and claimed that the first place squadron was unknown. It has also been claimed that years later the Airmen fought for the recognition for winning the competition, and succeeded."
If you can find a source for this statement, you can put it back in the article. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncited claim 

message: I got this information here: http://books.google.com/books?id=_GqRJYUiWkYC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Tuskegee+airmen++general+e.s+adams&source=bl&ots=z6Z0U5eeTe&sig=lCzWDcoGuN6_Sk5h5-0rrsO9eFU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Pi1eT-6cE6Tn0QGIu7DGDw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false I'm confused about his role..
Twillisjr (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of Adjutant General ES Adams 

message: In one place it stated the "332nd first saw active combat in January 1944", then a couple of paragraphs later the "332nd first saw combat in February 1944". Two of the three separate lists of accomplishments (prior to consolidation) disagreed on the number of DFCs. One said 96, the other "An estimated one hundred and fifty". I left the earlier date and the 150 in for the moment until I can dig into this or somebody else figures them out. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 96 DFCs. Can't find the 332nd's first month of action, so I took the sentence out. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies 

message: http://www.tuskegee.edu/sites/www/Uploads/files/About%20US/Airmen/Nine_Myths_About_the_Tuskegee_Airmen.pdf
According to this they lost more of their own planes than they shot down. In the same time period, other groups flying the same planes shot down twice as many airplanes as they lost.
Very poor showing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.36.164 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Military Record 

message: On a wall hangs a picture in the commanders section: it explains in brief how the red tails destroyed a ship with machine gun fire, never lost one bomer during their escorts.
  I am sure, our military would not permt false advertisement of their actions.
As all creeds of men and women come to grip with fact all peoples have and are fighting for freedom[s] in all levels of almost every aspect of our creation the red tails sought to break formation and go after those aircraft who sought to destroy our way to hope, freedom and liberty for all.146.126.51.51 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active Duty Air Force Building 

message: The first photo caption refers to Lee Archer as a "lieutenant colonel."  Archer was never a lieutenant colonel.  He was a first lieutenant.173.62.11.254 (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieutenant, not lieutenant colonel 

message: It is my understanding is that there was not a single pilot from all the Tuskegee Airmen to achieve the position of Ace (Five Kills)during the entire War. Is this correct?...Mike Peppard  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.70.248 (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Tail Aces 

message: Is "brouhaha" really an appropriate word to be using in encyclopedic prose?  It may be part of an english dictionary somewhere but perhaps something along the lines of "public controversy" would be better. My experience with this word always had the connotations of conflict or fighting as in, "the argument led to a brouhaha at the bar." Garyvp71 (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Lady's Flight - brouhaha 

message: Towards the end of the Controversy section, a sentence starts with, "According to the 15 January 1650 Air Force report...."
I'm assuming "15 January 1650" is supposed to be a date, in which case there is obviously a typo.  I don't know enough about this topic to correct it (I'm guessing it's supposed to be 1950, but I could be wrong).
I just wanted to bring it to the experts' attention so it can be corrected if needed.
199.241.26.126 (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. It was actually supposed to be 28 March 2007! A vandal made the change back in March. Thanks for finding that. - BilCat (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 January 1650? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Tuskegee Airmen. 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/20131203000349/http://www.tuskegee.edu/about_us/legacy_of_fame/tuskegee_airmen/tuskegee_airmen_pilot_listing.aspx to http://www.tuskegee.edu/about_us/legacy_of_fame/tuskegee_airmen/tuskegee_airmen_pilot_listing.aspx
*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
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530104246/http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/numbered_studies/916794.pdf to http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/numbered_studies/916794.pdf
*Added  tag to http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=17731
*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
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130165710/http://tuskegeeairmen.org/Tuskegee_Airmen_History.html to http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org/Tuskegee_Airmen_History.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050320001335/http://www.fight2fly.com/ to http://www.fight2fly.com/
*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
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204121846/http://www.tuskegee.edu/about_us/legacy_of_fame/tuskegee_airmen.aspx to http://www.tuskegee.edu/about_us/legacy_of_fame/tuskegee_airmen.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716132207/http://www.starduststudios.com/tuskegee_airmen.htm to http://www.starduststudios.com/tuskegee_airmen.htm
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) 14:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tuskegee Airmen. 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/20120131060059/http://www.tuskegee.edu/sites/www/Uploads/files/About%20US/Airmen/Nine_Myths_About_the_Tuskegee_Airmen.pdf to http://www.tuskegee.edu/sites/www/Uploads/files/About%20US/Airmen/Nine_Myths_About_the_Tuskegee_Airmen.pdf
*Added  tag to http://newpreview.afnews.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-101222-041.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720031259/http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_6872.shtml to http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_6872.shtml
*Added  tag to http://newpreview.afnews.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-101222-041.pdf
*Added  tag to http://newbooksinhistory.com/?p=2743
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) 14:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Tuskegee Airmen is the popular name of a group of African-American military pilots who fought in World War II.
Their Service record is what made them exceptional.. 
The Haitians did not serve with them.  They were only trained at Tuskegee, then sent back to Haiti to patrol the Caribbean Sea. 
Just because person was trained at Tuskegee doesn't make them one of the Tuskegee Airmen.
Their Legacy and honors come from their combat, not just being trained at the only Training base for blacks.  
I'm removing the Haitian Trained Tuskegee Air Man.  2603:3020:707:4500:DD00:21A:E8E8:581C (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving Credit to NON Combats for PC Revisionist History.  - Just because person was trained at Tuskegee doesn't make them one of the Tuskegee Airmen 

message: It has been said that there are AT LEAST THREE surviving Tuskegee Airmen:
* Enoch O'Dell Woodhouse, Jr., JD - Boston
* Harry Stewart. Jr. - Michigan
* Alexander Jefferson
Reportedly, one of those three 'surviving Tuskegee Airmen' passed away near the end of June (a week ago, as of this writing).
According to local Boston narrative, Enoch O'Dell Woodhouse III, JD, is the last surviving Tuskegee Airman.  I think some mention should be made of 'where they are today'; and now, this of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen lives in Boston.Hall A. Westwood parade to step off Monday morning: Plans are coming together for Westwood’s Memorial Day Parade, which will step off Monday morning. Posted May 26, 2010 at 12:01 AM; Updated May 26, 2010 at 7:34 AM  Woodhouse himself makes that claim.  However, in 2014, there were (purportedly) 7 surviving Tuskegee Airmen (see photo).  Then, did six or three or four pass in the five intervening years?
About Woodhouse we can read text in one article which is selectively copied and found widely elsewhere on the Internet (almost verbatim):
:"Enoch Woodhouse II was born in Boston.  In 1944 at the age of 17, he enlisted in the US Army. He attended Office Candidate School (OCS) and was commissioned 2nd Lt. at age 19. He was assigned to the 332nd Fighter Group known as the Tuskeegee Airmen, as Paymaster. Woodhouse and the Tuskegee Airmen played a critical role in the early  integration of the Armed Forces.
:After retiring from the US Army Air Force, Woodhouse attended and graduated from Yale University. He then studied law at Yale Law School and at Boston University, receiving his JD from the latter.  He worked as a trial lawyer in Boston for over 40 years, and in the State Department and for the City of Boston as well.
:Among his many awards, in 2007 he and the other Tuskegee Airmen received the Medal of Honor, our nation's highest honor, from President GW Bush for facing two wars: one abroad and the other at home in terms of racial intolerance."
According to other text, he would have been born in or about in 1927.  I find the birthdate 1/14/1927.
While there isn't much 'out there' in newspapers, there is some - and it is in variable quality sites - from local urban newspapers to Facebook pages of community organizations that have recognized his 'notability' in that category. 
Here are some of the sources:
* Photo of Black History Month Award by Mission Hill Main Streets to Woody Woodhouse, who also lives in Mission Hill, a section of BostonPhoto of Black History Month Award by Mission Hill Main Streets to Woody Woodhouse, who also lives in Mission Hill, a section of Boston
* Facebook page for Enoch O'Dell Woodhouse, II- Facebook page for Enoch O'Dell Woodhouse, II
* Facebook page for Enoch O'Dell Woodhouse, III, Woody's son- Facebook page for Enoch O'Dell Woodhouse, III, Woody's son
* Historic Somerville (MA) article of interview with Woody: Sunday, April 12th, 2-3pm: Lieutenant Colonel Enoch Woodhouse, USAF, Retired, Surviving member of the Tuskegee Airmen: My Life in the First African-American Aviation Unit of the US Army Air Force.</ref>
* BU Law School where he COMPLETED a law degree (’55) after his retiring from the USAF, interviewed WoodhouseBU Law School where he COMPLETED a law degree (’55) after his retiring from the USAF, interviewed Woodhouse - After the JD from BU Law School, he "served as an attorney in the Judge Advocate General Office at Hanscom AFB for over 50 years."
* Historic Somerville (MA) article of interview with Woody: Sunday, April 12th, 2-3pm: Lieutenant Colonel Enoch Woodhouse, USAF, Retired, Surviving member of the Tuskegee Airmen: My Life in the First African-American Aviation Unit of the US Army Air Force.Historic Somerville (MA) article of interview with Woody: Sunday, April 12th, 2-3pm: Lieutenant Colonel Enoch Woodhouse, USAF, Retired, Surviving member of the Tuskegee Airmen: My Life in the First African-American Aviation Unit of the US Army Air Force.
* BU Law School where he COMPLETED a law degree (’55) after his retiring from the USAF, interviewed WoodhouseBU Law School where he COMPLETED a law degree (’55) after his retiring from the USAF, interviewed Woodhouse
* Wyatt M. Event honors past, present and future Airmen. by Mark Wyatt, 66th Air Base Group Public Affairs / Published February 23, 2018.  Hanscom AFB Public Affairs website. Accessed June 29, 2019Wyatt M. Event honors past, present and future Airmen. by Mark Wyatt, 66th Air Base Group Public Affairs / Published February 23, 2018.  Hanscom AFB Public Affairs website. Accessed June 29, 2019
* Lt. Col. Enoch "Woody" Woodhouse spoke at the Wilmington Memorial Library Tuesday night. BruceHilliard.comLt. Col. Enoch "Woody" Woodhouse spoke at the Wilmington Memorial Library Tuesday night. BruceHilliard.com
* Hall A. Westwood parade to step off Monday morning: Plans are coming together for Westwood’s Memorial Day Parade, which will step off Monday morning. Posted May 26, 2010 at 12:01 AM; Updated May 26, 2010 at 7:34 AMHall A. Westwood parade to step off Monday morning: Plans are coming together for Westwood’s Memorial Day Parade, which will step off Monday morning. Posted May 26, 2010 at 12:01 AM; Updated May 26, 2010 at 7:34 AM - The article specifically mentions Woodhouse:
::"At the Old Cemetery, there will be flag raising and another volley. Speakers include Enoch O’Dell Woodhouse, a member of the Tuskegee Airmen, African-American pilots who fought in World War II. Woodhouse is the last survivor of these Airmen. He will be the official parade marshal and will be riding in the parade."
The educational story is:
Woodhouse was born 1/27/1927 in Roxbury, Boston, Massachusetts, where he attended English High School of Boston, then earned a bachelor’s degree from Yale University while using his Montgomery GI Bill. He began law school at Yale, but he returned to Boston and transferred to Boston University Law School, where he received a Juris Doctor degree in 1955. 
It may be possible to generate a worthwhile article on 'The last surviving Tuskegee Airman' - or at least mention in the text of this article. MaynardClark (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We read in 2021 that 'Theodore 'Ted' Lumpkin dies at 100'Los Angeles times, 1/8/2021, accessed 1/9/2021 (but are told that he had died in October 2020) and is only getting press now.  Why is there reluctance to identify the Tuskegee Airmen collectively (when they are being celebrated locally, where they live? MaynardClark (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Surely some journalistic-level effort should be made to list the surviving Tuskegee Airmen. MaynardClark (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last surviving Tuskegee Airmen 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Draft:Tuskegee Airmen, Incorporated]]

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: *
*
:Relisted.  Another Tuskegee airmen, among the first to get wings, and a squadron commander.  Kerfuffle over notability.  One of over 60 Tuskeegee airmen articles in the crosshairs.   7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mac Ross]] up for deletion

message: I have just gone through every bio in the Tuskegee Airmen category and found that there appears to be a very wide interpretation of what qualifies a person to be a Tuskegee Airman. This page states at the top: "The Tuskegee Airmen were a group of primarily African American military pilots (fighter and bomber) and airmen who fought in World War II. They formed the 332d Expeditionary Operations Group and the 477th Bombardment Group of the United States Army Air Forces. The name also applies to the navigators, bombardiers, mechanics, instructors, crew chiefs, nurses, cooks, and other support personnel. All black military pilots who trained in the United States trained at Griel Field, Kennedy Field, Moton Field, Shorter Field and the Tuskegee Army Air Fields. They were educated at the Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University), located near Tuskegee, Alabama. Of the 922 pilots, five were Haitians from the Haitian Air Force and one pilot was from Trinidad. It also included a Hispanic or Latino airman born in the Dominican Republic." So what are the criteria? The narrowest seems to be pilots who attended Tuskegee Institute and served in WWII, while the widest seems to any African-American who served in the USAAF in WWII or even until 1949 when the USAF was integrated. So what qualifies a person to be a Tuskegee Airman? Mztourist (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you're incorrect. The National Park Service has a lesson plan online here using this language: "On June 8, 1946, the last class of aviation cadets graduated from Tuskegee Army Air Field. At the time they completed their requirements 2,483 persons had entered the Tuskegee pilot training program, of which, 994 completed the rigors and earned their pilot wings. Altogether, the participants in the Tuskegee military experiment (later called Tuskegee Airmen) numbered between 15,000 – 19,000 including pilots, mechanics, cooks, doctors, nurses, parachute riggers, gate guards, flight instructors, firemen, radio operators, etc. Their unit formations consisted of the 99th, 100th, 301st, and, 302nd Fighter Squadrons, the combined 332nd Fighter Group, and 477th Bombardment Group, along with their service units." So we have a relatively impartial Government source giving a cutoff date (June 1946), numbers, and a decent grouping. It also looks like the article may have 'borrowed' some of that language for the lede. As one might expect, other sites are somewhat hazy in their definition process (although this paper on the Tuskegee Airmen Inc site mentions the wider definition used by that organization). The linked paper was produced by the AFHRA and to my mind falls into the same RS grouping as the NPS lesson plan. This is a link to an AFHRA search with more info. But there's nothing "case by case" about it, unless someone's looking to pad numbers. Your RS caveat would apply in my view to notability, not status as a technical Tuskegee Airman. Intothatdarkness 20:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  matches with what I am seeing on a per-case basis, there is a broad range of inclusion. No one is trying pad numbers. As for 'technical' which implies precision, not even the NPS knows how many rather they give a rough range. The only we at Wikipedia can say, on a per case basis, is by looking at what the majority of sources say, assuming first they fit the general definition of having been participants in the Tuskegee program.   -- GreenC 21:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You missed the important part of their breakdown: "participants in the Tuskegee military experiment." That's not per-case or case-by-case or whatever. The wider range accounts for enlisted personnel (the service units) who aren't normally documented in sources aside from primary. There is, however, a fixed number for pilots (actual Tuskegee Airmen if you use the term "airmen" to indicate pilots...and flight instructors were pilots). There are solidly-defined unit affiliations for others (navigators, bombardiers, and other flight personnel), because prior to 1949 those units were segregated. And, again, it gets down to notability. Unit affiliation is fairly simple, and pilot status even more so. Actual notability, however, is a different question. Intothatdarkness 00:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We may be speaking to cross purposes. Anyway,  is the point of the source. Many types of people were later called Tuskegee Airmen, not limited to the actual airmen, or even men. A few years ago, the oldest living Tuskegee Airman was a female nurse over 100 years old. -- GreenC 03:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was simply that for a certain category of people considered Tuskegee Airmen here, the defining points come down to time frame and unit affiliation. Beyond that it becomes fuzzy. The number padding remark has more to do with outside organizations who might want to expand their membership (and donor) rolls. Intothatdarkness 14:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Documented Original Tuskegee Airman (DOTA) is what was used when handing out the Congressional Gold Medal and follows the definition below. They seem have documented about 14.6k as of the last source available. -- GreenC 16:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

text: The Tuskegee Airmen were collectively, not individually, awarded the Congressional Gold Medal (CGM) by President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress on March 29, 2007 at a ceremony inside the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. The 300 airmen and widows, who attended the ceremony, received the CGM for all of the estimated 16-19,000 participants of the “Tuskegee Experience,” who are known as documented original Tuskegee Airmen or DOTA.
Again, the same 16-19,000 number received the CGM. Per the NPS this includes anyone who was part of the "Tuskegee experiment". The source says "The “Tuskegee Experience” was originally called the “Tuskegee Experiment,”" thus same thing, the terms can also be used interchangeable with Tuskegee Airmen, a name which came into existence in 1955 as the title of a popular book. -- GreenC 04:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

text: OK this is a useful discussion, but it just shows that the "all Tuskegee Airmen" are notable is a ridiculous assertion. Mztourist (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much so. It also creates an interesting situation where "original Tuskegee Airmen" don't have to be of a specific race. Intothatdarkness 14:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says "all Tuskegee Airmen" are notable? That's ridiculous, there are up to 19,000. Yes definition above says "black or white".  --  GreenC 16:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:GreenC as I'm sure you've seen in the Tuskegee Airmen AFDs, various Keep !voters argue that as the Tuskegee Airmen were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal that satisfies #1 of WP:ANYBIO or that they were pioneers of integration and that satisfies #2 of ANYBIO, both effectively saying all Tuskegee Airmen are notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ANYBIO automatic inclusion can seem reasonable, until you realize there are up to 19,000 Documented Original Tuskegee Airmen. It's probably a matter of informing. The DOTA definition: "Anyone -- man or woman, military or civilian, black or white- - who served at Tuskegee Army Air Field .." with the number 19,000 - every cook, typist, groundskeeper, etc.. are Documented Original Tuskegee Airmen. Initially the CGM seemed to be for 994 pilots, but then CGM seemed to include anyone who is DOTA under that broader definition. For example recently a woman typist was awarded the CGM as a "documented original Tuskegee Airman". Documenting does not appear to be easy, based on the previous link they got help from a US Congresswoman. The CGM has notability value, it attracts coverage in reliable sources for GNG purposes.   -- GreenC 06:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A unit CGM can't possibly be considered a pass for #1 of ANYBIO as it is not an individual award. As has been pointed out in previous AFDs there are many units with hundred to thousands of members that have received CGMs so it cannot be considered as passing #1 of ANYBIO. Coverage is a different matter and per BASIC is the only relevant basis for notability of Tuskegee Airmen or anyone else anyone absent an SNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also discussion in MilHIst not too long ago and the general consensus was unit awards don't automatically convey notability on an individual. Just walking through the door of a unit that has an award doesn't mean that individual is notable. In addition to people not understanding (or possibly caring) how many DOTA there might be, they also don't seem to understand (or care) how unit awards work. Intothatdarkness 14:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely right, Theodore Johnson (Tuskegee Airman) is a great example of this. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who qualifies as a Tuskegee Airman? 

message: I have seen this in more and more articles, and was going to capitalize it in this one, but wanted feedback. FinnSoThin (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should “black” be capitalized? 

message: I have heard that when white flight instructors refused to teach blacks hot to fly, several Puerto Rican flight instructors stepped up to the plate. Can anyone source that and write an edit? Perhaps @Tony the Marine? Pr4ever (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rican flight instructors