Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tailhook scandal

« Return to A-Class review list

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]

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

  Y 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"?

  Y 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?

  Y 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

  Y 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

  Y 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"

  Y 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

  Y 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)

  Y 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.

  Y 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]