Talk:Military brat/Archive 1

Retire page?

Should the "brat" disambiguation page link directly to the page "Military brat (U.S. subculture)" instead of this page? It seems strange to have this extra disambiguation page, with the US subculture page being so much more complete than this one. Jeffhoy 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen arguments for keeping and retiring it... I'm indifferent as to keeping it. It is kind of a waste, but at the same time this is too specific.Balloonman 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is almost useless. It should be merged with the "Military brat (U.S. subculture)" page. BeboGuitar 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but then you get the whiners who say the U.S. article is too U.S.-centered (duh) and they ask, "Aren't there military brats outside of the U.S.?" To which we all say, "Yes, but as BMan has explained to excess, there is no research on them, only on the U.S. ones." And then they fire back, "Well there should at least be a page for non-U.S. military brats to show that it's not unique to the U.S!" Hence the pointless article you see here. --ScreaminEagle 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition needs to be fleshed out, as it does not reflect how positively most military brats feel toward the term. (I am a military brat by the way). It was a term of endearment of our fathers toward us, and was meant in an affectionate loving way. unsigned comment by 157.234.254.6

I think the Linguistic Reclamation section deals with that. Yes, it is definately a term of endearment in the military community, but it has to documentable. You'd be surprised at how many people think it's an insult (see the discussions on the the subject.) Non-brats want to change it to something "less objectionable" or "less derogatory" because some mythical person might find the term insulting... and sue Wikipedia for libel/slander if used against an individual. Yes, it's pointless, but it's true.Balloonman 23:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is the generic version of the term. The more in depth version is the (U.S. Subculture) page.Balloonman 23:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops-- I originally got confused and though this was the discussion at the other site (where the article is0. I just corrected my entry below (I meant close this stub and add mention of non-American military brats on the other site)--

Maybe just open (or place early) in the other article a disclaimer (or statement) that all current research has been on American military brats-- hence the general focus of this article-- Then later in the article create a link to a small page on non-American military brats--

There one could find what sparse information there is. Consequently all bases would be covered and there would be no more need for the stub/disambig page in question.

• • One additional point-- this current stub (here) may be causing a lot of people to miss this page and the wealth of information herein, adding to the importance of finding a way to eliminate it (while not excluding non-American brats).

Sean7phil 18:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

128.138.173.199 18:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Are references neceessary in a disambig page? I would suggest rolling back to the page before the unreferenced tag. References will go in the respective article pages. --Rifleman 82 05:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree... but ultimately, what does it hurt to have the references? Without them, somebody will come back and simply tag the page again. This way, they are there...Balloonman 07:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

BEFORE THE COMPLAINTS START COMING IN

I've already made a post on the ANI board to have somebody revert the move. Making that move is a HUGE mistake. This article is about US military brats, not about military brats in general. The person who made the move is wrong, there is a need and a quick review of the history of the article and the reason for the separate article would have made that abundantly clear. Trust me as the person who has put in the most time into working on this article and defending it, leaving it here is a huge mistake!Balloonman 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The move has been reverted...Balloonman 06:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The reversal was wrong, in my opinion. The solution to globalizing the article is not to balkanize it, but to add sections about military brats in other countries to the main article (which is currently at a needlessly complex title). This is a content fork. -- nae'blis 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

People are free to write about the subculture as it exists in other nations. However, the US-related article is fine as is, as Balloonman said. Raul654 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the other article's much-more-frequented talk page, either military brat is a US/western term, in which case it deserves the US/Western-centric article, or the term is global, in which case the article currently there should be at this title. Disambiguation has not been shown necessary here. -- nae'blis 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your comments from the other page. 1) The term is a global term and there is a significant derth of research on military brats elsewhere. 2) The research done on US Brats is unique to US Brats. Just because a term is used in other countries and has the same overarching meaning, does not mean that they are fully interchangeable. For example, most countries have an Army---but because they have same word doesn't mean that the US Army = Israeli Army = Chinese Army = Uganda army. Armies differ greatly from country to country, thus we have multiple articles for different country's army's along with a main page for the general concept of army. Many country's have the Boy Scouts, but a single article on Boy Scouts would not do the subject justice. If somebody wrote an article about the Boy Scounts and it was exclusively about one country's scouts, then that would be eroneous. The problem isn't the existence of a disambiguation page---it's the lack of other NECESSARY pages. The research around military brats, at present time, is exclusively on US brats.Balloonman 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What you've just written, narrowly defined, says that we should only have an article on US military brats. If there is no research and no coverage on non-US examples of the phenomenon, how can we write about it using reliable sources? I'm still not understanding why you feel there have to be two articles before the second one can even be written beyond a stub. Make a section on the main article and split it off when we get enough material. Military units are discrete entities with well-defined characteristics, it is easy to write separate examples on the separate nationalities. A better example might be the article we have on altar cloths. -- nae'blis 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude or demeaning, so please don't take this that way. I've been involved in these debates for over 6 months now on numerous pages... and I can tell you that if this article is merged then the article is going to become meaningless. Either the US section would have to be dumbed down to the bare bones or it will become the constant (and justifiably so) victem of people critizing it for having a non-global perspective. Military brat in it's most basic form, is simply one whose parents served in the military during their youth. The particulars from nation to nation can be just as significant as that of their army/navies. What role the army/navy serves will have a direct impact on the culture the child is raised. Many country's don't have base schools for their students to attend in foreign country's, they are expected to goto the local schools. The US government generally won't send somebody unless there is a school available. Many countries may not have other amenities (movie theatres, tv stations, radio programs, newspapers, etc) to unite the military family with their homeland. Some are going to be more conscious of family life than the US military and some are going to be less conscious of family life. How these affect the brat is not known.Balloonman 22:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. If we acted out of fear for what people "might" do to our articles, we'd never have gotten anywhere on Wikipedia. Most of our guidelines support me on this; the common name is the best because it improves searchability and increases the chances of finding the right article in a timely manner. If I put "military brat" into the search engine here and get a 5-line page, I'm going to be very disappointed in Wikipedia's coverage of a topic. Remember that most of our users will not necessarily understand disambiguation hatnotes or references to other pages, and if they do, they'll wonder why they were forced to click again to get to it, when the first page is so inferior. We're here primarily for readers, not editors, after all. -- nae'blis 13:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nae'blis, I'd like to ask you a question-- are you a former American military brat? If so how long was your parent in the military for?

Do you have a political motive for burying this page?

You should be aware that American military brats are a distinct sub-culture-- entirely SEPERATE from political or ideological agendas. Our experience was different-- unique-- and we deserve our own space to share and describe our experience.

We may, in fact, qualify almost as minority group so what you are doing may in fact be discriminatory.

Did you or did you not grow up in a military family?

Sean7phil 05:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sean7phil, please don't attack Nae'blis: he's a well respected established editor. I'm a veteran, as well as a lobbyist for a major veterans service organization. Military brats do not count as a "minority" group, because it is a voluntary class: at some point, somebody chose to join the military. So please do not allege discrimination: that's laughable. Also, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a place to "share and describe your experience".

Oh, and for the record Nae'blis, I was the one who reversed the move: the move was undiscussed and broke a lot of links as well as disruptive, due to this being a featured article. My rationale was that there wasn't even the slightest attempt to gain consensus before making a major change to a featured article. If you disagree with that, you're welcome to discuss it with me at my user talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't try to restore the move unilaterally or anything, I'd never come across the page before 2 days ago, I just think that the simple title is the correct location for it. I haven't even read the full page archives yet, just arguing from this point forward. I've seen other articles try to become globalized and I think Balloonman's fears are unjustified in this case. -- nae'blis 13:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if you've seen the comments/critiicsms over the past six months, you'd realize that my fears aren't out of a vacuum... I'll try to look them up later on (probably not until the weekend.) I just moved yesterday and dont' have internet at my new home, and can't do the research right now.Balloonman 14:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Denny... whether Nae'blis is a brat or not doesn't matter. He has legitimate questions that have to be addressed. We may or may not agree with each other in the end, but the key is to remain civil. I know that this is an issue that is close to your heart (as it is mine) but legit conversation is warranted and remember to assume good faith.Balloonman 14:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

sigh, this is the kind of thing that annoys me on wikipedia. people have to take their petty opinions on to wikipedia and make it harder to use for the average person like me who just wants to find out information about the topic. when pages link to this page how would a normal user know that there was more in depth information on the topic at another page. Mad onion 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this discussion has become more an issue of cultural identity than of objective information accumulation. I have to admit, somebody making the proposition that an item of my own cultural or heritage, or national identity, was not so special after all would not be met with great enthusiasm.

Wikipedia, however, if I may have such presumption to make a sweeping statement, is not a place for this. Can you imagine, in a few years time, fifty or sixty different articles talking about slight variations of the exact same phenomenon, just because it was felt by some that the U.S experience was somehow massively different from that of others? Does this concept sound feasible, in regard to your experience of other international concepts?

It is difficult to make an argument that will not offend some of you, simply because this issue is so close to something you consider to be your own property. I must ask, however, that you forget this. Is it possible that, even if you saw reason, you would be disinclined to accept it after having "defended" you own position for so long? I ask this with full respect, simply as something to think about.

These are the arguments I have been hearing in opposition to an article generalization, and their responses.

1) The article concerns a completely unique subject, with accordingly unique research, and any standardization would severely reduce the detail of the article.

Why? I, for one, have no interest in removing U.S specific information, and can see easily how the article can be standardized without doing so, and with full recognition of the significantly advanced development of the U.S subculture. It is a question of effort, not a question of possibility.

2) “Many country's have the Boy Scouts, but a single article on Boy Scouts would not do the subject justice.”

The Boy Scouts is an organization. It has its own infrastructure, official financiers, membership demographics, and formative history after an intentional formation. The “NECESSITY” for other pages is a direct result of the fact that the organisation is not a global one; there are many, and they are all stand-alone structures.

The population of military brats, however, has none of these qualities, because it is not an intentionally formed group, nor is it an officially recognized organisation. They are a phenomenon - a societal occurrence, one that is echoed in most respects by many militaries around the world.

3) The argument has been going on for months and the verdict has always been to keep it the same.

The day that humanity stops making new arguments will be the day the sun becomes too hot to live under.

___________

The change itself would simply be the following:

- The title, from “U.S subculture” to something to the effect of “sub cultural occurrence” or “phenomenon”

- Simple modifications of some of the sentences so that anything that doesn’t strictly need to apply specifically to the U.S sub culture applies to all nations

- Elaboration in the introduction to explain the situation within the article concerning the research being made of the U.S phenomenon

Therefore, the change would not be made of the subject of the article, merely its inclusiveness for the rest of the many thousands of military brats around the world.

I will also be posting this on the other page to account for those who are not aware of this one.

 Exemplar Sententia. 00:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the comment from the other page---a note there that this discussion is going on AGAIN, will suffice. Otherwise we are going to have two major disjointed discussions occurring at once. Balloonman 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Examination of the introductory segment

Ok, the proposition has been made that the article can be rewritten

This group is shaped by frequent moves, absence of a parent, authoritarian family dynamics, strong patriarchal authority, the threat of parental loss in war, and the militarization of the family unit.[6] While these characteristics are true with military brats from the U.S. are they in any way universal to the military brat experience? No. People from different countries have questioned each of those assumptions.

Although they did not choose to belong to it, military culture can have a long-term impact on brats.[7] Do we have any proof of this for any country other than the U.S.?

As adults, military brats can share many of the same positive and negative traits developed from their mobile childhoods. Having had the opportunity to live around the world, military brats can have a breadth of experiences unmatched by most teenagers. These statements are derived from the fact that U.S. brats are considered Third Culture Kids. Research into TCK's has shown that virtually every TCK who happens to be a military brat is of U.S. origin (see Cottrell as cited on the TCK page.) Many countries do not relocate the family when deploying a military member to a foreign country. Those that do, do not do so in the numbers the U.S. does.

Regardless of race, religion, nationality, or gender, brats might identify more with other highly mobile children than with non-mobile ones.[8] Again, how highly mobile are the brats of other countries? Do we have any documentation to support this is accurate elsewhere? Comments from previous discussions would say no.

Basically my point is that there is very little that can be said about military brats that is universal about military brats. Even the most basic of notions beyond the fact that their parents served in the military is contigent upon the country and nature of the service. Some countries will move a lot, some countries will have militaries that more like police forces, some will be deployed more, some will never face military action.Balloonman 04:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PS> I'm going to be travelling for the next five days, so I don't know how much internet access I will have.Balloonman 04:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This group is shaped by frequent moves, absence of a parent, authoritarian family dynamics, strong patriarchal authority, the threat of parental loss in war, and the militarization of the family unit.[6]

Whilst they are not "universal", these are all parts of the phenomenon that various countries experience in different combinations and degrees. I can vouch for this of the Australian military brat, as I am personally acquainted with several.

Although they did not choose to belong to it, military culture can have a long-term impact on brats.[7]

In my brief attempt I was indeed unable to track down an explicit record of this, which is not to say such a record does not exist. However, consider this: Is it written anywhere that people use teaspoons to put sugar in their coffee in both the USA and the UK? Well, the answer (against probability) might indeed be yes, but the point is, would anyone expect you to cite an academic resource to back up such a claim?

As adults, military brats can share many of the same positive and negative traits developed from their mobile childhoods. Having had the opportunity to live around the world, military brats can have a breadth of experiences unmatched by most teenagers.

Once again, this is also true of most western military, or at least of the Australia, the military of which is closely modeled on that of England.

You can see the concept. I will try to find as much academic support as possible, but a question of social congruency arises.

 Exemplar Sententia. 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would love for you to find academic/scholarly research that would substantiate a more global article. A place to start would be with Clifton Grace. He was the only source that I could find that even attempted to discuss the brat experience from a non-US perspective. He wrote an article wherein he hypothesizes on how the experience of British brats might be different/the same as US brats. Grace ultimately laments that there is "no significant" literature on subject.

Another source would be Morton Ender or Ann Cotrell---but I wouldn't expect much out of either of them. Ann studies third culture kids. Her research warns that studies on TCK's who are military brats is almost exclusively a U.S. phenomenon. Ender seems to be the main researcher on Military Brats. The most recent stuff I could find from him indicates a desire to study non-US brats. (His writing's warn about extrapolating research on US brats onto non-US brats. His writing's also discusses how he wishes the affects of growing up in non-US military communities was similar/different from what has been observed in the US studies.)

Again, I would love to be proven wrong on this subject. I would love for you, or somebody else, to find the missing grail on the subject of non-US brats. Right now, based upon the sources I've been able to identify, I can't see a global article being written that isn't OR.Balloonman 05:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC) NOTE: The other people who study military brats, such as Mary Wertsch, are very American focused in their research. While she is a major name in the field, I doubt if you'd find anything valuable.Balloonman 17:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because only you call them brats! It's an Americanism; maybe one that's crept into use in the UK as many of your words do, but not a home grown concept at all. Evidence provided in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military brat (U.S. subculture)/archive2. --kingboyk (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting to Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Despite conjecture about how "Military brat" might be used to describe people outside of the scope of the U.S. subculture, supporting evidence has not been produced to justify a separate article. In fact, the only reference to non-U.S. military brats occurs in "Military brat (U.S. subculture)". Meanwhile, the ostensibly generic "Military brat" article lists the U.S. branches of armed service as if they were also generic. This isn't a worldwide view. This is just confusing. Pretense at a worldwide view without follow-up doesn't counter systemic bias: It is bias.

I've edited this page to redirect to Military brat (U.S. subculture). If references can be produced to show that the "military brat" phenomenon is indeed global, and that the term is notably used to refer to non-U.S. populations, perhaps a separate article is justified. If it can be shown that the term is substantially as likely to be applied to a non-U.S. case as to a U.S. case, then the present arrangement, with the U.S. subculture disambiguated as particular, is justified. If not, perhaps Military brat (U.S. subculture) can be merged back into Military brat and this matter put to rest. --Shunpiker 02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Under normal Wikipedia usage there is absolutely no need to use a parenthetical disambiguator if there is only a single article under the main title. Therefore I have moved it back. If separate articles are created about military brats in other countries then it can be moved, but for now there is no need. -- Necrothesp 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Under normal is a key phrase. The challenge is that this article is clearly not written for the generic military brat, it is written based upon an area where a fair amount of research has been conducted---US Military Brats. Scholarly research has not been done on generic non-US brats (as is documented in the article) so the article has to clearly identify itself as a US-centric article. Per Wikipedia policy there are exceptions to all rules and based upon the history of this article and the extensive discussions surrounding this subject, I would suggest this is clearly a case for an exception. Attempts have been made on and off again to have a Stub at Military Brat. Those stubs are often deleted and redirected to the more comprehensive article. Personally, I would have no problem with an article here---but they do get deleted because they usually don't amount to much of anything. Due to the fact that no research has been done on non-US brats, it would be a stub. I do beleive it was careless/premature for you to make a move on a subject where extensive discussion has already occured. This is especially true as quick glance at either talk page would reveal said discussion. There has been discussion here, at (US subculture), both FAC's, and at the military history review---consensus on repeated discussions over hte past two years was to label this with the (U.S. subculture)Balloonman 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 page move

This page move has two issues. First is was performed without apparent recent prior discussion, despite the title being extensively discussed previously. Second, it failed to move the talk page. Gimmetrow 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This page move is going to be an issue; the article title was seriously discussed many times at FAC, and I don't know why it was moved without discussion or consensus. I think an admin is going to have to undo the mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a mess; the articlehistory and FAC is no longer associated with the article, and we have a featured article stub. Will the person who did this move please read all of the featured article files and undo this ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no admin is needed for this move. It's reversed now. Gimmetrow 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

However, I don't know if military brat had any edit history except the redirect. From the discussion above, it may have. Gimmetrow 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 is looking at if; goodness, I wish people would *discuss* before moves (second time this week an admin has done this). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves (that's a big if), the article was originally at military brat, there was a big fat brouhaha at FAC about the article only applying to the US culture, the article was moved to the US subculture page, and this was made a dab page. I thought it was a big to-do about nothing, but a big to-do it was, so moving the article with no discussion was premature. If there's a problem with the title, it should be sorted out with discussion (and certainly without orphaning the talk page and FAC article history). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds about right. The article ended up where it was because the content was specific to one culture, and a more general title generated complaints. Some of that debate can be read above. Gimmetrow 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave a note for Balloonman et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This all fails and failed to take into account normal Wikipedia policy and the fact that a disambiguated article title was needlessly redirected to from a perfectly good non-disambiguated article title. The simple fact is that it should never have been moved in the first place. The term is not purely a US one - whether the article deals primarily with the US "subculture" or not is irrelevant to the title of the article. As long as this is the only article on Wikipedia on military brats it should stay where it is. The problems were caused by a needless move which seems to have been undertaken by editors unfamiliar with normal naming procedures. If people want to move it back, might I suggest that a separate "Military brat" article is created with all the non-US material transferred to that and the pages that link to military brat examined to see which should specifically link to the American page and which are non-US specific. -- Necrothesp 19:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care where it ends up but 1) you can't disassociate a featured article from its talk page and articlehistory, and 2) I suggest waiting for the regular editors to surface and help figure this out. Gimmetrow and I only get involved because the partial move really messed up archives and history on featured articles, which we watch for {{articlehistory}} and WP:FA archives. When ya'll figure it out, please do it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See response above. Previous discussion reached the consensus that despite there not being a "Military Brat" page, that the disambig was necessary in this case. It is, per wikipolicy, an exception to the rules.Balloonman 20:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)