Talk:Don't ask, don't tell: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:23, 29 January 2010 editBluemarine (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,844 edits →Sourcing?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:37, 19 November 2024 edit undoNatGertler (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users44,275 edits →Incorrect Misplaced Pages Link: ReplyTag: Reply
(320 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
			{{Article history
			\|itndate=13 October 2010
			\|itn2date=19 December 2010
			\|otd1date=2014-09-20\|otd1oldid=626339293
			\|otd2date=2017-09-20\|otd2oldid=801420645
			\|otd3date=2021-09-20\|otd3oldid=1045272375
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class=B
			<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
			\|B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = yes
			\|B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = yes
			\|B3 <!-- Structure --> = yes
			\|B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = yes
			\|B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = yes\|US=yes}}
			{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
			{{WikiProject Barack Obama\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=Mid\|USGov=yes\|USGov-importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Law}}
			{{Wiki Loves Pride talk\|2016}}
			}}
			<!--- this measure was repealed by the Obama administration; see http://en.wikisource.org/The_Change.gov_Agenda for context --->
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}		\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 45K		\|maxarchivesize = 45K
	\|counter = 1		\|counter = 4
	\|minthreadsleft = 5		\|minthreadsleft = 5
	\|algo = old(60d)		\|algo = old(60d)
	\|archive = Talk:Don't ask, don't tell/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Don't ask, don't tell/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{Talkheader}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|blp=no\|1=
	{{WPMILHIST\|class=Start\|B1=no\|B2=yes\|B3=yes\|B4=yes\|B5=yes\|US=yes}}
	{{LGBTProject \| class=Start}}
	{{WikiProject Barack Obama\|class=B\|importance=Low}} <!--- this measure is specifically mentioned in the Obama agenda; see http://en.wikisource.org/The_Change.gov_Agenda for context --->
	}}
	{{archivebox\|auto=yes}}
	__TOC__

	== Problems with the article ==

	I have several problems with this article:

	1) There is very little documentation.
	2) It is heavily biased towards allowing homosexuals in the military.
	3) The "History" section is a history of homosexuals in the military--not a history of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
	4) It says in the Intro that the policy was authored by ], but says that ] authored it in the History.

			{{archives\|search=yes\|index=/Archive index}}
	] (]) 22:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)lacarids February 15, 2009.
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index
			\|mask=/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}

			== External links modified ==
	In response to your points:<br>
	1) The article itself now appears to be heavily documented. Consider using {{tl\|fact}} or {{tl\|unreferencedsection}} to request sources on individual sentences or sections, respectively.<br>
	2) Per ] and ], please ] biased sentences, sections, etc.<br>
	3) Agreed, however, no such article ] exists as with ]. Please cross-link ], ] and ]. I'd suggest leaving post-1993 history directly related to DADT in this article.<br>
	4) True, I have removed the Collin Powell sentence per ] and removed the Moskos paragraph since it was unsourced. ] (]) 03:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	::::Charles is absolutely correctly this article is a history of gays in the US military and not specifically focused on ].
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019042618/http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/04/religious-organizations-support-%E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t-ask-don%E2%80%99t-tell%E2%80%9D-repeal/ to http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/04/religious-organizations-support-%E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t-ask-don%E2%80%99t-tell%E2%80%9D-repeal

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	::::It needs to be cleaned up, imo. There should be an article on DADT and a separate article on the history of homosexuals in the military. May tackle it myself one of these days. But not today.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	::::But I think it needs to be tagged. Have to find the appropriate one.

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 08:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
	::::] (]) 17:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	== "Beginning of the policy" quote ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	I don't mind that my edit was removed, would just like suggestions on letting the readers know that a discharge, despite the quote being in place, could result from (not just actions) but from disclosure of someone's sexual orientation -- ] (]) 03:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	* I think that's covered in the quote under "a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual". Just ''stating'' it is the action. ] (]) 10:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110120011130/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/01/military-bill-to-delay-dadt-repeal-011411w/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/01/military-bill-to-delay-dadt-repeal-011411w/

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	== "pedophiles who engage in a self-destructive and immoral life-style." ==

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	The article contained this unsourced statement: "In 1993, the two reports were published alongside an argument by an armed forces general who argued against lifting the ban on homosexual- and bisexual-identified people based on a belief that they pose a security risk, will erode unit cohesion and morale alongside the argument that most homosexual and bisexual oriented people are pedophiles who engage in a self-destructive and immoral life-style."

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 11:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
	I can't find any support for this statement. I've searched several databases, including Google News archive and LexisNexis academic. The GAO report was published in June 1992. Which general said this? Who published the two reports? If this is true, give details. ] (]) 12:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

	== ~~Outing~~ ~~and DADT~~ ==		== Trac(e)y Thorne ==

			{{ping\|2601:5c1:4501:e277:39fd:3a97:5538:aa75\|Gooner2004}}, regarding /: because there's no source after the sentence, it's hard for me to tell which spelling is correct. We do have an article on ] which notes that he criticized the Navy's policy of excluding gays, outed himself, and was discharged in the 1990s.<br>I see a "Tracey Thorne" mentioned as being discharged in a few books, e.g. Urvashi Vaid's 2015 ''Virtual Equality'' mentions "Tracey Thorne and Greta Cammermeyer", but that also spells Cammermeyer's name differently than our article on ], so I wouldn't count on it for spelling. And "Tracy Thorne" with no "e" is mentioned in books as being discharged for being gay, e.g. Craig A. Rimmerman's 2013 ''Gay Rights, Military Wrongs'' mentions "the many public/media appearances of Keith Meinhold, Tracy Thorne," and others. Absent a source indicating that a different TT was meant, I think the IP seems to be right and ]]] seems to be meant. ] (]) 01:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
	Does DADT prohibit fellow soldiers from outing a homosexual colleague? The article only tells of the "Don't Ask"-part as it relates to officers. ] (]) 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

			== NBC article ==
	== article is a general history of gays in military, not specifically about DADT ==
			=== Redress ===

			{{quote\|Most people that got out under ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ can get their discharges upgraded from general discharge to honorable discharge<ref name="nbc-2020-12-22">https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/decade-after-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-repeal-hurtful-n1252104</ref>}}
	I've tagged this article with {{incoherent-topic}} as it is not focused on "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" but, rather, is a general history of gays in the US military.

			This point should probably be mentioned in the article, e.g. under a section called "Redress". ] (]) 20:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
	Clearly a separate article on the latter topic is needed.

			=== Ongoing discrimination ===
	And DADT is important enough to warrant a separate article on its own.

	Obviously, DADT would be part of a more general historical article on homosexuals in the military but this article is crying out for a complete splitting of the two topics.

			{{quote\| LGBTQ veterans who were discharged under 'dont ask, don’t tell' still do not get access to medical care, the GI Bill and military pensions.<ref name="nbc-2020-12-22"/>}}
	] (]) 18:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

			This point should probably be mentioned in the article, e.g. under a section called "Ongoing discrimination". ] (]) 20:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
	: '''Agree'''. The article has grown beyond the scope of DADT and should be split off to ]. See ]. The only other country-specific example there is ]. - ] (]) 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
	: I've gone ahead and created the page ]. I'll keep migrating the History section, time permitting. - ] (]) 02:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Okay, I've moved quite a bit but only the pre-1993 stuff that's definitely not about DADT. Many of the Responses sound to me more about gays in the U.S. military in general (as a result of the DADT policy) and may be better suited at the new article, but I'll leave it for now and let other editors pick them out if they like. - ] (]) 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	:'''Disagree'''. Although other articles may exist on the topic of LGBT people serving in their military fileds ''this'' article written at an acceptable or good level should definitely include background on their serving in the past and how exposure was dealt/not dealt with. This is one of the first things that most decent articles or books on the subject cover - that LGBT folks have always been in the service and the issue has been handled unevenly at best. ] 06:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	::I see what you mean. Other famous cases tend to have weighty backgrounds in their articles. It was never my intention to merge all of the History section, so I wish I could have found a better tag. Merge portion? Anyway, are you opposed to having the ] article at all? There's plenty of room for overlap. - ] (]) 11:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::I think this article best serves our readers as focussed on DADT. The policy is well-known worldwide and many sources discuss only it so there's no reason it can't be built up. The other article exists now and a version of it is acceptable and likely needed to fit in with other articles on this subject. I think the other article should be a history of LGBT in US military service - not just policy. My hunch is that the policies can serve as a benchmark of sorts but I remember from other articles that, for instance, WWII had a huge impact on LGBT culture and a huge percentage of lesbian personnel. This is valuable context that is lost when the focus is solely on one aspect. As both articles develop it's likely that what content should be migrated or summarized thus improving both articles. ] 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
	:::: That's what we're here for - improving both articles. I just wanted to help lay out a structure to facilitate expansion, since they're so closely tied. How about renaming the new page ]? I agree DADT should have an informative background section to catch readers up to speed on the issue before going into an exposition on DADT's enactment, debate, and case history. (It might be a good idea to include a "For further information..." link to the new page.) By all means, feel free to copy/move stuff back into DADT as you see fit. - ] (]) 01:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

			{{reftalk}}
	== Public Opinion ==

			== Misleading intro ==
	I recently edited the public opinion section statistics that compares the percentage of certain groups on the reversal of the current policy towards openly homosexual members of the armed forces. Unfortunately is was reverted as mistaken vandalism. The problem lies in the comparison of the groups and the percentage of said groups that would reverse Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The section compares Democrats, independents, and conservatives. Where as Democrats and independents refer to party identification, conservative refers to an ideology that is not necessarily party based. To correct this, I referred to the original source to find the percentage of Republicans that wanted to reverse Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This article put the figure at 64 percent. As such the article should be revised to include the percentage for the Republicans rather then the conservatives. If the percentage for conservatives is to be used, it should be referred to as the side that is traditional against favorably government recognition of homosexuals. The edit from the conservative statistic to the Republican statistic was marked as vandalism because I did not explain the edit. As such, I put to to someone else to reconcile the issue as my previous "vandalism" discredits me. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			The intro, especially with the added "instituted during the Clinton administration" in the first line, is very misleading. It fails to mention that Clinton and the other Democrats were campaigning for full tolerance of non-straight people but made this as a compromise to the Republicans who objected to that. It also fails to mention that before it, gays were barred from the military altogether. ] (]) 20:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	==Sourcing?==

			:It does mention that the law was a "relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces"; the intro focuses on the what and when of the topic of the article. The full history of how we got to that place, with who was for and against it, is for the article itself. --] (]) 22:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
	Can anyone tell me where the following comment at the opening of the third paragraph came from?<p>
	<blockquote>
	"Beyond the official regulations, gay people were often the target of various types of harassment by their fellow servicemen, designed to persuade them to resign from the military or turn themselves in to investigators."
	</blockquote><p>
	It makes a strong statement, but I have no idea where that statement came from.] (]) 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

			== Incorrect Misplaced Pages Link ==
	::I spoke to soon, I found where the origin of the quote. It comes from: ] an advocacy group for the repeal of DADT. Come on guys, we can't find a source that isn't blantant propaganda? Here's the ]'s ]<p><p>

			There is an incorrect link for Daniel Choi in the 'Court Challenges' section of the article, in the second paragraph under 'Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America'. It lists the name of "Daniel Choi" and includes a link to the Misplaced Pages article for ], a Korean actor. It should instead link to the article for ], the LGBT rights activist. ] (]) 02:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	<blockquote>

			:Thanks for the catch. Fixed. -- ] (]) 02:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	The overall mission of the Vets Do Ask Do Tell, LLC is to bring awareness to and educate Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender veterans of the Veterans Administration programs that are targeted to their specific needs. To consolidate information important to these veterans and give National awareness and education about programs that may not be known by all LGBT veterans. To provide educational resources that may be needed to pursue benefits they are entitled to.
	</blockquote><p><p>] (]) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:37, 19 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Don't ask, don't tell article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

	News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 13, 2010, and December 19, 2010.
	Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 20, 2014, September 20, 2017, and September 20, 2021.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Barack Obama (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

United States: Government Mid‑importance

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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Loves Pride

This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2016.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don't ask, don't tell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019042618/http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/04/religious-organizations-support-%E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t-ask-don%E2%80%99t-tell%E2%80%9D-repeal/ to http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/04/religious-organizations-support-%E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t-ask-don%E2%80%99t-tell%E2%80%9D-repeal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110120011130/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/01/military-bill-to-delay-dadt-repeal-011411w/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/01/military-bill-to-delay-dadt-repeal-011411w/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Trac(e)y Thorne

@2601:5c1:4501:e277:39fd:3a97:5538:aa75 and Gooner2004:, regarding /: because there's no source after the sentence, it's hard for me to tell which spelling is correct. We do have an article on Tracy Thorne-Begland which notes that he criticized the Navy's policy of excluding gays, outed himself, and was discharged in the 1990s.
I see a "Tracey Thorne" mentioned as being discharged in a few books, e.g. Urvashi Vaid's 2015 Virtual Equality mentions "Tracey Thorne and Greta Cammermeyer", but that also spells Cammermeyer's name differently than our article on Margarethe "Grethe" Cammermeyer, so I wouldn't count on it for spelling. And "Tracy Thorne" with no "e" is mentioned in books as being discharged for being gay, e.g. Craig A. Rimmerman's 2013 Gay Rights, Military Wrongs mentions "the many public/media appearances of Keith Meinhold, Tracy Thorne," and others. Absent a source indicating that a different TT was meant, I think the IP seems to be right and ] seems to be meant. -sche (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

NBC article

Redress

Most people that got out under ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ can get their discharges upgraded from general discharge to honorable discharge

This point should probably be mentioned in the article, e.g. under a section called "Redress". Zazpot (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing discrimination

LGBTQ veterans who were discharged under 'dont ask, don’t tell' still do not get access to medical care, the GI Bill and military pensions.

This point should probably be mentioned in the article, e.g. under a section called "Ongoing discrimination". Zazpot (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/decade-after-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-repeal-hurtful-n1252104

Misleading intro

The intro, especially with the added "instituted during the Clinton administration" in the first line, is very misleading. It fails to mention that Clinton and the other Democrats were campaigning for full tolerance of non-straight people but made this as a compromise to the Republicans who objected to that. It also fails to mention that before it, gays were barred from the military altogether. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It does mention that the law was a "relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces"; the intro focuses on the what and when of the topic of the article. The full history of how we got to that place, with who was for and against it, is for the article itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Misplaced Pages Link

There is an incorrect link for Daniel Choi in the 'Court Challenges' section of the article, in the second paragraph under 'Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America'. It lists the name of "Daniel Choi" and includes a link to the Misplaced Pages article for Choi Daniel, a Korean actor. It should instead link to the article for Dan Choi, the LGBT rights activist. Tommymunkey (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. Fixed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: