Ok, you claim to be an expert including disputing NASA's description of the F-15 and F-16 wings as "modified cropped delta", but give no details.
Going through my own fighter training (I flew the F-15E), the great low speed handling of the mig-21 was attributed to it having a delta wing with a conventional tail. The F-15 wing was described essentially as a modified delta in order to retain the positive attributes of the delta wing (primarily high lift due to vortices generated near the root and interactions between the wing shoulder, wing root, and vortices effects on the twin vert stabs), without completely giving in to the very high drag you get when you put a pure delta wing up at high AOA. The tailed delta maintains maneuverability at low speed and high AOA without suffering from the drag losses a pure delta has. Same decision with the F-16, except of course the relaxed stability was intended to permit the pilot to consistently fly right up to the aero limits without crossing them, giving some margin of performance advantage to other acft with similar aero characteristics but with conventional stability and non-FBW controls.
In actual flight, the F-15 does have some of the characteristics of a delta wing planform. Specifically, the enormous increase of drag above a certain AOA without losing all the lift (the very flat stall curve typical of a delta planform), while maintaining controllability and pitch authority, are characteristics of a tailed delta.
The point being that you can dispute the terminology used by established experts in the field (NASA) without establishing your own credibility, because this is the internet of course. On the other hand, nobody's gonna give you any credit and you come off looking like an argumentative armchair internet warrior. Actually flying the aircraft and receiving both theoretical and hands-on training on what the actual practical differences mean in real-life goes beyond looking at a simple diagram and proclaiming that it is or is not "pure" anything, and yet you dispute the value of actual hands-on practical experience in the field.
And here's the bottom line - Whether you call it "swept" or "modified cropped delta", planforms like the F-15 maintain many of the flight characteristics of a delta wing while taking advantage of having a conventional tail and other planform modifications to address the drawbacks of a pure tailless delta planform. The F-15 handles more like a plane with a delta wing than it does like a plane with a swept wing, which is why the experts in the USAF describe it using the word "delta" not "swept". Because in both theory and practice, the F-15E wing planform has more in common with a delta wing than it does with a swept wing.
Feel free to establish your credentials and explain why your half-century of experience tells you that the modified cropped delta wing of the F-15 is actually "swept". I'm not proud, I'll listen to your opinion if you have info I don't have or a logical argument more detailed than "it isn't any sort of delta because it isn't an exact triangle".
And back on topic... A description of the F-4 planform is here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=twH0AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=WEFT+description+F-4&source=bl&ots=e7J9q7FDli&sig=qYE4y3Ytzz7OYf-oNYHp32aJAQw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0z4-5jMzRAhVL2GMKHSHzAoMQ6AEIJjAE#v=onepage&q=WEFT%20description%20F-4&f=false(edit - that book has multiple errors throughout, however it still illustrates the usefulness of using certain descriptive terms in an inexact world)
Sorry for the ugly URL, not sure how to shorten that. If the link doesn't work, the description given is "Low-mounted, swept-back, and semi-delta with square tips. Positive slanted wing tips. There is a saw-tooth in leading edges of the wings." The trailing edge does indeed sweep, however the overall planform and difference between leading and trailing edge sweep is significantly different to the traditional swept wing planform for almost all aircraft that went before the F-4 phantom, which shows that aerodynamic thinking at the time was leaning in the direction of the efficiencies and benefits of the tailed-delta planform on fighter aircraft and away from the early swept designs that the US had been using with early aircraft such as the F-86 and many of the century series aircraft. The F-15, F-16, and others are clear examples that the delta planform, modified to address some of the drawbacks to a pure delta wing, had benefits that were very apparent to designers at the time.
By the way, that book I linked in the url uses the word "delta" in its wing description of the F-16, F-18, and F-15. The F-15 is called "semi-delta with angular, blunt tips."
Lots of experts, lots of use of the word "delta". Maybe in actual use, a "delta" wing planform description isn't only a pure geometrical triangle when drawn on a line diagram.
