Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ObiterDicta (talk | contribs) at 16:05, 27 May 2006 (Welcoming your feedback). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Criticism of the policy

The article states that many people who are both for and against tolerance of homosexuality criticize this policy, but only gives one quote in its appropriate section. Clearly this needs to be longer and needs to support the thesis at the beginning of the article.Rebochan 20:25, 17 February 2006 (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.

Please sign your posts by adding -~~~~ at the end. As a term, it is sometimes used outside the military, usually ironically. -Seth Mahoney 18:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm also not sure what is "cryptic" about the Butler quote. Hyacinth 09:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a bunch of ten-dollar words to explain a two-dollar idea that, if anything, belongs in a Criticism or Controversy section, not in the introduction. 71.132.4.114 07:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved to the bottom of the page. Good riddance. jdb ❋ (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2006 (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)

Moskos

It may be worth mentioning that the sociologist who came up with this policy is Charles Moskos. Although technically retired, he is still teaching at Northwestern University, and his contact information can be found if you look in the Northwestern directory. I think he'll be willing to give you more information about all this. 199.74.77.97 05:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Mike

Title

Why isn't the title bolded anymore? Hyacinth 09:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

IE: View: Text: Size: Smallest. Hyacinth 07:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Move elsewhere?

I was wondering if I'm totally out of line, or if someone else thinks the structure of this article is a little funny. Most of the article seems to be describing the history of the "gays in the military" debates, with only a small part devoted to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Maybe we should make Don't ask, don't tell a redirect to gays in the military (or something similar; gays in the military is currently a redirect to sexual orientation and military service, but based on my experience, the phrase "gays in the military" is used to describe the debate in the United States, whereas sexual orientation and military service is a world-spanning article), opening this article up to a larger topic, and then, only if necessary, spinning don't ask, don't tell off from it. -Seth Mahoney 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

References and Sources for History

What other references and sources do we need for this? The History section is a summary of the Shilts book, I read it. --Cumbiagermen 07:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I cited Shilts throughout the section except for the last two paragraphs which cite other sources. Hyacinth 06:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

pictures

I appreciate the effort to put pictures on every article, but I think the pictures taken from the Field Manual seem to be implying something here that isn't quite realistic given the context they were originally published in. At the very least, they need recaptioning, but I don't think that with proper captions they'd be relevant to this article any more. Jarvik 05:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the pictures. Even without them this article still has one picture. Hyacinth 06:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Use in scholarly applications

this article has been cited by the Dimensions of Culture Office of Thurgood Marshall College at University of California San Diego. I dont really know if theres an official tag or what, but maybe it should be locked or something. the link is http://marshall.ucsd.edu/current/doc/documents/Dont_ask.pdf

128.54.160.176 06:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Anti advocate"?

What is an anti-gay advocate, exactly? What are they advocating?

Suggest change to "activist". --Switch 04:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits

The following explains some of the edits I made to the article:

1. Replaced (ibid) with where appropriate. Some of the paragraphs cited this way concerned events that occurred after the Shilts book was published and could not have been discussed therein.

2. Deleted references to harrassment being common currently after DADT. The only source for this was the Shilts book, which was published in 1994, the year after the policy was put in place. It would benefit the article to include a discussion of harrassment in the 10 years since DADT implemented. It would be better if we were more specific than "common."

3. Deleted discussion of lesbian harrassment. Conduct described seems more like it could be directed at women in general, not just at lesbians. However, if someone has a source that says that this is more likely to be directed at women suspected of being lesbians, I could support inclusion. However, the motivation of the harrasser seems relevant given the context of the paragraph: is this a specific attempt to harrass lesbians to leave the service or are they merely subjected to this because they are particularly vulnerable?

--JChap 16:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)