Jump to content

Talk:Don't ask, don't tell/Archive 4

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

Neutrality

After casually reading the article, it appears that the article is more heavily weighted to view points that support the repeal of the subject of the article, than the view points that supported the sustainment of the policy which is the subject of this article. Therefore I will tag the article for Neutrality Check.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You really need to be more specific. This is not acceptable explanation for POV tag. Some examples?--В и к и T 01:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why I need to be more specific. However, it is my opinion that the balance of references and thus verified content is given more to sources that oppose the former policy which is the subject of the article, than those who supported the former policy. Per WP:NEU & WP:WEIGHT, I am of the opinion that the two positions needs to be more balanced within the article. Both have their place in this article, but neither IMHO should outweight the other, as it is now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I've read the article and I don't see the bias. Editors are not psychic, so if you think there's a problem you're going to need to start making some proposals of what you think needs changing. But I suspect this is a case of "reality has a liberal bias": if public opinion and experts are mostly on one side of a dispute, then Wikipedia is going to reflect that. Neutrality does not mean a 50/50 split in coverage. - htonl (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
If the editor in question sees areas where POVs are not covered adequately, I believe he should be WP:BOLD and add the necessary coverage. At the very least we need to know the problem areas. The argument that the bias is percasive is not convincing if you cannot cite blatant or even minor examples. Soxwon (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not that I cannot, but I have chosen not to. There is a difference, and the statement that I cannot I believe is uncivil at best and derogatory at worse. If it is the request of others, that I go through this with a fine tooth comb, it is something that I can invest time in. Yet, as Htonl has said, there is a bias in coverage, as has been shown elsewhere, so if wikipedia is biased, which IMHO does not keep with neutrality, and it is the goal of some editors to preserve such bias due to coverage of groups who opposed the policy which is the subject of this article, perhaps my concern cannot be resolved.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The sections regarding DADT debated & Repeal, although well verified, appear to go into undue amount of detail and can be better summarized. Additionally the section Court challenges appears to be written in a slightly unneutral manor which supports the repeal of the former policy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you misinterpreted my previous comment: I'm not actually saying that there's bias elsewhere, I'm saying that the facts support the pro-repeal side more than the anti-repeal side. But I do actually see where you're going with the "DADT debated" section: I think what has happened there is "current-event-itis", where every time DADT has been in the news someone has come straight to Wikipedia to add the latest event. The section could do with some editing and summarising to make it more coherent and remove unnecessary detail. I don't see a similar issue with the "Repeal" section, except maybe with some excess detail in the "Day of repeal and aftermath" subsection. The "Court challenges" section seems to me to be a simple factual description of the cases, so I'd be interested to hear what you think the problem is there. - htonl (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I built the "DADT debated" long after the events had transpired, not as you suppose. I accumulated them and decided that the debate was best described exactly as it occurred, month by month. You'll find defenses of the policy were few and far between, but that's not surprising, given that settled policy is more often attacked than defended. If anyone can find appropriate defense, I hope they'll include them. The simple chronological format makes insertion of additional material simkle. I think any survey of the period will find far more attacks than defenses. I can think of a possible source myself that I'll investigate in the next day or so. (But IMHO tagging an entire article because one doesn't have time to do the work required to tag a section or two and explain oneself is disrespectful of other editors and their work.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There being more attacks on DADT than defences of it was what I meant by "reality has a liberal bias". Sorry if I offended you about the "DADT debated" section. - htonl (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearing up the new policy

I think the current state of the article is somewhat unclear on what the current policy is. A small suggestion I have is adding a sentence about what DADT was replaced with at the top of the article. The information I get at the moment is that "it was set to end on September 20, 2011", and nothing further. The later section explains it somewhat further, but I feel a short summary at the top would be a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photon man62 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Gave it a shot at the end of the first graf. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Journal article re repeal

There may in fact be good material in this journal article, but summarizing it in the middle of this WP entry isn't an appropriate way to make use of it. And the material appears to have been inserted by one of the authors of the journal article himself.

Here's the ref: cite journal|last=Neff|first=Christopher|coauthors=Edgell|title=The Rise of Repeal: Policy Entrepreneurship and Don't Ask, Don't Tell|journal=Journal of Homosexuality|date=15 February 2013 |year=2013|month=February |volume=60 |issue=2-3|page=232-249|doi=10.1080/00918369.2013.744669|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2013.744669#.UoYnRZSSAj8

Here's the inserted text I removed:

In a 2013 study in the Journal of Homosexuality by Christopher Neff and Luke Edgell analyzed the role of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network in introducing repeal legislation in 2005. They note that there have been four phases in the legislative repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." These include a "radioactive" period (1993-2002) in which the issues of gays in the military was political plutonium; a "contested" period (2002-2005) in which the issue could be raised as a problem; an "emerging" issue in (2005-2008) with the introduction of repeal legislation. And fourthly, the "viable" phase (2009-2010). A leading factor in the movement from radioactive-to-emerging were three key focusing events. The Bush Administration's nomination of then Major General Robert Clark for promotion, the discharge of gay and lesbian Arabic linguists and Republican efforts to force Universities to host ROTC units on their campuses. Neff and Edgell look at the role of these events and conclude:
" First, President George W. Bush can be credited for escalating the repeal of DADT. His nomination of Maj. Gen. Clark for promotion following PFC Winchell's murder galvanized the team at SLDN. Second, the discharge of gay Arabic linguists served to mobilize the effort further by involving key House offices. Third, Republican attacks on colleges and universities’ ROTC programs provided an organizing moment and test run for a redefined repeal argument. Finally, SLDN staff used these events as opportunities to hasten and engineer the introduction of repeal legislation by changing perceptions of the issue from radioactive to contested, and, finally, to an emerging issue in Congress."

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of Homosexuality is a low-impact-factor (0.471) journal. That doesn't mean that the content of the article can not be reflected in some way, but it is certainly not such a visible or discussion-setting thing that the mere existence of the article requires it's inclusion in our article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Section DADT Debated could use a bit more balance

The section on the debate of the DADT policy after it was implemented could use a bit more balance. It talks too much about the people who wanted it repealed and not enough about the people who thought it shoudl stay. Specifically I feel that it could use more positive responses to the policy from whoever thought it was a good idea, as well as their responses to the people who wanted it repealed. Some of that is in the section on the chaplains, but I'm sure there's more general stuff you could use. I don't know enough about this issue to be a good editor on this article, but I'd love it if this kind of info made its way in. Luthien22 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Timothy R. McVeigh

Is there any reason why Timothy R. McVeigh isn't included in this article about DADT? Supposedly he was the first one to ever win a case against the government for violating DADT. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have a point. I'll investigate this week. But at first glance it appears that McVeigh did not challenge the policy itself. It seems he objected to how the Navy learned he was gay, that he never actually "told" anyone, and that the Navy pursued him. In other words, his complaint was that the Navy did not properly adhere to DADT. There still might be a place for his story. And I'd prefer not to lose the info, since the notability of McVeigh's WP entry has been challenged. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
After some thought, I thoroughly revised Timothy R. McVeigh. He really doesn't meet notability guidelines, but the lawsuit does. It's now McVeigh v. Cohen. I'll add it to DADT next. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. Don't ask, don't tell#McVeigh v. Cohen Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Don't ask, don't tell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Don't ask, don't tell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Relaxation on restrictions

DADT was a relaxation of old restrictions against homosexuals in the military. Why do we see so much commentary that acts as if DADT _established_ restrictions against gays in the military, when what it actually did was relax them? The law against homosexuals in the military was enacted in the '50s. The "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy of President Clinton said: from now on it's OK for homosexuals to serve in the military, where formerly it was forbidden, as long as they don't talk about it. Before that, they could be kicked out of the military if their sexual orientation came to light, even if no one had talked about it. I just edited a weird passage in this article that said the restrictions against gays in the military were put in place in 1993. The truth is, they were put in place in the '50s, and the DADT policy of 1993 rolled them back. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit was fine but re your "Why do we see so much commentary" it's not clear if you have an issue with the article as it stands or are just complaining in general. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
He does have a point about how the policy may have been misunderstood. Some people ignorant of how the ban originally started may assume DADT started the ban and prior to that you could be openly gay. In reality prior to DADT's passing in 1993 the military had a policy in place where your command could explicitly ask you if you was gay and put you out if you said yes. Also, enlistment papers asked you if you was gay as well, meaning you would have to lie to enlist, opening you to possible fraudulent enlistment charges. After DADT started the rules against homosexuality didn't change but the policy made it illegal for the military to ask you if you was gay without evidence, allowing someone in the closet to serve without having to lie as long as they keep things private. In all honesty, calling it the "DADT Repeal" would technically be incorrect since if DADT was the only thing repealed then it would still be against policy to serve if you aren't straight. Calling it the "DADT Repeal" is just more simple than calling it the "Homosexual and Bisexual Activity Ban Repeal." Amducker (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Frankly we're still light on the history of the thing. In Clintons first days he pushed so that gays could serve fully OPENLY in the military. The DADT position was an eventual retreat after getting beat up by congress. The current line "The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned in 1992 on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation" gives short shrift to that aspect of the history. A more full recounting is described by The Atlantic The big debate at the start of Bill Clinton's first term was whether the new president would order the military to end its long-standing policy banning gays, and amid a bipartisan backlash, Clinton struck a compromise resulting in the policy–now infamous in some quarters–of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."[1] 75.118.96.54 (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/the-awkward-clinton-era-debate-over-dont-ask-dont-tell/381374/

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Don't ask, don't tell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Don't ask, don't tell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Don't ask, don't tell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell/Archive_4&oldid=1136668311"