Talk:Tailhook scandal/Archive 1

Why is Clinton Being Attacked?
He wasnt president in 1991.....It doesnt make it clear why random people are attacking him. Rewrite the article, its not clear on a timeline of the events. ThanatosXRS (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the purge took place under the Clinton administration in 1993-95.Solicitr (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Article split
I split this article from the Tailhook association article because I'm about to begin expanding it. I have obtained and read several books which cover the subject. Over the next couple of weeks I'll be working on adding a list of online sources. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of the following outline for the article as I build it over the next few months:
 * Background of the Tailhook Association, its relationship with the US Navy, and a brief history of its annual conventions.
 * Overview of the 35th Symposium (Tailhook '91) including its official agenda and the social events which took place.
 * Captain Ludwig's post-convention letter which was leaked to the media, Paula Coughlin's revelations in the press, and other events which broke the story onto the national stage.
 * The US Navy and DoD IG investigations and what they found, including a general overview of the assaults which occurred, a description of the Gauntlet, ballwalking, and other lewd behavior in the hospitality suites and swimming pool patio area. Also, complaints about the conduct and scope of the investigations, including allegations of undue command influence and unprofessional conduct by the investigators involved.
 * Actions or disciplinary action taken, including the finding in the investigation or in court that Secretary Garrett and Admiral Kelso had not been entirely truthful in their statements to investigators or military justice officials about their participation in the convention.
 * Discussion of the various reasons or causes for the behavior in question.
 * Role and influence of US Navy and Marine flag officers in the Tailhook convention and attending behavior
 * Impact on military and US culture, including the issues of women in combat roles or in the military in general, sexual assault (which has again been in the national spotlight recently with regard to the military), sexual harrassment, role of alcohol consumption in military culture, and image of or allowances made for the behavior of the aviation officers' corps in the US military.
 * Subsequent events, such as the Navy's current relationship with the Tailhook association and annual symposiums.
 * Further suggestions or comments welcome. Cla68 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This article basically has zero information about what allegedly happened. Very poor quality article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.172.121 (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My reason for looking this up was to find out what happened. Please add a section that addresses this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.47.239 (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Male victims
> According to a Department of Defense (DoD) report, 83 women and 7 men stated that they had been victims of sexual assault - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tailhook_Association&oldid=478715813

The male claims are interesting, might warrant inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.203.90 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section unbalanced
The article gives the impression that the response to Tailhook was generally accepted as bad; this does not reflect the state of the sources at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, it doesn't. This article is currently on my "to do" list to improve.  I have most, if not all of the relevant books on the topic.  I just haven't found the time to get to it.  It was a very large and complex incident with a very wide range of opinions and reprecussions. Cla68 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting something here- a section entitled 'Criticism' would, one think, give responses that were critical. To mix in positive responses would simply be confusing; why not a separate section for those? Solicitr (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, a criticism section could include criticisms that the investigation was a witch hunt, incompetent, or that it didn't go far enough. Actually, all three of these types of criticisms are out there. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't have a similar "positive reception" section. Ideally we would have a section called "reception," "legacy," etc. which would accurately reflect opinion of the whole deal. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 12:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, "Many conservatives and retired officers alleged that in ending the careers of over 300 officers, the Clinton administration had gone far beyond punishing wrongdoers and had used the scandal as a pretext for carrying out a purge of the officer corps." THIS needs to go. --> It's ridiculous poppycock to allege that this was a political problem. Anyone that actually believes that this was a political problem (and not an ethical one) needs to read https://web.duke.edu/kenanethics/CaseStudies/Tailhook&USNavy.pdf, when the allegations first surfaced, President Bush personally discussed the problems at the convention with one of the victims. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney fired the Secretary of the Navy before the DOD IG even began investigating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.74.186 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Still unbalanced. There's more criticism from politicians and former officers than there is information on the scandal itself. The criticism itself reads almost like self-parody because it provides little context to the complaints being made. Officers whined about their previously macho Navy losing its swagger and one gets the impression that this is because the Clinton Administration told them that, yes, sexually assaulting people is a crime that is every officer's responsibility to prevent and which must be punished when it happens. Sure, being a lefty who finds what they're saying both repugnant and laughably pathetic, I'm willing to believe that's the case, but could we at least know what specific policies implemented after the scandal they are decrying when they make these claims? Do they even say? Someone out there must have written something that isn't just bluster. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Who said?
In the beginning of the article it states that "His statement led to a wave of public outcry which sparked numerous protests and demonstrations at the gates of naval bases across the U.S. Various Women's advocacy groups such as the National Woman's Party (NWP) were among some of the most vocal demonstrators."

Yet, it mentions absolutely no statement by anyone. It's a bit confusing, one can only guess that this refers to what is mentioned later in the article: "Rear Admiral Williams made sexist remarks in Pope's presence, most notably a comment that he believed that "a lot of female navy pilots are go-go dancers, topless dancers or hookers"" Wgfcrafty (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Effects on officers who were not there
I will see if I can find some cites and add this section. For example, VADM Jerry L. Unruh, who was COMTHIRDFLT at the time, was not busted over the incident (because he had the golden alibi of being at sea that weekend) but was unable to retire when he had planned because no one was able/ready to replace him because so many people had gotten busted. Also, then Captain Richard J. "Dick" Nibe, who in my opinion had a very appropriate nick name was also not busted (he was on the same ship as Unruh) but instead was elevated to RADM when he might not have if so many of his peers had not been busted over tailhook. Eric Cable ! Talk 14:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat disappointing
Looking at this article, there is very little detail on the actual event (and a lot of this restricted to the intro, which should really be a summary). On the other hand, there is very large section on "Criticism", not of the event, but of the aftermath. I can't help but feel that is is a bit of a whitewash. Even the German version is a lot more detailed. I know, WP:SOFIXIT, but this is not really an area I feel particularly competent in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

In popular media
There a new reference.

In the Booktown series novel Handbook for Homicide the muder victim testified against high ranking officals Snarls200 (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)