Jump to content

Talk:Don't ask, don't tell/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

"Regulatory definition of Homosexual Conduct vs Open Homosexual Acts"

I have removed the sentence: “The net effect of this policy is that the military does not take an official stance against gay or bisexual desire; one must engage in open homosexual acts to commit a punishable offense.”

This sentence is quite incorrect. Military regulations say that if a military members states they are, "Homosexual or words to that effect" then the uttering of those words is defined to be Homosexual Conduct, even in the absence of a homosexual sexual act because the words are defined to create the rebuttable presumption that member is an individual who has a propensity to engage in homosexual acts. These words could be said to anyone: friend, chaplain, military therapist, etc. Saying the words out loud, "I think I might be gay" are grounds for discharge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.94.221 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2008 (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

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 Wikipedia 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)

I believe the banner on the right of "LGBT Rights" with the rainbow flag is not NPOV. This frames the discussion of the policy in a way that suggests it is a curtailment of "LGBT Rights." This article could just as easily be part of a series on policies the military believes allow it to operate effectively or on military discipline. In other words, the banner on the right suggests this is something with which people caring about LGBT rights are concerned. The military, however, has this policy because they believe it is in the best interest of the majority of soldiers, the military, and by extension the citizens who are beneficiaries of the military. To have this banner on the right improperly frames this issue so as to suggest a proper conclusion and for this reason I suggest its removal.~~

Oops, I have inadvertently deleted the entire template for LGBT rights, which was not my intention. I wanted only to remove it form this page. Regionalsimp 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletion of the LGBT Rights template - please be more cautious as the template exists on many pages in Wikipedia. If you do inadvertently delete a template, please restore the original version before moving on. To delete it from this page, you need only remove the {{gay rights}} code. However, I suggest that concensus be developed before removing the template; start a new thread on this page by using a header like ==LGBT Rights template inclusion== at the bottom of the page. If you desire additional input on the inclusion or exclusion, you can approach both Wikiproject Military history and Wikiproject LGBT studies on their respective talk pages. ZueJay (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2007 (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)

You are right. Discharges do decrease during war time, the military needs more people. So the emphasis on kicking people out lessens. The military is apparently, some what, willing to turn a blind eye during the time when "unit cohesion" is the most essential. Sbcalif (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2007 (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)


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 {{Fact}} 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)


Barry Winchell not a homosexual?

I have ran across a discrepancy here and the active authors of this article might want to consider this? In the Calpernia Addams article it is clearly stated that Barry Winchell and even Calpernia Addams did not consider themselves a homosexual couple and Barry Winchell considered himself a heterosexual man. Also, the Calpernia Addams page explores on the exploitation of the Barry Winchell case by the GLBT activists, although the background of this event was not that of a discrimination based on a sexual orientation, but rather on the perception of transsexuals and their portrayal in the public. Just a thought. -- Clanofmiller 09:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the criticism section is kind of strange

It seems to be there mainly as a place to stick the Judith Butler quote, which is an odd choice given the huge number of very notable people who've criticized this policy. It may be worth mentioning Butler's criticism in the article, but it shouldn't be presented as if it's representative of the policy's critics; a quote from an organization like Human Rights Campaign, or hell even Barry Goldwater, would be more appropriate for that. --Delirium 05:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to admit, the irony implied by "came out" in this section is pretty funny

May be useful

I removed an unnecessary and very long duplication of this article from the Sexual orientation and military service article here [1]. However as it's been there since April 2006 it has obviously been changed somewhat since it was added and there could be some details from there worth moving here. Ideally I probably should have tried to merge that part into this article, however I don't have the time & I felt it best to be bold and remove the duplication so that people don't continue to work on something which is likely to be removed sometime anyway. Nil Einne 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article says that this policy prohibits any homosexual or bisexual from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, but then has a quote that says "Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct." The actual text from the policy states that a homosexual will be dismissed if:

That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

So, it seems like you can be open about your sexual orientation if you do not engaged in homosexual behavior, but that isn't how the article reads. I think the article should be rewritten to say they have to hide their sexual behavior instead of sexual orientation, and then explain when a soldier can be open about his orientation.Joshuajohanson 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as I've heard of it being enforced, saying you're homosexual may count as homosexual conduct, at the commander's discretion. Which means if you say you're gay in jest, or to get out of danger/deployment, it's not an indicator of propensity for homosexual behavior; if you say it to mean you think your own gender is attractive, it is an indicator of propensity for homosexual behavior. The military uses seemingly contradictory word mazes like that in its policy. It's not like you can be gay without a propensity to be... uh.. gay. Spriteless 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality in U.S. army

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)

as a gay soldier i agree that it should be in it's own article subsection but those who hold our heads below water are those who are going to destroy us in later life...we need rights before we can have a wikipedia page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanlmarconi (talk • contribs) 08:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dee Dee Myers section

Stop adding section "Dee Dee Myers on why of policy"

It is written in the first person without quotations (wrong), the title is poorly worded, it definitely does NOT deserve it's own section in the article. Find another place to put the info, either put in the quote or summarize, and cite. Stop adding this entire section. Gwynand 14:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the section as it was seemed to need a lot of work and may even be POV-pushing. User Telecineguy[2] should be directly addressed on their talk page to start to resolve the issue, maybe even inviting them to use this talk page for making the article better. You may wish to look at the user's other contributions [3] to see if there is a pattern to editing or a POV agenda. Having stated all that there might be some usable content and assuming good faith is a starting point. Benjiboi 22:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This a direct quote from Dee Dee Myers on PBS, so rewriting is not an option. Would noting that is is a directquote from her on PBS make you happy? As it is a direct quote by Clinton's White House Press Secretary how can it be POV? As far as title what would you like? Telecine Guy 10:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dee Dee Myers on the why of the policy

Dee Dee Myers on PBS stated: "People often say to me, 'Why did you guys decide to make gays in the military your first big issue?' We didn't do it, we just couldn't figure out how to stop it. ... The question wasn't "What's the first issue you want to pursue as president?" The question is 'Are you going to keep your pledge that you made at a fund-raiser?' And it was one of those things. I'm sure Clinton thought it would be a much easier thing to do. And maybe that was naivete on his part and on all of our parts." | PBS interviews

A quote during an interview, or even the entire interview, is not notable enough to have a whole new section added to the page. I don't have a problem with the notability of the quote... it lends to the page and is cited... you just have to figure a way to fit it into another part of the page. The quote is very long too, and should be paraphrased and cited, which is certainly allowable. Gwynand 12:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree. It might make sense to see if there are other notable sources also referencing the quote and if they thought it was significant and why. This will help broaden the context of what that quote meant to the article's subject. Maybe it was a huge deal and deserves a whole new section or maybe it's just a footnote of one aspect; regardless it should be balanced to reflect whatever impact it did have. Benjiboi 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thomasson v. Perry

I removed "The first test of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to reach the Supreme Court" for Thomasson v. Perry, to which the Supreme Court denied certiorari. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Db099221 (talk • contribs) 20:56:19, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E2DF1739F934A15753C1A960958260&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fS%2fSupreme%20Court%20

--Db099221 21:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture?

Should there be a pop culture section? They did a sketch about this on Robot Chicken, and there was a brief mention on one of the episodes of the simpsons. Alx xlA 04:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing

"However, in the 1980s many of the Democratic Party presidential candidates had expressed an interest in changing the regulations concerning homosexuality in the armed forces, and, as American society's social mores changed, public opinion began to express more sympathy with gay people in armed forces, at least to the extent that investigations into a serviceman or -woman's sexual orientation were seen as a witch-hunt. "Gays in the military" became a political issue during the 1992 Presidential campaign, when Clinton, the Democratic candidate, promised to lift the military's ban on homosexual and bisexual people."

Removed for POV, lack of citation in a statement which needs it, repeating of previously stated material in the article, inconsistent tense with the rest of the article, and [extremely] poor writing quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.155.175 (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias

This article [to me] seems to be bordering upon a bias tag. Too much POV people. Once again, Wikipedia is not the place for soapboxing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.155.175 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This Wikipedia reference to DADT is completely bias and only one way. Colonely Ronald D. Ray wrote a book about this and it is very well research why is it not listed here?

http://www.firstprinciplespress.org/pages/mnandh.htm

You only have to read his book to see why it makes sense to keep homosexuals out of our military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.28.242.194 (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Technical aspect of "separation" or "discharge" for "telling"

Could anyone add info about how is the soldier, who "tells" (or is reported), discharged or "separated" from the US Armed Forces? I haven't been able to find the procedure in 10 U.S.C. § 654. Is he/she court-martialed? Under which punitive article of the UCMJ? Art. 125, 133 or 134? Or Art. 83? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.185.82 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance to LGBT

Hey,

Have replaced the LGBT banner on this page as a policy banning LGBT people (specifically) from being open about their sexuality or sexual identity is clearly related to LGBT whatever the motivation of the policy-makers. I fail to see how that is debatable. Petitphoque (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Financial Impact of Policy?

Not sure the best way to put this but was just reading about how lawmakers who say the military has kicked out 58 Arabic language experts because they were gay want the Pentagon to explain how it can afford to let the valuable specialists go. Besides specialists, ousted personnel in all ranks were trained and now all their time and training is lost.

In personal experience I've found that ordinary folks are incensed when the dollar amount of money spent enforcing the policy, training and related issues is spelled out because it's a huge amount of taxpayer funds. Benjiboi 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to add this to the article, citing a reliable source? That may be the best way (and place) to put it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I added it after statistics. Benjiboi 23:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to say these expenses were incurred because individuals entered the military knowing the policy (part of the induction process, and prior to being sworn in), received training, food, clothing, shelter, and a full time job only to be either found out or "outing" themselves, resulting in separation? An analogy would be blaming the necessary expense associated with a police vehicle and officer on a school-zone speed limit rather than the individuals who would IGNORE the limit. Galopined (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's far fetched claim given that you have no idea of the circumstances. As the article is clear, the policy doesn't actually prohibit homosexual or bisexual people from serving. It simply prohibits people who are openly bisexual or homosexual. It's easily possible these people choose to serve their country thinking they could hide the natural and probaly unchangable part of them which harms no one, either by not engaging in any 'unacceptable' conduct or by keeping that conduct a secret (which is arguably allowed) but failed for whatever reason, perhaps because others harassed (which while technically forbidded, appears to be ongoing) them until they discovered the secret perhaps because they thought they had true friends who they could confide in but the policy effectively puts people who confide in their friends about a natural part of themselves at dire risk if those friends aren't as true as the person expected. The speeding argument is ludicrious since there is a demonstratable safety reason why such school-zone speed limits are useful whereas the policy serves no useful purpose and worse demands that people hide a natural part of themselves. Also breaking the speed limit entails that you either purposely or negligently violated the rule set for safety reasons. Ludicrious policies are ludicrious policies no matter how you sugar coat them Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Military foreign language specialists frequently have high level security clearances and as such are vulnerable to blackmail in exchange for military secrets. This is an unacceptable risk, in spite of the time, money and training the military has spent on that person. 74.229.75.110 (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that while this may support vigorious enforcement of the policy as long as it exists, it doesn't justify the policy which effectively is the cause of that wasted expense Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater

On Barry Goldwater's opposition to the policy, I think his quote about soldiers need to shoot straight and not be straight is relevant. It's been repeated by other politicians in speeches as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaughnstull (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 presidential candidates' positions

I put Citation Needed with regard to Barack Obama's position on allowing gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans to serve openly.

The referenced New York Times article states:

In an interview, an adviser to Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat and Mrs. Clinton’s principal rival, outlined a similar approach, adding that any effort to repeal the current policy would begin with a review of how other nations — notably Britain, whose military began allowing homosexuals to serve openly in 2000 — have handled the transition.

The adviser is not named and a specific quote is not cited. It does not state where and when the interview took place or who the interviewer was. It's excessively vague.

The paragraph itself does not say that Obama advocates changing the current policy, it simply mentions a method by which one would approach such a review. [A]ny effort to repeal the current policy would begin with a review of how other nations — notably Britain, whose military began allowing homosexuals to serve openly in 2000 — have handled the transition.

That is neither an advocacy for nor one against changing current policy, simply an opinion-neutral procedural observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.75.110 (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/Fact_Sheet_Defense_FINAL.pdf << About halfway down page 4 in big bold pixels.---Puff (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

archiving

I've boldly added auto archiving for stale threads. The bot will leave at least 5 threads on the page so as not to empty it completely. -- Banjeboi 20:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

History Section

Changed the title from History to History of Homosexuality in the American Military because that is what is reflected in the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.212.8 (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Public Opinion and the Military Poll

"An Army Times poll of military members only found 25% in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly" - Why is this in the public opinion category?

Out of every opinion referenced and expressed in this article, I would think it should be headlined, as it is a poll of individuals actually affected by the policy. Galopined (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


See the Zogby poll. Also the Army Times poll was not conducted by an academic/social research entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.212.8 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ROTC

I was wondering if including the fact that ROTC programs on college campuses would be appropriate. Many universities have special notes on their course offerings reminding students wishing to take ROTC courses about DADT. In addition, ROTC seems to be a heavy center of protest for LGBT college students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Searke (talk • contribs) 02:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Biased Article

The entire article is biased towards allowing homosexuals in the military.

Lacarids (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)lacarids, February 15, 2009

Other countries

Why is it that in the section that talks about other countries, places that disallow gays from openly serving in the military (Russia, for example) are not talked about? That seems highly biased to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

All members of EU permit homosexual people to serve openly in military. And now since 2009 also Argentinia and Phillipines allowed homosexual people to serve openly in military 82.149.186.76 (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a case of "sofixit"... In any case, I'm taking care of it by moving the other-country detail to the proper article. —EqualRights (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama's administration defends the policy

The ref supporting this statement has expired. Please find a new one. I'll slap a fact tag on and then wait a few days then remove the sentence if no source turns up. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I've re-established the two ref you removed. The first ref is the AP story that was the orginal ref. The ref hadn't expired but the link didn't work. A big Difference. So, I found the orginal AP story, still available on the msnbc website. I grant that there was some ambiguity regarding the text I added discussing the first ref, so I've made a minor adjustment to that text. The Bush lawyers may have argued for the blanket application (or is that keep it under the carpet..) but it was the lawyers of the current administration who allowed the time to appeal to expire. It is some oddity that the case goes back to the district court instead being a fatal blow to the DADT policy, but then again, after hanging chad & butterfly ballots, WMD, and waterboarding nothing lawyers do surprises me anymore. The second ref is totally Obama relevent. The court docs submitted supporting the Boston Federal Appeals Court ruling came for Obama administation lawyers. They had 3 choices: do nothing - and they didn't; argue against the ruling - and they didn't; or, agree with the ruling - which they did. Sounds like they don't want DADT decided by the Supremes!! CubBC (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Discharge

What kind of discharge do these people get?--76.174.34.216 (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that in the past it was an "honorable discharge." I don't know if that has been the case under DADT, however. 64.85.229.248 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Stats Wildly Wrong?

Has anybody else noticed that the numbers in the stats section don't add up at all? They look like valid statistics, but they seem to make no sense. I haven't looked at the sources, but is this bad information, or just bad display of good information?

Anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.195.149 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The statistics are from a single source, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a non-profit legal services watchdog group. Three additional news reports vouch for the totals from 1993-2007 and offer individual totals from selected years. The reference to the Boston Globe quotes stats from the Department of Defense, which only marginally underestimates in only two of the years shown in the table. Anyone needing further convincing should read the cited references. Ruodyssey (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2009 (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)

"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)

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)

"Simply" not a weasel word

An IP user tagged "which simply codified the existing standard set by the Defense Department in 1981" as being weasel-worded for the word "simply" and then, shortly after, removed the tag and the word. Thing is, "simply" is not a weasel word there, it does not create uncertainty or false certainty. Without that word (or some cousin such as "just" or "merely", we do not know that the law didn't go beyond codifying the standard by also doing additional things. If it codified the standard and required that all gay service members be painted blue, then the sentence without simply would stand but with simply would not. The word makes a difference, and should be reinserted, unless its accuracy is being challenged. - Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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)
The article cites false names for laws. There is no such bill as the Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993; the Center for Military Readiness states on its website that Section 654, Title 10, P.L. 103-160 "should have been more accurately called" by that particular name, which is an opinion of the contributors of said website.
71.241.120.58 (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been festering on the talk page for a while. I went and removed the references to the fictitious "Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993", and the reference to the fictitious Executive Order (neither of which were supported even by the biased CMR cite), and replaced them with more specific information giving the actual names of the relevant Congressional actions and DODDs, plus a cite containing the text of each. I also balanced the CMR link with a link at HRC giving essentially the same information. As far as I understand these were the complaints leading to the "this section may be biased" box so I removed that too. The text is now a bit more unwieldy and the section is structured strangely (it starts off talking about the end result of the 1993 policy, then doubles back to give background) but at least the section is no longer inaccurate. I do think this page needs rewriting and a lot more attention overall, DADT will be in the news a lot over the coming year as its repeal is ocnsidered and people will be coming to wikipedia for information. Awk (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell/Archive_1&oldid=1136668293"