This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's History and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I've got serious concerns about this section. Much of the fuss about women sailors getting pregnant to avoid sea duty appears to be hearsay or one-off correlations. The fact that most women in the military are in the age where people have children means that it's hardly unusual that they fall pregnant. If male sailors weren't allowed to deploy if their partners were pregnant I'd imagine that a lot of them would have to stay on the dock at the start of each voyage as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no opinion on it myself, but in reading books in preparation to begin work on the Tailhook scandal article, I found a lot of discussion concerning the perception among personnel in the US Navy, both men and women, that women use pregnancy to escape sea duty. I'll probably be adding more to the section over time, because as I review sources for the Tailhook article I'll probably find more coverage of this topic. Cla68 (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there still a desire to leave the NPOV tag in the article in the pregnancy section? It seems to me that the information in the section is clearly attributed and reliably sourced. Two contrary opinions are included, including Zimmerman's that the pregnancy rate should not have a big impact on a ship's readiness and the Virginia Pilot article that states that men have a higher rate of non-deployment than women. Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Numerical listing (leftmost column) seems arbitrary or even idiosyncratic
Concerning Section 9 "Admirals," I do not understand the logic of the first column, the numerical listing. There are seven columns that can be sorted. None of these sorts matches the numerical arrangement of the first column, which, therefore, makes this numerical listing seem purely arbitrary or even idiosyncratic. Perhaps the list is just the order in which the compiler of the list entered the names, but, in my opinion, that is inappropriate, since, any time the page is pulled up anew or refreshed, the list is always confusingly sorted by this arbitrary number. Because the list is one of admirals, it probably would make sense if the "numerical" listing were identical to the sort by Rear Admiral, lower half (RDML), since everyone on the list has reached at least that rank. A numerical listing corresponding to the alphabetical sort by name would not be a good idea because it would require frequent renumbering. I wouldn't do away with that first column because it's useful to know how many are on the list, or, if the numerical list corresponded to the sort by RDML, to how many reached that rank before a person the reader is interested in. Wikifan2744 (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)