Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tailhook scandal

NO ACTION
Promoted MilHistBot (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

« Return to A-Class review list

Tailhook scandal

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Tailhook scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... back in 2022, for test purposes, I asked the MilHistBot to select a couple of B-class articles it felt were FAC-worthy. This was one of two articles it chose. The article is about a convention in 1991 during which U.S. military officers engaged in public nudity, excessive alcohol intoxication, public sexual activity, and other lewd behavior in and around the convention hotel. In an earlier time - or the present day - this would have been unremarkable, but it was a scandal back in the early 1990s. Can artificial intelligence select worthy FAC candidates? Opinions sought. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I will try to review this soon but it will likely have to be in small batches over the course of several days. Hog Farm talk 17:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - Have you been able to review/vouch for the source-text integrity? I'm reluctant to conduct a full review if the source-text integrity hasn't been verified. I'm in the process of rewriting my very first GA back in 2020 where I didn't check the source-text integrity of existing text and most of it is having to be rewritten. Hog Farm talk 17:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been reviewed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead - "officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted up to 83 women and seven men," has these all as sexual assaults, but the body has "The investigation concluded that 83 women and seven men had been assaulted, sexually or otherwise, at the conference" which opens up the possibilty of non-sexual assaults
    checkY Deleted "sexually" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming the two uses in the references to "McMichal" are an error for "McMichael"?
    checkY Yes. Corrected. (This is why I advocate the use of the {{sfn}} template.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naval investigative agents interviewed 50 women who had experienced the gauntlet in the hallway or elsewhere, and found that 23 of them felt they had been victimized, i.e. had not consented to the activity (Zimmerman, pp. 76-77)." - I cannot find the 23 figure on Zimmerman pp. 76-77 but I may be missing where it is. Pagination issue?
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the sources do not specify, it is likely that Snyder was forced to retire at the rank of captain." - it's unclear which source this is in, and the phrasing has hints of original research
    checkY Deleted. I would not call it OR, and it is almost certainly true, but I cannot find a source for his retirement as a captain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " One of the women assaulted by Ibottson (on Friday, September 6) was Kara Hultgreen, who turned and knocked him down with a punch (Zimmerman, pp. 12-13)." - Zimmerman pp. 12-13 does not mention Ibottson by name, or provide any identity information that could be clearly identified to Zimmerman. On a more minor note, it discusses an elbow to the back of the head, not strictly a punch
    checkY Corrected. Added another reference that identifies Ibbottson. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jim Ibottson" seems to be a misspelling of "Jim Ibbottson"
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the further navy prosecutions. Hog Farm talk 21:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and introduced Jeannie Leavitt and Sharon Preszler as its first female fighter pilots, followed soon after by Martha McSally" - I'm not seeing any mention of McSally on the cited pages
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In media reports on the incidents, the Tailhook scandal is usually mentioned" - source is from 1997; we could use something more recent to support the lasting media attention on this subject (which I think anecdotally has died down a bit)
    checkY I thought it was long forgotten, but apparently not. This gives me pause about sending it to FAC. Added two additional, more recent sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's what giving me pause here as well given that the two main sources (McMichael & Zimmerman) are both from only a few years after the incident and its fallout though. Although I'm not seeing much more recent high-quality works on this; this looks like it's been some degree been drowned out by the unending parade of various military scandals since then. I have to somewhat sheepishly admit that I was not alive when the Tailhook scandal happened. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was, but I don't remember it. It may have been big news in the US, but not in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the entire popular culture section is fairly insignificant and should be removed.
    checkY I am always very reluctant to remove sourced material from other editors, but removed an see how it goes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm Talk 21:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Supporting? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hog Farm Talk 23:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM

Nice one Hawkeye.

Lead

Five fairly short paras seems about one too many for the length of the article. No biggie.

Background

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1991 convention

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initial reactions
  • what was Bowes' position?
    checkY the head of the Naval Air Systems Command
  • Not sure about this one, but when you give a position title then the rank and name, should there be a comma between the position and the rank? ie "Chief of Naval Personnel/Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Manpower, Vice Admiral Jeremy Michael Boorda"
    checkY Comma added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps consider adding that McCain was a retired naval aviator, not everyone will know that, and the context is important
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sentence beginning "the board consisted of ... is made more confusing IMO by the lack of commas. AS I read it, I'm constantly checking back to see who was in what role. It might be useful to use dashes or a semi-colon or two to make it clear who did what job.
    checkY Used semi-colons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • we probably don't need to repeat "Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Frank Kelso", which is already provided in the Agenda subsection. Maybe "CNO Kelso", or just "Kelso"?

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navy investigations...

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoD investigation
Non-judicial actions
Further prosecutions

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

That's is for the prose review. I'll also take a look at the image licensing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All the images are US government, and therefore in the public domain. All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Schierbecker

  • Congress eliminated funding for 10,000 administrative personnel from the Navy's 1993 budget in protest over Tailhook. What was Congress's protest here? That the investigation wasn't doing enough? Was this budget passed into law? Maybe they were hoping to spur the Navy into action to restore funding.
    Maybe. My understanding is that this was part of the "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War.
  • Schroeder was especially angered when, after the reports were released, Marine General Royal N. Moore Jr. sent a message throughout the Marine aviation community asking for nominations for the "prestigious Tailhook award. Why was he angered?
    Nota bene* Pat Schroeder was a woman. The source says:

    Pat Schroeder, the Colorado Democrat who served on the House Armed Services Committee, jumped into the fray two days later after some officers in the Navy and Marines sent out a worldwide message asking commanding officers to identify aviators eligible for "the prestigious Tailhook Award ... to pay tribute to an individual whose efforts or unique accomplishments have caused a significant advancement in contemporary carrier aviation within the last two years." Schroeder seethed over the message. She had been pleased that Garrett had broken ties with the Tailhook Association back in October, but now she said that was "nothing but a PR thing to fend off the press and the public. I took them at face value that they really had broken off all ties.

    checkY Added a bit to explain this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reports differ on what happened to the 35 flag officer files. They were missplaced? But later it says Les Aspin transferred the case files on the 35 flag officers who had attended Tailhook '91 to the new Secretary of the Navy John Dalton
    Not misplaced. The issue was whether Kelso was sitting on them given that he was one of the flag officers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • She sued the Las Vegas Hilton and the Tailhook Association, which settled with her out of court for $400,000. The Hilton contested the lawsuit, Confusing. Consider rephrasing. Hilton didn't settle out of court, but Tailhook did, right?
    checkY Yes. Made this still clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snyder, she said, seemingly preoccupied by another matter and lost in thought, distractedly replied, "Paula, you need to stop hanging around with those guys. That's what you've got to expect on the third deck with a bunch of drunk aviators" and made no further comment. He apparently denied saying this (3:15).
    Per WP:MANDY. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • none of the three women officers who were found in the investigation to have engaged in conduct unbecoming or lying to investigators were prosecuted or given nonjudicial punishment. This raises a lot of questions. Were they alleged victims? Did they truly act improperly (i.e. did they make false accusations? Did they cover for the accused? Or did they minimize their own culpability for some other misdeed.)
    In the UCMJ there is something called "conduct unbecoming" that only applies to officers. Because military personnel, like rugby players, have demonstrated a propensity to come up with more forms of disgraceful and unprofessional behaviour than the authors could possibly think of, the actual definition is left up in the air. The upshot is though, that if all else fails, you can always be charged with "conduct unbecoming". In the American context, this means that your chances of being charged increase exponentially if you are (a) black or (b) female. That having been said, the source says:

    One such case involved Lt.j.g. Elizabeth J. Warnick, a Florida-based officer. She was one of only three females included in the original 140 suspects; the other two were leg-shaving cases. Lt. Melanie Castleberry, reportedly a gauntlet victim, was charged with allowing her legs to be shaved at Tailhook but neglecting to tell investigators; Lt.j.g. Kelly L. Jones admitted having her legs shaved, but agents hadn't read her rights to her before or after her admission. Both cases were eventually dropped; none of the women who had their legs shaved, a group that, insisted the officer doing the shaving, included Coughlin, were brought to Norfolk to face Reason. This later angered male officers charged with conduct unbecoming an officer, who contended the women were being held to a different standard. Warnick was a different case. She had her legs shaved and had done "belly shots"—liquor poured into a prone person's drawn-in belly and slurped up—at both the 1990 and 1991 Tailhook conventions. But in a statement to DOD-IG, she claimed that she had been raped at the 1990 convention by Lt. Cole V. Cowden, an officer with whom she had had consensual sex at 1991's gathering. The lawyers felt that her accounts of what had occurred were inconsistent, and the Navy had no way of reconciling them.

    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Warnick

Schierbecker (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • it was learned that Secretary of the Navy Henry Garrett had attended the convention, but his involvement had not been disclosed in the Navy's investigation report. He was a keynote speaker, so this shouldn't have been a surprise? His name is overlinked and he is referred to as "H. Lawrence Garrett" in one instance and "Henry Garrett" in another.
    checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three officers were taken to courts-martial, but their cases were dismissed after the presiding military judge determined that the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Frank Kelso, who had attended the conference, had concealed his own involvement in the events in question. This is a bit of a nonsequiter. The prosecution of these three was muddled by Kelso's role as accuser, which was intended to minimize his own exposure to the investigation?
    As a matter of fairness, a military commander convening a court-martial calling a subordinate to account for an act of misconduct must be free from any suspicion of involvement in the misconduct. Hence, the charges were dismissed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be appropriate to mention the range of victim ages and how many of them were civilian. May be good to set the scene for the readers a little more by clarifying that these alcohol-drenched parties were open to the public. (pp. 54-55 in the report)
    checkY Added a graphic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was responsible for providing security? Were hotel security guards effective in their duties. Were there any calls for police service?
    checkY Hilton was responsible for security. The article says: "Two women assaulted in the gauntlet, Lisa Reagan and Marie Weston, who were not associated with the Tailhook Association, filed police reports the next day. Reportedly, it was the first and only time that someone had filed a formal police report on activities at the convention." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conduct unbecoming charge was for a photograph at the convention in which Cowden posed with his tongue on the chest of a civilian woman. The conduct unbecoming charge was for the photo or the act?
    checkY The act. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Schierbecker (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Schierbecker: All good now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review - pass

Images:

  • The various military portrait photos are PD, but most have now-dead Defenselink URLs as the source. A lot of historical images seem to have been moved into the DVIDS website over recent months, so it might be possible to update the sourcing here.
  • File:Senator Nunn headshot 2010 cropped.jpg doesn't appear to be PD given the metadata states "Copyright 2009 Bill Adler. All Rights Reserved". It should be straightforward replacing this with a clearly PD image.
    Not so straightforward. Replace with a NARA image I uploaded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • The referencing style is rather old-fashioned, but not an issue per-se
    I would need a solid consensus to change the referencing style (and for that matter, the date format). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, some of the material in the notes isn't clearly covered by a reference. For instance, the current references 30 and 33 (as two examples) cite multiple sources but then includes further text - what supports this text? Reference 71 makes negative BLP statements without it being clear what if any source supports this. In general, it would be best to remove this stuff given the article is already very long and detailed.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If any notes are retained, they should be separated out from the references to improve readability and make the article easier to maintain and work on in the future.
  • The citation style for the paper in reference 31 is inconsistent with other references
    Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "Making Waves: Women in the U.S. Navy" have an ISBN or ISSN and location of publication?
    Added some more details, but it doesn't have an ISBN or ISSN being a DoD publication. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regnery Publishing is apparently a politically biased publisher and the Wikipedia article notes that some of its publications have been criticised for poor fact checking, but is being used to cite facts rather than opinions
  • The Washington Times is considered only a marginally reliable source that should only be used for uncontentious news coverage ([1]). Can a better source be provided here?
    I have substituted Brown (2007), an academic source. Which of course is quoting the Washington Times. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's 'Retro Report' and is it suitable as recommended further reading?
    It is from PBS. I think someone wanted a more recent where-are-they-now source. It has video of Paula Coughlin. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a comment mainly looking ahead to a FAC, the cited sources are all pretty elderly, and views on gender issues and the role of women in the military have changed a lot over the last decade or so in particular. A quick Google Scholar search shows that while the literature on this issue is largely from the 1990s and early 2000s, there are some useful-looking recent works that should be consulted. Nick-D (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Roughly 90% of the article was written by Sarging (talk · contribs) in 2020, but that user has been inactive since then. I don't know why the archaic reference format was used. Most literature dates from the 1990s and 2000s; after that it was overshadowed by the pressing requirements of the GWOT and growing dissatisfaction in conservative publications. In the current political climate in the United States, I feel that sending an article like this to FAC would be unwise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good, and I'm happy to 'pass this element of the review. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Tailhook_scandal