| Revision as of 23:15, 7 November 2004 editAbqwildcat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,441 edits Need newer data, adding what I can find. Explanation for decreases??← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:44, 23 November 2004 edit undoHyacinth (talk | contribs)176,976 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| 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. | 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. --] 23:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) | 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. --] 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. ] 02:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:44, 23 November 2004
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)