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 00:25, 21 September 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,704 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Don't ask, don't tell/Archive 4, Talk:Don't ask, don't tell/Archive 3) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:32, 22 September 2014 edit undoHyBn51702 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers94,883 edits →Timothy R. McVeigh Next edit →
Line 65:		Line 65:

	:You appear to have a point. I'll investigate this week. But at first glance it appears that McVeigh did not challenge the policy itself. It seems he objected to how the Navy learned he was gay, that he never actually "told" anyone, and that the Navy pursued him. In other words, his complaint was that the Navy did not properly adhere to DADT. There still might be a place for his story. And I'd prefer not to lose the info, since the notability of McVeigh's WP entry has been challenged. ] (]) 20:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)		:You appear to have a point. I'll investigate this week. But at first glance it appears that McVeigh did not challenge the policy itself. It seems he objected to how the Navy learned he was gay, that he never actually "told" anyone, and that the Navy pursued him. In other words, his complaint was that the Navy did not properly adhere to DADT. There still might be a place for his story. And I'd prefer not to lose the info, since the notability of McVeigh's WP entry has been challenged. ] (]) 20:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

			::After some thought, I thoroughly revised ]. He really doesn't meet notability guidelines, but the lawsuit does. It's now '']''. I'll add it to DADT next. ] (]) 00:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	== Section DADT Debated could use a bit more balance ==		== Section DADT Debated could use a bit more balance ==

Revision as of 00:32, 22 September 2014

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

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

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 fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 20, 2014.

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.

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)

He does have a point about how the policy may have been misunderstood. Some people ignorant of how the ban originally started may assume DADT started the ban and prior to that you could be openly gay. In reality prior to DADT's passing in 1993 the military had a policy in place where your command could explicitly ask you if you was gay and put you out if you said yes. Also, enlistment papers asked you if you was gay as well, meaning you would have to lie to enlist, opening you to possible fraudulent enlistment charges. After DADT started the rules against homosexuality didn't change but the policy made it illegal for the military to ask you if you was gay without evidence, allowing someone in the closet to serve without having to lie as long as they keep things private. In all honesty, calling it the "DADT Repeal" would technically be incorrect since if DADT was the only thing repealed then it would still be against policy to serve if you aren't straight. Calling it the "DADT Repeal" is just more simple than calling it the "Homosexual and Bisexual Activity Ban Repeal." Amducker (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Timothy R. McVeigh

Is there any reason why Timothy R. McVeigh isn't included in this article about DADT? Supposedly he was the first one to ever win a case against the government for violating DADT. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have a point. I'll investigate this week. But at first glance it appears that McVeigh did not challenge the policy itself. It seems he objected to how the Navy learned he was gay, that he never actually "told" anyone, and that the Navy pursued him. In other words, his complaint was that the Navy did not properly adhere to DADT. There still might be a place for his story. And I'd prefer not to lose the info, since the notability of McVeigh's WP entry has been challenged. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

After some thought, I thoroughly revised Timothy R. McVeigh. He really doesn't meet notability guidelines, but the lawsuit does. It's now McVeigh v. Cohen. I'll add it to DADT next. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Section DADT Debated could use a bit more balance

The section on the debate of the DADT policy after it was implemented could use a bit more balance. It talks too much about the people who wanted it repealed and not enough about the people who thought it shoudl stay. Specifically I feel that it could use more positive responses to the policy from whoever thought it was a good idea, as well as their responses to the people who wanted it repealed. Some of that is in the section on the chaplains, but I'm sure there's more general stuff you could use. I don't know enough about this issue to be a good editor on this article, but I'd love it if this kind of info made its way in. Luthien22 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Categories: