Talk:Don't ask, don't tell - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluemarine (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 29 January 2010 (→Public Opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:15, 29 January 2010 by Bluemarine (talk | contribs) (→Public Opinion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 not 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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 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.

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 Colin Powell, but says that Charles Moskos authored it in the History.

Lacarids (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)lacarids February 15, 2009.

In response to your points:
1) The article itself now appears to be heavily documented. Consider using {{fact}} or {{unreferencedsection}} to request sources on individual sentences or sections, respectively.
2) Per WP:POV and WP:NPOV, please tag biased sentences, sections, etc.
3) Agreed, however, no such article LBGT policy in the U.S. military exists as with Canada. Please cross-link History section, LBGT policy in the U.S. military and Gays_in_the_military#Countries_with_other_policies. I'd suggest leaving post-1993 history directly related to DADT in this article.
4) True, I have removed the Collin Powell sentence per WP:BLP and removed the Moskos paragraph since it was unsourced. Ruodyssey (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles is absolutely correctly this article is a history of gays in the US military and not specifically focused on DADT.

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.

But I think it needs to be tagged. Have to find the appropriate one.

PainMan (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Beginning of the policy" quote

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 -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's covered in the quote under "a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual". Just stating it is the action. Ruodyssey (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"pedophiles who engage in a self-destructive and immoral life-style."

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."

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. KHirsch (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Outing and DADT

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. Axel Löfving (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I've tagged this article with

This article may lack focus or may be about more than one topic. Please help improve this article, possibly by splitting the article and/or by introducing a disambiguation page, or discuss this issue on the talk page.

as it is not focused on "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" but, rather, is a general history of gays in the US military.

Clearly a separate article on the latter topic is needed.

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.

PainMan (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The article has grown beyond the scope of DADT and should be split off to LGBT policy in the U.S. military. See Sexual orientation and military service. The only other country-specific example there is LGBT policy in the Canadian military. - Ruodyssey (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the page LGBT policy in the U.S. military. I'll keep migrating the History section, time permitting. - Ruodyssey (talk) 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. - Ruodyssey (talk) 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. -- Banjeboi 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 LGBTPintheUSM article at all? There's plenty of room for overlap. - Ruodyssey (talk) 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. -- Banjeboi 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 LGBT military history of the U.S.? 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. - Ruodyssey (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Public Opinion

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.33.136.60 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing?

Can anyone tell me where the following comment at the opening of the third paragraph came from?

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.

It makes a strong statement, but I have no idea where that statement came from.Blue Marine (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories: