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

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:42, 22 December 2013 editMichael Hardy (talk \| contribs)Administrators210,276 edits →Relaxation on restrictions: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:34, 22 December 2013 edit undoHyBn51702 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers94,883 edits →Relaxation on restrictions Next edit →
Line 113:		Line 113:

	DADT was a relaxation of old restrictions against homosexuals in the military. Why do we see so much commentary that acts as if DADT _established_ restrictions against gays in the military, when what it actually did was relax them? The law against homosexuals in the military was enacted in the '50s. The "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy of President Clinton said: from now on it's OK for homosexuals to serve in the military, where formerly it was forbidden, as long as they don't talk about it. Before that, they could be kicked out of the military if their sexual orientation came to light, even if no one had talked about it. I just edited a weird passage in this article that said the restrictions against gays in the military were put in place in 1993. The truth is, they were put in place in the '50s, and the DADT policy of 1993 rolled them back. ] (]) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)		DADT was a relaxation of old restrictions against homosexuals in the military. Why do we see so much commentary that acts as if DADT _established_ restrictions against gays in the military, when what it actually did was relax them? The law against homosexuals in the military was enacted in the '50s. The "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy of President Clinton said: from now on it's OK for homosexuals to serve in the military, where formerly it was forbidden, as long as they don't talk about it. Before that, they could be kicked out of the military if their sexual orientation came to light, even if no one had talked about it. I just edited a weird passage in this article that said the restrictions against gays in the military were put in place in 1993. The truth is, they were put in place in the '50s, and the DADT policy of 1993 rolled them back. ] (]) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
			:Your recent edit was fine but re your "Why do we see so much commentary" it's not clear if you have an issue with the article as it stands or are just complaining in general. ] (]) 22:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:34, 22 December 2013

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

This article has not yet been rated 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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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

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

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Government Low‑importance

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

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

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

A news item involving Don't ask, don't tell was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 October 2010.

Misplaced Pages

A news item involving Don't ask, don't tell was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 December 2010.

Misplaced Pages

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.

Citation needed

In a 2010 debate between Aaron Belkin and Elaine Donnelly recently made available on YouTube, she says that she was disappointed that GW Bush didn't undo DADT when he took office in 2001, which he might easily have done. Can anyone find a proper citation for this, on the part of Donnelly or any of her allies? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation missing

"A July 6, 2011 ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members." The citation linked to this statement directs to a 404 error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.87.70.131 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Impact

The article lacks a section that would describe the actual impact of the policy on the military, i.e. not just talking points and poll results, but really the lives of affected service personnel (many of whom were discharged and had to reimburse their training costs) and members of their families. The Impact section should also include events borne out of actions of individual servicepeople who were forced to endure (at times disproportional) discriminiation — something that the policy implicitly engendered. -Mardus (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"Gay" versus "homosexual" when reporting on polls

Without expressing any opinion on the "gay" versus "homosexual" debate in general, it seems obvious to me that when we report on a poll we should use the terms used in the poll. If the poll question was "Do you favour allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military", we should not report it as "x% of people supported allowing homosexuals to serve in the military", and vice versa. - htonl (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to address your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Style_guideline_of_gay_vs_homosexual CTF83! 10:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that general discussion, but this is about one specific usage in one specific article. If noone objects in, say, the next day, I'm going to make a protected edit request for the change. - htonl (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the exact question asked was "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?" I think the article should use the terminology used in the poll, to avoid any inaccuracies caused by using words that the polled individuals did not respond to. I think this is true for any poll where the exact question being asked is important to how the results are seen, since changing the wording may have changed how people responded, and I don't see why this poll would be any different. - Sudo Ghost 11:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Should anyone care, it has been shown that in conducting surveys about civil rights for LGBT people, it has been shown that the use of homosexual in place of gay, lesbian, and bisexual influences respondents to react unfavorably towards those rights. That is, just the term homosexual caused enough of a negative reaction towards LGBT people as to skew results. It's a loaded term and should be sparingly if at all. The legacy of its use should not be perpetuated without extreme care.

The study of mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations has been complicated by the debate on the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder during the 1960s and early 1970s. That debate posited a gay-affirmative perspective, which sought to declassify homosexuality, against a conservative perspective, which sought to retain the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder (Bayer, 1981). Although the debate on classification ended in 1973 with the removal of homosexuality from the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 1973), its heritage has lasted. This heritage has tainted discussion on mental health of lesbians and gay men by associating—even equating—claims that LGB people have higher prevalences of mental disorders than heterosexual people with the historical antigay stance and the stigmatization of LGB persons (Bailey, 1999).

Insomesia (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It would probably help if you explained where you got that quote from. - Sudo Ghost 00:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence, Meyer, Ilan H., Psychological Bulletin (American Psychological Association), Vol 129(5), Sep 2003, 674-697. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674. Insomesia (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think context is important there, it says that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness, I don't see it saying anything about the word itself nor any correlation between the word homosexuality and negative reaction that would otherwise be avoided if alternative terminology were to be used. - Sudo Ghost 01:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, I'm not saying that for the purposes of this exact situation the word "homosexual" should be used, because that's not what the poll asked. What I am trying to say is that for the article in general, since the military specifically uses the term homosexual, that term should not be avoided when describing the military's position on the subject. - Sudo Ghost 01:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not play too many games here. No one disputes that the term can be employed, sparingly, when quoting the military documents. The dozens of other uses need to reflect modern understandings. If Buddhism was classified as a mental illness I think you would understand the relevance. The scientific community followed religious popular opinion and got this one wrong, and it took decades to unravel that knot. The literature and legacy of the word's usage as evidently utilized by the most learned minds of the time is undeniable. It is a loaded, biased term with a incredibly negative history similar to Negro which has also gone out of general use. That the religious right is the main purveyor of the terms use should be self-evident of who and how the term is employed. I'm sure those who really believed the Earth is flat defended that teaching until pulled kicking and screaming into the next century. Insomesia (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't say "let's not play too many games here" and then compare "homosexual" to "negro". Maybe in the future they will be anywhere near the same, but right now that's an absurd comparison. You won't find any modern reliable sources describing anyone as a negro, but there are many sources (especially in a formal and scientific context), among them the very ones you've been quoting and linking, that use the term homosexual to describe people, as either a noun or as a verb. It's hardly "playing games" to ask you to provide sources for your claims, such as the claim that "...use of homosexual...influences respondents to react unfavorably towards those rights." Where did you get this information? Misplaced Pages requires verification, not claims that information should be self-evident. - Sudo Ghost 01:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a talk page with article content. Some people don't mind being called negro still but the term usage is now deprecated generally. Homosexuality remains a studied field butt he term the call gay people homosexualists, the homosexuals, homosexual and bisexual men, etc are generally deprecated of these uses. Just the fact that many find the term offensive should be enough for you to accept the offense, whether intended or not, is real. And the religious right intends to cause offense and sway public opinion in civil rights for LGBT people. I find your defense of this offensive usage puzzling. Insomesia (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Because you're making claims and then refusing to provide any shred of evidence to back them up. By avoiding providing the source, it gives the appearance that you made that information up, and that's all I can assume at this point. That "many find the term offensive" is not sufficient, because everyone finds something offensive. If every percieved offense was reason to remove something on Misplaced Pages, most content would be removed and that's not how Misplaced Pages works (To quote that policy, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.) If you're going to claim that term is offensive and isn't used in modern sources, don't be puzzled when someone asks for proof of this, especially when the very sources you're providing contradict your claims. - Sudo Ghost 02:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You asked for the source and i, of course, provided it. I guess you now want some back-up to my assertion that using the term itself in surveys is seen as biased. Well, that was among the concerns of the survey about DADT commissioned by the Pentagon. That it used the term at all and that it used it interchangeably with lesbian and gay. Your bad faith assumptions aside are you now denying that many find the term offensive? Do you need proof of that as well, or really is there any use in discussing this if you failed to see which side of history you're arguing? Here's the Pentagon survey report that alarmed many as tainting the DADT issue.DADT survey wording draws fire from some gays. Insomesia (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

...you've got to be kidding me. Please tell me you've overlooked something, because I asked you three times where you got the claim that "it has been shown that in conducting surveys about civil rights for LGBT people, it has been shown that the use of homosexual in place of gay, lesbian, and bisexual influences respondents to react unfavorably towards those rights". You have provided nothing to back up this claim. Now you're also accusing me of bad faith for the simple fact that I'm not taking your claims at face value? I'm not on a "side of history", I'm asking you to verify what you're saying. If you're trying to "make history" on Misplaced Pages, then you are missing the point, and that seems to be where the issue is coming from. - Sudo Ghost 02:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I did just read the source you just linked in your last comment, and assuming that a "he said" attributed opinion is sufficient to back up a claim like that (it isn't), all that seems to verify is that the word homosexual does in fact belong on the article, since it is part of the issue, as your opinion source pointed out. You've not really convinced me that the word homosexual should be avoided, because Chapter 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice specifically uses this word to the exclusion of any other term. Chapter 15 itself was offensive, so the fact that it uses a word that may be offensive to a group of individuals isn't a reason to change what is used in the article, since the article is about the military issue. - Sudo Ghost 02:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be misreading or i could be misstating. I never meant to imply that the term could never be used, just that it should be minimized as it is generally offensive to those to which it refers, therefore it's use is generally deprecated. Of course in presenting a good article its use may be needed. Presently it's used 47 times in the articles including 8 times in the lead paragraphs. That's bad writing to start with and a preponderance of its usage against style guidelines. Perhaps your point is well taken that we should spell out more clearly when to avoid offensive terms so the issue is lessened in the future. Insomesia (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source that makes the same points I may not be very clear on, Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP, New York Times & Washington Post Style). (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation style guideline, GLAAD's Media Reference Guide: A Recource for Journalists, Updated May 2010)
And another, homosexual: As a noun, a person who is attracted to members of the same sex. As an adjective, of or relating to sexual and affectional attraction to a member of the same sex. Use only in medical contexts or in reference to sexual activity.( National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association stylebook supplement on lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender terminology). Insomesia (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The general discussion should be taking place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual. This section is specifically for the wording given to the poll results. - htonl (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Public opinion" section, in the second paragraph, change "favored permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military" to "favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military", to reflect the exact wording used in the poll being described. While the discussion above is vigorous, as far as I can tell everyone agrees with this particular change. - htonl (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

After casually reading the article, it appears that the article is more heavily weighted to view points that support the repeal of the subject of the article, than the view points that supported the sustainment of the policy which is the subject of this article. Therefore I will tag the article for Neutrality Check.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You really need to be more specific. This is not acceptable explanation for POV tag. Some examples?--В и к и T 01:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why I need to be more specific. However, it is my opinion that the balance of references and thus verified content is given more to sources that oppose the former policy which is the subject of the article, than those who supported the former policy. Per WP:NEU & WP:WEIGHT, I am of the opinion that the two positions needs to be more balanced within the article. Both have their place in this article, but neither IMHO should outweight the other, as it is now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read the article and I don't see the bias. Editors are not psychic, so if you think there's a problem you're going to need to start making some proposals of what you think needs changing. But I suspect this is a case of "reality has a liberal bias": if public opinion and experts are mostly on one side of a dispute, then Misplaced Pages is going to reflect that. Neutrality does not mean a 50/50 split in coverage. - htonl (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If the editor in question sees areas where POVs are not covered adequately, I believe he should be WP:BOLD and add the necessary coverage. At the very least we need to know the problem areas. The argument that the bias is percasive is not convincing if you cannot cite blatant or even minor examples. Soxwon (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I cannot, but I have chosen not to. There is a difference, and the statement that I cannot I believe is uncivil at best and derogatory at worse. If it is the request of others, that I go through this with a fine tooth comb, it is something that I can invest time in. Yet, as Htonl has said, there is a bias in coverage, as has been shown elsewhere, so if wikipedia is biased, which IMHO does not keep with neutrality, and it is the goal of some editors to preserve such bias due to coverage of groups who opposed the policy which is the subject of this article, perhaps my concern cannot be resolved.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The sections regarding DADT debated & Repeal, although well verified, appear to go into undue amount of detail and can be better summarized. Additionally the section Court challenges appears to be written in a slightly unneutral manor which supports the repeal of the former policy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted my previous comment: I'm not actually saying that there's bias elsewhere, I'm saying that the facts support the pro-repeal side more than the anti-repeal side. But I do actually see where you're going with the "DADT debated" section: I think what has happened there is "current-event-itis", where every time DADT has been in the news someone has come straight to Misplaced Pages to add the latest event. The section could do with some editing and summarising to make it more coherent and remove unnecessary detail. I don't see a similar issue with the "Repeal" section, except maybe with some excess detail in the "Day of repeal and aftermath" subsection. The "Court challenges" section seems to me to be a simple factual description of the cases, so I'd be interested to hear what you think the problem is there. - htonl (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I built the "DADT debated" long after the events had transpired, not as you suppose. I accumulated them and decided that the debate was best described exactly as it occurred, month by month. You'll find defenses of the policy were few and far between, but that's not surprising, given that settled policy is more often attacked than defended. If anyone can find appropriate defense, I hope they'll include them. The simple chronological format makes insertion of additional material simkle. I think any survey of the period will find far more attacks than defenses. I can think of a possible source myself that I'll investigate in the next day or so. (But IMHO tagging an entire article because one doesn't have time to do the work required to tag a section or two and explain oneself is disrespectful of other editors and their work.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There being more attacks on DADT than defences of it was what I meant by "reality has a liberal bias". Sorry if I offended you about the "DADT debated" section. - htonl (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearing up the new policy

I think the current state of the article is somewhat unclear on what the current policy is. A small suggestion I have is adding a sentence about what DADT was replaced with at the top of the article. The information I get at the moment is that "it was set to end on September 20, 2011", and nothing further. The later section explains it somewhat further, but I feel a short summary at the top would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photon man62 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Gave it a shot at the end of the first graf. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Journal article re repeal

There may in fact be good material in this journal article, but summarizing it in the middle of this WP entry isn't an appropriate way to make use of it. And the material appears to have been inserted by one of the authors of the journal article himself.

Here's the inserted text I removed:

In a 2013 study in the Journal of Homosexuality by Christopher Neff and Luke Edgell analyzed the role of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network in introducing repeal legislation in 2005. They note that there have been four phases in the legislative repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." These include a "radioactive" period (1993-2002) in which the issues of gays in the military was political plutonium; a "contested" period (2002-2005) in which the issue could be raised as a problem; an "emerging" issue in (2005-2008) with the introduction of repeal legislation. And fourthly, the "viable" phase (2009-2010). A leading factor in the movement from radioactive-to-emerging were three key focusing events. The Bush Administration's nomination of then Major General Robert Clark for promotion, the discharge of gay and lesbian Arabic linguists and Republican efforts to force Universities to host ROTC units on their campuses. Neff and Edgell look at the role of these events and conclude:

" First, President George W. Bush can be credited for escalating the repeal of DADT. His nomination of Maj. Gen. Clark for promotion following PFC Winchell's murder galvanized the team at SLDN. Second, the discharge of gay Arabic linguists served to mobilize the effort further by involving key House offices. Third, Republican attacks on colleges and universities’ ROTC programs provided an organizing moment and test run for a redefined repeal argument. Finally, SLDN staff used these events as opportunities to hasten and engineer the introduction of repeal legislation by changing perceptions of the issue from radioactive to contested, and, finally, to an emerging issue in Congress."

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Homosexuality is a low-impact-factor (0.471) journal. That doesn't mean that the content of the article can not be reflected in some way, but it is certainly not such a visible or discussion-setting thing that the mere existence of the article requires it's inclusion in our article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Relaxation on restrictions

DADT was a relaxation of old restrictions against homosexuals in the military. Why do we see so much commentary that acts as if DADT _established_ restrictions against gays in the military, when what it actually did was relax them? The law against homosexuals in the military was enacted in the '50s. The "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy of President Clinton said: from now on it's OK for homosexuals to serve in the military, where formerly it was forbidden, as long as they don't talk about it. Before that, they could be kicked out of the military if their sexual orientation came to light, even if no one had talked about it. I just edited a weird passage in this article that said the restrictions against gays in the military were put in place in 1993. The truth is, they were put in place in the '50s, and the DADT policy of 1993 rolled them back. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit was fine but re your "Why do we see so much commentary" it's not clear if you have an issue with the article as it stands or are just complaining in general. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories: