Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military brat (U.S. subculture)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military brat (U.S. subculture)[edit]

This article was originally nominated for deletion on November 1, when I first started working on it. That motivated me to get it to FAC standards by the end of November. I have had it under a general Peer Review and a Military History Peer review for about 10 days now. During which time I have received excellent feedback and responses on the article. I asked one of the active voices here to review it and he told me that I should go ahead and nominate it for FAC.Balloonman 23:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) I should also mention that the article is about the sub-culture and affects of growing up in a military environment.Balloonman 03:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, article deals almost exclusively with the U.S., drawing largely from U.S. sources. Also, "The military remains one of the few places where institutional sexist attitudes still prevail" is not at all a neutral statement, and it can even be seen as insulting. Andrew Levine 09:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1 The US centricity of the article was discussed as part of the peer review on the Military History Peer Review. The sub-culture of Military brats is one that has only recently been studied and then principly in the US. A possible solution might be to rename the article, "Military brat (US Subculture)", but as there are no credible international documents (reasons explained in the article) this is a US focused article. But one that I believe has a lot of interest because brats don't know that they are a recognized/studied group. It was also discussed that any attempt to globalize the article without credible/verifiable/reliable resources would be eroneous, OR, and add more bias than it would eliminate. Thus, the thoughts in the Peer Review was to go the other way and make it clear that this is US based article.Peer review comments on why it isn't feasible to go global.Balloonman 09:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed article per your comment and ALR's in the Peer Review. If there is an admin reading this, could you fix the title to lower case? Also, is there a tool to fix the double redirects created? If not, I'll go through it tomorrow and manually change them all.Balloonman 09:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)On second thought, I won't. I'll create a stub for strictly military brat(s)... but it will be pretty short.Balloonman 14:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 As for the "sexist attitudes still prevail," how about "The ultimate purpose of the military is to prepare to fight in war, thus there is a bias in favor combat designations. Since women are not allowed on the front lines in combat zones, the military woman, no matter how sharp, is limited in prestige and respect. While women can be found on military bases, their role remains that of a second class citizen." I am reluctant to get rid of this section because the affect on female brats is very pronounced and documented. Citations in article so that it is not OR.Balloonman 09:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renamed I've fixed all the links I could find for the rename. Let me know if there are more problems. Rlevse 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ThanksBalloonman 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—I hate the title, even if it's used widely in the US military. Why not "US military children"? I don't mind the "sexist attitudes still prevail" bit, unlike the reviewer above. Some of the prose is fragmented. Tony 15:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentSaying it's fragmented doesn't help. You need to be specific. Submitters can't read your mind. Sumoeagle179 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the problem with the title the inclusion of the word brat? Believe it or not, it is a term that brats take pride in, it is the appropriate term. The usage of 'military children' would look awkward (and IMHO offensive) to the described group. Admiral Blair, former Chair of the Pacific Joint Chief of Staff said, "There’s a standard term for the military child: 'Brat.' The Navy also uses the term 'Junior,' but 'Brat' seems to cut across all the services. While it sounds pejorative, it’s actually a term of great affection." A quick look at the references will show that all the books/articles/research use the term. Some researchers talked about how they didn't want to use the term because as outsiders they felt it was offensive, but that after researching the subject discovered it is the term that brats choose to use. As for the name, I'm open to other suggestions "U.S. Military Brats"?Balloonman 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Also see Wiki Naming Conventions self identification.Balloonman 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony, you've helped me realize that even if *I* say that it isn't derogatory, non-brats may not realize it is the term we embrace. So I'm going to add the footnote: "The term 'Brat' has been used in the title and throughout the chapter to follow the wishes of the participants. It is a term that they use and feel comfortable with, signifying anyone who had at least one parent in a branch of the armed forces." In Williams (2002) p 67. And brat expert Mary Wertsch told an interviewer, "So don't be afraid to use the term 'military brat.' It has various elements of truth in it, about our experiences, and we should be proud of it." [Military Brats are a Special BreedBalloonman 22:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I AM A MILITARY BRAT AND PROUD OUT IT. The article is excellent and whether the title stays as is or becomes "U.S. Military brats" doesn't matter to me. Sumoeagle179 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fine article, and yes, Sumoeagle179, I'm proud to be a brat too. In this context, the submitter is absolutely correct, the term is not derogative in any way. Rlevse 18:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems to meet all criteria. Stilgar135 20:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak opposeSupport. This is a fantastic article, and I learned a lot from reading it, but I don't think the consequences of the change of title have been quite dealt with yet.
    • The term is described in the lead as having "specific cultural implications with American military brats" (on a side note, shouldn't that be "for"?); I'm not sure whether that is intended to suggest that the article will focus solely on the US, which is what the title suggests, or merely to excuse the lack of attention to other countries.
      • Trust me, this was one of my biggest frustrations, I wanted to make it global, but couldn't find anything. If you look at the discussion, my page, and the peer reviews, the US focus was something that bothered me. But the people on the Military History Peer Review convinced me that it would be impossible to write a truly comprehensive article on all military brats from all countries---just as it would be impossible to write a comprehensive article on the life of any subgroup in all countries. Even if I could find material, which according to Ender's book doesn't exist, it would be impractical.Balloonman 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • New wording, While military brat can be used to describe soldiers' children from any country; U.S. military brats have been a studied as a unique American subculture. Does that work better?Balloonman 10:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then we have the heading "Research U.S. focused," which sounds rather odd to me. It does a good job of explaining why there isn't more information on military children in other countries, but surely this section isn't necessary if the article is only about US children?
      • I just changed the title to "History of the Research" and made the paragraph on the differences between US and non-US armed forces into a footnote.Balloonman 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then there are photos of "British colonial boys" and of Michael J. Fox, who's Canadian.
      • Those were left overs from when I tried to globalize the article. I've removed those pictures and replaced Fox's picture of one of Tiger Woods aboard the USS George Washington.Balloonman 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an excellent article, but it needs to be a bit clearer about what subject it's actually aiming to cover. MLilburne 07:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have now been dealt with, and I'm pleased to change to firm support. This article is strikingly well-researched and an excellent contribution to Wikipedia, illuminating a subject about which little is known outside of the military. MLilburne 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The See also templates for Racism and Sexism aren't used correctly. Those articles are not daughter articles of this article, and this article isn't a summary of those articles. The terms should simply be linked in the text, rather than included as templates. Sandy (Talk) 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FixedBalloonman 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object. Oops, switching to oppose upon closer examination. There is a large number of references that need cleanup of the blue links, and a number of the Footnotes need to be expanded, as they are currently only one word (example Useem and Deployment center - those are not adequate citations). I dislike the title, but I won't object on that basic - even if it is a common term, it's not encyclopedic - but please clean up and finish up the references and footnotes. Sandy (Talk) 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "There is a large number of references that need cleanup of the blue links," what does that mean? I'm not sure of the problem, so I can't fix it.Balloonman 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment 12/5 about the name being unencyclopedic, I disagree. If it was strictly a slang term used by military families/brats, then I would agree with you. But since it is also the term used by researchers and academians, I do think it is encyopedic.Balloonman 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • " number of the Footnotes need to be expanded, as they are currently only one word (example Useem and Deployment center" Those are links back to the references. EG Useem would be the reference provided by Ruth Hill Useem and Deployment Center would be the one by the deployment center.Balloonman 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are also some copyedit needs: in the lead, we find, "While the term "brat" is commonly utilized in a derogatory manner; in military communities, brat is neither a subjective or judgmental term.[2] One either is a military brat or one is not, its usage is unrelated to that of "spoiled brat"." Should it be neither - nor? The second sentence has punctuation problems. If this is in the lead, perhaps a copyedit of the entire article is in order. Sandy (Talk) 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neither/Nor fixed. I THINK I fixed the grammar problem in the second sentenceBalloonman 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some of the blue links as examples - more notes on sources:

  • No source given here: Associated Press (2005) Among the Military Child Education Coalition's successes was an agreement in 2000 by the Army and Air Force to allow soldiers and airmen to stay in one place when they have children entering their senior year, except for wartime combat assignments.
    • The associated press is how I was referencing an unnamed announcement sent out by the AP, so I went ahead and modified it. Again, it referenced a reference above.Balloonman 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a ref: ^ At Department of Defense schools students will say the Pledge of Allegiance
    • Pulled back into text, it was removed during the globalization phase.Balloonman 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I struck other issues addressed above, but the prose problems were only samples: someone should run through the entire text. Sandy (Talk) 21:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll work on these concerns tonight. I'll also see if I can find somebody to give it a once over... I've read the page so many times that I'd probably miss the obvious now.Balloonman 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) EDIT will work on tomorrow... I have a reference book for another page I'm working on that I have to return to the library tomorrow, so I focused on getting key quotes from it tonight.Balloonman 09:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 12/5 I've had two people give it a complete once over (but their changes/guidance were minimal) and I have one of the people you recommended giving it a thorough once-over. The person you recommended has done a wonderful job so far. While I can't promise that he'll go over the entire article, I hope he does, the pieces are coming to place. Another day or two and I hope to have you changing your vote ;-) Balloonman 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another: this is a personal website, not likely a reliable source - http://wanjennifer.tripod.com/ Sandy (Talk) 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was an article, so felt that it was ok. But I went ahead and changed it. I found another source which, ironically, had both quotes in it as well. The authors are recognized names in the field, whereas the leslie article was the only one I saw by her.Balloonman 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, regardless of whether or not I can get you to support this, I wanted to say thanks for your assistance. I really do appreciate the constructive criticisms.Balloonman 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I struck my Object above, and will have an in-depth look at the article again later tonight or tomorrow. Nice work ! Sandy (Talk) 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • YEAH!!! hopefully, you'll be able to support it... if not let me know... and this wouldn't be where it's at without your assistnce (and the person you referred me to.)Balloonman 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added my concerns about the article prose and organization to the article talk page. Sandy (Talk) 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I just don't like the overall tone of the article, I think it reads like a string of largely negative quotes from a study about brats, it fails, imo, to give any impression of the subculture and the deep empathy, imo and alse noted by researchers, brats feel for each other. The overall negative tone may be because that was the focus of the research, but it doesn't make it any easier to take. There are many positives to being part of a military family, that take a distant second place to the negative research, such as, when you move onto base, people go out of their way to welcome you, introduce themselves, find out if you have children the same age--did the researchers de-emphasize this? It doesn't deal well or at all with the issue of differences between small bases, less class-restricted, and larger bases, or look at changes in enlisted housing over the past 20 years, the surreal fishbowl of living on a military base in times of war, or differences between branches of service, or the names of housing units and streets. I disagree, however, with the comment that it is not material for an encyclopedia--it is material, and it is very topical. I would like to see it as a FA, but I don't think it's ready. A subculture has a powerful identity. KP Botany 18:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on this in the article too, but I think it's pretty fair. There are positives mentioned and negatives - the point that researchers may only be looking into bad stuff is a good one, but that's mentioned in the article: "These studies overemphasized the negative attributes of growing up military because they were based upon patients seeking counselling.[13] In the 1980s, the trend in the U.S. started to change. The U.S. Armed Forces began sponsoring research on the effects of growing up as a military brat. This research was usually sponsored in reaction to social and psychological issues found in military families and communities.[14]" There's always room for improvement, but I think it's good --AW 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it's good"... can we take that as a Support???Balloonman 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made many of the changes that you recommended... but not all of them. Some of them, while I personally agree with them, would be OR/blog style. I really don't think that the article is very negative towards brats. I think it's fairly balanced. As a group, we're antiracist, have higher median IQ, do better on tests, have more education, and can make friends with just about anyone. Those are some pretty positive attributes. I hope that with the changes that I've made, that you could support the article now---if there are any issues that you feel are absolute musts before you change, let me know.Balloonman 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything in life is equally positive and negative. Sometimes a slightly more negative accounting of something is the reality. Fluffing it up to make the subject sound lighter or "better" can only make it less accurate. I believe what we have here now is as accurate and realistic as possible, given the published information available. --ScreaminEagle 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the small changes Balloonman made addressed this particular concern of mine quite well, and the article lost this particular problem with its tone, imo. It needs a thorough copyedit and lots of picky edits. I've gone through it once and will post today and tomorrow as I have time, but I'm doing the same with the Sei Whale article, also, so be patient, and understand that there will be a lot of picky comments, but I consider the article, overall, necessary and well done. KP Botany 16:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'll post on the article's talk page, though, as my comments are extensive. KP Botany 17:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean that you are changing your vote to "Support" or are you holding off until you make your "picky" comments? Either way, I look forward to seeing your comments, as I said on the articles talk page, I firmly believe that the more people who review the article the stronger it will be.... Balloonman 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm holding off until I make my picky comments, then I will change to strong support, although I bear watching to make sure I follow up with the change after picking at the article. KP Botany 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) I personally believe that this article should become an FA. I think part of the reason why the brats who have read it are in full support of the article is because they see the value/truth in it. As the article points out, brats often do not feel as if they belong and feel as if they are outsiders. But brats are studied subculture, and learning that can be exciting for brats. I don't think most people realize how much research has been done on brats over the past 15 years. Comment 2) Having said the above, the article has undergone heavy editing over the past week and I believe that Sally and Outriggr made critical/valid criticisms concerning the article on its talk page. I suspect that the "Supports" (and 2 pending supports) might be able to prevail over their objections, but I want their support.Comment 3) Thus, I am withdrawing this nomination (but will contact everybody who posted here when I renominate in a week or two.) I want to make the changes that they recommended and I want to do this article justice. It is already a very different article than the one I nominated last week. I encourage, no I implore you to offer your suggestions here or on the talk page on how to improve it. I also appreciate any help you might offer (particularly when it comes to gramer and spelin.)Balloonman 09:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Military_brat_(U.S._subculture)/archive1&oldid=92754090"