Talk:Tailhook Association

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

What happened to the Tailhook scandal?

This reference says the women who went to these parties year after year knew full well there would be sex there. So Wikipedia should have an article which balances the public perception of nasty unfair men taking advantages of innocent, pure women with this source's contention. Uncle Ed 21:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

I have removed the following claims that contradict the sources given in the article.

Despite claims to the contrary, no sexual assault was reported, but the sexual aspect was siezed upon by the news media, since the controversial Supreme Court hearings for Clarence Thomas had ended just two weeks previously.

Years later, it was determined that the abusers may have numbered as few as a dozen, including foreigners and members of other U.S. armed forces.

To quote one of the sources [1]:

While some of the women were there willingly, there were 80 to 90 victims — including six officers' wives — who were not. Secretary of the Navy H. Lawrence Garrett, III, immediately ordered the Navy and Marine Corps to begin disciplinary action against some seventy officers. Over 50 were implicated in forcing women to run the "gauntlet" and six were accused of blocking the investigation.

And another [2]:

I have five separate reports of young ladies, several of whom had nothing to do with Tailhook, who were verbally abused, had drinks thrown at them, were physically abused and were sexually molested. Most distressing was the fact an underage young lady was severely intoxicated and had her clothing removed by members of the Gauntlet.

Also, what is an "official cover-up"?

- Kwi | Talk 15:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A response to this article

I'm flagging this to be checked for its neutrality as it is so openly one-sided and makes poor use of citations. I can't respond to it further or more specifically as I found it so sexist that I could barely stand to read it. Would appreciate the review of someone more willing to deal with this. Unsunnedsnow 05:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)unsunnedsnow

Agreed. Flagrantly one-sided. 128.195.106.76 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely one-sided. This article is in serious need of repair. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole article reads as an apologia for the conventioneers. Blatantly violates NPOV.

File:TailhookPatch2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TailhookPatch2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)