Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:43, 4 December 2005

I am trying to expand this article and introduce the situation of the homosexuality in U.S. army. Anyone knows this can help? a gay soldier is much more welcome! :) --Yacht (talk) 17:12, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

to make this more encyclopaedic

• There should be a page entitled Armed forces policies on sexual orientation.
• That page should link to this one, and absorb some of its content, in particular the section on

other countries.

• The section on other countries is currently a stub, and shoul be moved to the new article. What about non-Western countries?
• The new article will link to similar articles on general polices

I am not the right person to make the above changes, as I cannot provide the necessary content. mike40033 05:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Leave it to the person who has more information to actually create that page. Increasing overall complexity of Misplaced Pages does not help users find content that is useful. Unless and until a user has information on the policies of the armed forces of other nations towards homosexuality and creates the proposed pages you've listed, this page should remain in place with its content intact. Don't go moving content around to just create many more stubs from one article which is reasonably encyclopedic. --ABQCat 23:12, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Updated information

I've been browsing through the SLDN site trying to find newer data than from 2000 for the table we've got. They have a bar-chart with totals for each year which I've introduced into the table, but the service branch breakdown is not included with the chart. If anyone can find the breakdown, please add it to the table. Also, discharges have been decreasing slowly since 2000 (787 in 2003 vs. nearly 1300 in 2000). I'm wondering if there's a been a policy-shift in the way discharges are carried out, if the emphasis on DADT has decreased, or if there's something else going on. I just don't know, and would value some input from someone who does. --ABQCat 23:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed

• "The policy is widely seen as a failure and opposed by pro and anti-gay advocates."

Why was the above removed? As far as I know it is accurate. Though it is not cited neither are any contradicty assertions, and neither are there contradictory assertions. Hyacinth 02:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Readded. Hyacinth 23:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't ask?

The quote seems to describe the don't tell portion but I don't see a quote that forbids people from asking. Does the rule apply to stating ones heterosexuality? --Gbleem 14:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discharges Decrease

.....in wartime. So the statement that "....the discharges of homosexual service members actually seems to be increasing at a time when personnel shortages are severe enough that the active duty tours of many enlisted service members are being involuntarily extended" seems innacurate - the Washington Post article detailing this as a recent phenomenon also cites evidence of this occuring as far back as World War II, so this should be edited. See Fewer Gays Being Discharged Since September 11

This is also supported by the general trend: during wars, when we need soldiers, gay one's are fine. It's only when homeland security is not an issue that the US has time for anti-gay discrimination. Hyacinth 23:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"General"

Is the "General" section really important? Or even true? Don't Ask, Don't Tell has never, in my experience, been used outside the military, and is certainly not in common parlance.

Last edit

The last edit (by Rocketfairy) is a little perplexing, and includes at least one statement that seems like thinly vieled editorializing: In this view, such an exclusion is indefensible on ethical and legal or Constitutional grounds, as individuals have a right to privacy and to express love for whomever they choose; "unit cohesion" arguments thus priviledge those intent on denying rights over those whose rights would be violated. The last part, in particular, steps outside the bounds of presenting an argument. --DNicholls 03:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Failure

• "The law is widely seen as a failure and opposed by pro and anti-gay advocates."

How is this POV? It does not assert that the law is a failure, but that people of various POVs say so. Hyacinth 01:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much POV as weasely (see WP:AWT). It needs real sources. It may be true (esp. the second half) but I balk at including something as weasel-y as the first unsourced. jdb ❋ (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think better question is: Who does like this policy? Hyacinth 08:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Butler

I'm not sure why it would be "unnecessary" to point out that the ban conflates speech and conduct. Hyacinth 01:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Also, if one is going to remove content with a citation from an article one should also remove the source at the bottom of the page. Hyacinth 01:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is more a matter of style, but I don't think poststructuralist critiques of anything have any business in a serious encyclopedia. (see Sokal Affair) Furthermore, maybe I'm not subtle enough, but can you explain what she's saying in that snippet and what it has to do with the question at hand? jdb ❋ (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent article on support for HB 1059

Is opposition to the Military Readiness Enhancement Act really that weak? There is an article (100 Members of Congress Co-Sponsor Bill to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell') saying that support may be strong in the House of Representatives --Cumbiagermen 06:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article

I moved this section here because, hey, people, the article space isn't for talking to one-another, its for writing what should be a cohesive document. This looks more like an exercise in Hegelian dialectics.

This claim, however, does not address the argument that the policy's stated goal of preserving camraderie and unit cohesion would be just as hindered by an open profession of homosexuality as it would actual homosexual conduct within ranks, nor does it attempt to. This counter-claim does not address the argument that ending hatred and bigotry would be more beneficial to camraderie and unit cohesion then reinforcing those biases.

-Seth Mahoney 18:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)