Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Military Peer Review

Please see the Military Peer Review wherein a discussion on the global nature of the term is discussed. Per the input there, the attempt to globalize this article is actually detrimental to the article. There are too many variances between the different cultures to write one for all. The research is done on American Military Brats and the subculture is really American in nature, thus the advice from the international contributors on Military History Project is to make this into a stronger article dealing with the American Military Brat.Balloonman 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

GA review---copied form Balloonman 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC) talk page

Balloonman:

I didn't know I was that well thought of-;) Thanks.

Well, I saw your posts on the FAC and thought your suggestions were solid and worth listening to. Re: Military brat (I'm one!)

Ditto... Patch American HS class of 87... Why is the homosexual bit in there? All it really says is mil brats may not have a lot of contact with homosexuals. Not that big a deal as I see it. It's like saying "living in Florida, someone may not get to experience snowfall". It just doesn't seem relevant to me. Now if it was shown MBs were more or less likely to become homosexuals, then I'd see it as relevant. While these things can be hard to predict, I think it may get beat up on this on a FAC, but maybe not. We'll see.

The Duty, Honor, Country external jump needs to be a wikilink if it has an article or made a footnote.

Change made FN 24 needs to be at the end of the sentence. FNs come after punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence.

Somebody else already moved it. Overall, I think this is very well referenced and written. I fixed some minor things for you.

Thank you... the details are where I'm the weakest... I'm a decent writer, but grammar and spelling are my weaknesses... Fix the refs that have spaces btwn them and the period (or whatever).

looks like somebody else did it already... I'll check to see if I see any that were missed. I'm an MB and I never saw separate Scout troops for O's and E's. Maybe this doesn't occur anymore.

Ditto, I'll make this past tense---I remember my dad (who was also a brat and an eagle scout) told me that that there were two troops when he was in scouts. You have no See also?

I had one, but the peer review process said to incorporate the "see also" section into the text, so I killed it. WHen it's a FAC, the best way to get it through is to respond quickly to feedback.

I try to... it's only fair that if somebody takes the time to read what I wrote to respond right away. I've asked a MILHIST project member to rate it.

Cool, I appreciate it... My suggestion: fix my concerns and then list for FA.

Do you think it's ready for FA? r/ Rlevse 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

PS- see User_talk:Rlevse#Military_brat_assessment Rlevse 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC) I think it's ready for FAC now. When you get FA, the GA tag goes away. I'm a GA reviewer too, so in 2-3 days ping me and I'll GA it as what I just did was the equivalent of a GA review. Nice work. ERcheck, who did some editing on this, is one of my good MILHIST project buddies.Rlevse 08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) And to think that less than a month ago, when I started working on this article it was nominated for deletion! You should take a look at what was there to begin with hereBalloonman 08:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC) You could start the article List of military brats with all that info that got cut.Rlevse 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) you mean like: List of famous fictional military brats and List of Famous Military Brats They were in my "See also" which I was told I should kill... and they are now linked in the introductory section.Balloonman 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

GA status

Passed. See if you make a stronger tie with the homosexual section to mil brats or cut it. Rlevse 23:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It was cut per your original review... Balloonman 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Page Name

Ok, the people on the military history peer review thought "Military Brat" was a good article with a US focus. They did not like the idea of globalizing it because it would be impossible to adequately cover every country's brats, and to try to extrapolate the research onto non-US brats would introduce bias. They suggested changing the name of the article to make it clear that we were talking only about US Military Brats. The article was further criticized on the FAC as it was too US focused. At that point I changed it to "Military brat {U.S. subculture)." But I'm not sure if that is the best title. The other title that I think would be appropriate would be "U.S. military brat." But I wanted to get the input of other people who watch this page.

I like "Military brat (U.S. subculture)" -- that says it all. Rlevse 22:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I like "Military brat (U.S. subculture)" too. Sumoeagle179 23:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that fine, I think. - DavidWBrooks 23:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good name. "U.S. military brat" doesn't really make sense here; the article is about the phenomenon of "military brats" in the U.S., not about some peculiar U.S. variety of military brat. Kirill Lokshin 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree... I prefer the "military brat (U.S. subculture)" over "U.S. Military Brat" as well... but wanted to make sure that there wasn't a better option.Balloonman 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the current name. It is very unlikely that "U.S. Military Brat" would ever be used as a search term. The parenthetic description makes it clear that it is a U.S. term. The redirect works for the expected search term "Military brat", so all is well. — ERcheck (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC

One thing that bothers me about this article is its rather negative tone. Terminology is used sporatically and not explained, "transfer" is a move, and I think the prose could use some work. I like the article, overall, what is included, but it doesn't read well to me, as it is written as a string of facts. I will look at it some more. I would like to see it as a FA because it is very current. KP Botany 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by negative tone? Do you mean that it sound like it is overly critical of brats? As for the rest, I welcome any thoughts/insights/modifications that you might wish to provide. While I've been the major contributor to the article lately, I know that this is a collaborative effort that will only get better with the help of others.Balloonman 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)\
Yes, this is sorta what I mean, but not so much that it sounds critical of brats, but that it focuses on the negatives of being a military brat. This may be a function of the research. Let me offer some specific examples:
"Because of the uniqueness of their upbringing, many brats identify more with other brats---regardless of race, religion, nationality, or gender---than they do with non-brats.[4] This is in part because military brats often feel like they never belong.[5]"
Outriggr modified this section, and I think it works with the current wording.
The positive is glossed over, that military brats tend to be less racist or bigoted in personal friendships, to the expense of the feeling of not belonging due to the constant upheavals.
"Military culture has its own norms and expectations. They are so different, that military brats find civilians very different and often incomprehensible.[9] Military culture is more structured and regimented and brats struggle with the lack of regiment within the civilian community.[10]"
How about "Military culture has its own norms and expectations that can differ so greatly from those of the civlian world that military brats often find civilians incomprehensible."
Changed per your recommendation.Balloonman 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Outriggr, who I was refered to as a good copy editor, changed the section at the same time that I made the above comment. I like Outriggr's change...
The second sentence is, again, complete focused on the negative, the struggle to adapt. The focus is the "lack of regiment" in the civilian world without any mention of research that exists showing kids can be comfortable with regimentation (in moderation).
Modified per recommendation.Balloonman 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I would also like examples in much of the article. Movies on base are a good example of the norm for military culture that's quite different from civilian culture, a clean, quiet theater, and the Anthem. Military brats who've only attended base schools, in my experience, are often startled by the type of misbehaviour students get away with in civilian schools, and the lack of weight attached to "I'm going to call your parents." But these make for different expectations both ways, did you ever invite a new civilian friend to watch a movie on base, for example, when you were older, someone politically very liberal?
The comparison study was actually done based upon behavior in movie theatres. When I was in HS I lived in Germany, thus didn't have the option of inviting civilians to the movies... the only civies I knew had access already.Balloonman 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I added details to the comparison study, but can't add too many "non-referenced" examples. If you look at the discussion for the AfD, there was a lot of criticism surrounding personal anecdotes and OR I'm very reluctant to put things that I know are factual unless I can tie it directly to solid research.Balloonman 08:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"While the brat struggles to adapt to the civilian community, the civilian community may respond negatively to the brat."
This seems to emphasize the negatives for the brat: can't adapt to the civilian community, which responds negatively to him/her, and it needs examples. How about "Both the military brat and the civilian community can be at odds with each other. Students at military schools have greater limits on their behaviour than those at civilian schools. This can make it difficult for the brat to adapt to attending a troubled civilian school after being used to schools with very little disciplinary problems due to strict limits on bad behaviour because of the threat this can have to a parent's career. Conversely, brats who have attended civilian schools may have difficulties adapting to the strict regime at a base school." This is not well written nor researched(mine), but I think it fluffs it out and shows that it works both ways, civilian schools do often have serious discipline problems that interfere with the learning atmosphere for all students. This isn't as big an issue on base schools. Plus, base schools when huge numbers of personnel are deployed, especially in war, can be different from base schools during the long era between the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf.
While I believe it is true, I don't have a source that supports the statement. Also, this might be something in the discipline section.Balloonman 08:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"Military families are always outsiders to the local civilian community. The local community has a personality, a life, a history that the military family doesn't fit into or know. Since the brat is a transient who will leave in a few years, the brat may be treated with hostility and mistrust rather than being welcomed by the locals.[11]"
But there are towns where this isn't true, where the towns sprang up around the big bases, or the bases are so big and have been there for so long that military brats are a fact of life to the civilian community, like Fayetteville and more so Jacksonville, NC.
"Military families are often outsiders to the local civilian community. This is not always true where large military bases and civilian communities have a long history of interacting. Often, though, the local community has a personality, a history outside of its interactions with the military, that the military family cannot readily belong to, or know about. Since the brat is a transient in this community, it may take too long to gain trust for the military brat to be readily welcomed by the locals.[11]"
tried to incorporate into the article.Balloonman 07:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
And, of course, I realize I'm just using examples that may or may not coincide with the research. This also, imo, neutralizes the negative tone towards the civilian community.
Also current changes in military brat life, have they been studied? Also the impact of war and death, the very weird effect of having all of your neighbors' moms and dads return from war en masse, and yours is still over there, or the horrendous and unreal isolation that comes when your parent is killed in war and you're living on a military base, something unique to the military brat. Is this discussed?
Added. There were two articles that I had already identified... the one on terrorism by Walls and the information from the Deployment Center.Balloonman
Again, my edits were ursurped by outriggr's edits... but upon thinking about this in more detail, these facts are not unique to military brats. Vietnam Veteran Era, Korea War, and WWII era brats had similar issues. I haven't seen anything looking at how the family friendly armed forces has impacted brats. But long term impact studies won't be available for a while.Balloonman 08:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Not really, most of the research seems to be based on conclusions of people who are now adults. There are a few studies on current brats, but for the most part it's looking at adult military brats---thus people who, grauduated 10+ years before the research was done and most of the research is 3-7 years old now. Thus, changes on military bases over the past year is under represented. I'll add a note to that in the research section this evening. The stuff I've seen on the current status appears more anecdotal/less reliable---EG newspaper articles.Balloonman 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I like your attitude towards the article, that you're devoting time to it, but it is written by many. This is an attitude I seldom see outside of military brats: that a committee of wholely unrelated folks can actually make something better than one person could make by his- or herself. Wikipedia is the perfect venue for military brats. KP Botany 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, it's very helpful... I'll try to incorporate some (most) of them this evening. Hopefully, I can convince you to change your vote ;-) Balloonman 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's pretty well balanced personally. A lot of the positives are in other parts of the article, like they're accepting of people, outgoing, can adapt easily, and so on. --AW 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does contain positives, I just don't think that overall it carries a neutral tone towars military brats. I think this is an artifact not of the writing of this article, primarily, but of the type of research. It is modified a bit, because the writing is somewhat positive towards military brats. I think, however, that the aritcle cand should be reworded to focus the good and the bad at the same time, and give a more neutral tone overall.
I did look through the dates on the research but had not connected it to research being done on adults--thanks for clarifying. It's not just the past year, but up to the past 15 years, though. For example, lower enlisted housing is much better due to a huge housing burst for these ranks in the early 90s, and some class structures changes related to units shipping out as groups, and what about all the new long-term deployed reserve units? If the research isn't there, you can't really do anything about it. Are you using the military magazines, the weekly newspapers as sources, too? I didn't check. KP Botany 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm using what I can find online... the problem with online sources is verifibility and reliability. Most of the reseach is done on older brats, so again, I think the best response will be to include a note in the research that discusses how future research will include the points you bring up. It is impossible to know how the Iraq War is going to impact brats in the future.Balloonman 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not so much how it will impact brats in their future, but how it has changed the culture--surely there is something about this on-line? I think it's a good article for doing only on-line research and will become a FA. Also, I won't continue to opose simply because you don't meet all my suggestions--you may disagree with them, after all. KP Botany 20:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll look to see if I can find anything online... most of my research has been using a few key books (The one's by Ender, Truscott, Wertsch, and Smith.) The Ender and Smith books are relatively new by sociologist who have studied the subjects in depth. The Wertsch and Truscott books are little older and less scientific. This is definately an area for improvement... I'm just not sure we'll be able to find anything except for allusion to changes in the military heirarchy to be more family oriented.
Haven't see you around here much lately AW... good too see you back. Could you do me two favors: 1) give this article a good copy edit? That is one of the complaints on the FAC---and I'm a lousy copy editor. 2) Goto the FAC and contribute to the discussion. Generally, I am not asking for people straight up to contribute, but I kind of see you as a co-writer of this article due to your long history with it. I'm also glad that you like it, I was a little worried that you wouldn't since I kind of comadeered editing it.Balloonman 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been busy with work and stuff, but I will definitely copy edit and try to make it over to the discussion. I think you've done a really good job with the article --AW 21:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My next project is going to be the Third Culture Kids article. That one will not have any problem with the globalization aspect... there is a lot of material out there.Balloonman 21:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC lead paragraph

You'll have to think about all my changes, though, not just blanket implementation. The prose overall, imo, is like a string of related facts on a necklace, rather than a free-standing article. This will need some work to improve it. You did very well, imo, adding a few changes here and there to move the article from what I perceived as an overwhelmingly negative tone to a more balanced tone that showed the research tended to focus on the negative.

  • "A "military brat" (or simply a "brat") is a person whose parent or parents have served in the armed forces."
  • --->Is this quite correct? If my parents served before I was born, would I be a military brat? I don't think so. What about reserves? Are children of reservists who don't deploy other than once a summer and one weekend a month military brats? I think "military dependent" should be used early on.
    • Modified: A "military brat" (or simply a "brat") is a person whose parent or parents served full-time in the armed forces during the person's childhood.
      • Oh, much better said than mine. Clean. More to come later. KP Botany 19:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


  • --->Don't put "brat" in quotation marks unless you are talking about the word, and the introductory use.
    • Fixed


  • "and the militarization of the family are perceived as normal."
  • --->"of the family unit"
    • Modified


  • "military culture is unique in the number of families that share these attributes within a closely knit society."
  • --->"families that share many or all of these attributes"
    • Great suggestion.


  • "While the term "brat" is commonly used in a derogatory manner"
  • --->"While the term "brat" (can be used/is commonly used in the civilian world) in a derogatory manner"
    • Didn't like your suggestion... but agreed with the sentament. Changed it to:
    • "While the term "brat" is commonly used in a derogatory manner, in this context, "brat" is neither a subjective nor a judgmental term." Brat can be used in a derogatory sense by military personell, it's the context that matters.


  • "military personnel have created numerous unofficial backronyms using the letters in "
  • --->"backronyms, or after the fact acronyms" Add the definition to this word, as it is an unusual word, and the article should stand alone.
    • Added definition, but slightly different wording.


  • "in part because they often feel like outsiders to American culture."
  • --->"outsiders to American civilian culture"
    • not sure if the word is needed, but added...


  • "Brats are therefore curious about famous brats and how fictional brats are depicted in popular culture."
  • --->Needs work. "Because they identify so strongly with other brats, they are curious about famous brats and the depiction of military brats in fiction and in popular culture."
    • Made change, but got rid of last section as it was redundant with famous brats.


More to come, KP Botany 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Excellent suggestions... took all (with some minor variations.)

KP, I Have no problem making these changes... I also have no problem with you making them directly. It might be easier that way... but I'm fine either way... which ever way you find easiest.Balloonman 19:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it too difficult to edit extensively details inside the article and maintain the flow of the prose at the same time, so I can only do one or the other at this time. As I read the article in depth with the intent of posting comments, I will continue with that. KP Botany 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

More prose comments

I've now had a chance to begin reading the article, and I have some prose/article organization concerns - I suspect that many of my comments will get crossed up with the same concerns that KP Botany has, and will need to be sorted out. I didn't read the entire article, since I found too many things that need fixing in the first sections - an entire runthrough of similar issues will be beneficial.

Too many statements are declarative, rather than reflective of certain opinions or studies. Just because a study says something, or a source says something, it isn't necessarily fact - I'd like to see more attribution of who says what and believes what, and less statement of fact just because one author or study believes/says something.

  • I think you'd be surprised. Yes, there are things that *I* don't believe are true about myself, but I've seen them in others. Most of what is said could be easily found in "non-authoritative sources" on the web. But I limited it to what I could find in authoritative/semi-authoritative work... some fun anecdotal evidenceyou might be a brat if, Another "you Might be a brat if", and a third list. Much of what is in here, can be found in these "You might be" lists.Balloonman 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect there are some military children who don't view themselves as brats, or whose parents don't view tham as brats.

  • "I suspect there are some military children who don't view themselves as brats, or whose parents don't view tham as brats." I think you'd be surprised. Again, I think you are equating military brat with spoiled brat, the two uses of the word brat are not synonymous. A quick pervue of the research on the subject and the sources available will indicate that it is the accepted term. Brats actually come to accept the term as a badge of honor/distinction.Balloonman 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And, drawing upon my experience with medical articles, assertive statements about studies trouble me - there are replicated, controlled, prospective studies that are on very large randomized samples (good, strong conclusions), and then there are individual case studies on smaller or non-random samples subject to ascertainment bias, which haven't been replicated (not necessarily good).

  • As mentioned below, most of the studies seem to be the attempt to validate the information reported in Mary Wertsch's book Military Brat: Legacies inside the Fortress. Some of the studies are based upon non-random sampling others are based on random samples.Balloonman 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are too many statements in this article which assert something as fact based on a study, without giving us any idea of the strength of the study design and methodology - and you can find a study to say just about anything. Widespread consensus, strong methodology, and replication or results is important. So, overall, every statement that asserts a fact based on a study or one author's opinion needs to be examined and re-phrased.

  • "Widespread consensus, strong methodology, and replication or results is important. So, overall, every statement that asserts a fact based on a study or one author's opinion needs to be examined and re-phrased." Widespread consensus is there as is the replication of results. Methodology is variable, those found in the Ender/Smith books are more scientific than the Truscott/Wertsch books. But, despite it's non-scientific methodology, the Wertsch's book is considered to be the original/definative work on the subject because it is based upon over 80 in depth interviews. If I were to make a personal observation, I would state that most of the research that has come in the last 15 years has been to validate the observations from Wertsch's book.Balloonman 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • One other thing I should mention, the Ender book in particular, listed numerous studies reaching the same conclusions.Balloonman 09:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Another important point, the conclusions reached in scientific research can also be supported via non-scientific methodologies. EG reading webpages/emails/etc you will find many of the same conclusions. What does that mean? Only that the conclusions of the research is accepted by the community it describes. It would be one thing if the community completely rejected the research and said "I don't buy it," but the fact that blogs echo the same findings adds credence to those studies. (And yes, I know I can't cite blogs, but in addition to the research having consensus and relication, it has acceptance.)

The very first sentence in the article troubles me: A "military brat" (or simply a "brat") is a person whose parent or parents served full-time in the armed forces during the person's childhood. Much too assertive, as if ALL children of military personnel consider themselves or are considered brats.

  • "As if ALL children of military personnel consider themselves or are considered brats. Is that really true?" Yes it is true. You would be very hard pressed to find an English speaking military child who would say they aren't proud to be a brat. You might find a few who don't like the term, but that is an extremely small minority... and those few who don't like the term will acknowledge that it is the term that is used and accepted by the majority of brats. Again, I point you to the usage of the term. I'll also challenge you to find something to the contrary. I can pretty much guarantee that you won't.Balloonman 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that really true, or can this be re-phrased to somehow indicate that "it's a term used colloquially or folklorically" or whatever such word to refer to ...

  • While I would agree with that 20 years ago, I do not believe you can make that statement today. "Military Brat" is the term used by sociologist and researchers to describe the culture. Even from the larger realm of TCK research, military brat is considered to be largest group of TCK's. It is no longer a colloquialism. It has evolved beyond that. Balloonman 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what the convention is on Wikipedia about the word "American", but that should be fleshed out - to me, American is everything from Argentina to Canada, and I think this article applies to the United States military.

  • I can change that without much problem, will do so this evening.

Here are more strongly assertive statements, which are based on (as far as I can tell ???) an interview with one researcher - the kinds of things I have a problem being asserted as fact because one person says so:

A typical American military brat grows up in an environment in which frequent moves, authoritarian families, extreme patriarchy, parental absence, the threat of parental loss in war, and the militarization of the family unit are perceived as normal.[1] These factors shape and orient the brat in a manner unique to military families.[1]
  • I cited one source, but there are numerous others that reiterate this list (or various portions of it.) Ender used a fairly similar list in his article in Strangers at Home. Truscott also used a similar list. The one in the source cited was the most complete (and appears to be the one used by other researchers when defining the characteristics of a brat.) Also, most of the comments that found were either from scientific studies or were from multiple sources.

I would also combine a lot of sentences for better prose (this is true throughout the article, where thoughts and ideas aren't well linked) - as an example:

Factors shaping and orienting the brat in a manner unique to typical United States military families, and perceived as normal, include frequent moves, authoritarian families, extreme patriarchy, parental absence, the threat of parental loss in war, and the militarization of the family unit.[1]

(I'm not a great copy editor or grammarian, so don't take that verbatim - it's just an example of the kinds of combining I would like to see.)

Have a look at WP:LEAD - the lead here isn't long enough, and isn't completely summarizing the article.

Then, we jump into the confusing introduction of brand new term - third culture kids - in a section in which the use of that term is not tied to the use of "brat". It's not all clear (to me, at least), why TCKs (I have two of those) are being mixed in with military brats - the link and connection isn't made clear - it's the sudden introduction of a new term, just as the reader is getting his/her arms around the "brat" idea. In the first paragraph - about TCKs - we find the out-of-place insertion of one statement about "brats".

In the third paragraph, two subsequent sentences start with "while ... "

In the fourth paragraph, we find a paragraph about military bases, in a section called TCKs - so the integration of all of this material is unclear. In the beginning of the fourth paragraph, we can find more examples of thoughts that need to be better linked:

Military bases add to the isolation between military personnel and civilians. Generally one needs a military ID to gain access to a base. Once on base, the ID is required to take advantage of the benefits offered. Military bases are miniature, self-contained, government-subsidized towns, having their own non-profit commissaries, base/post exchanges, liquor stores, books stores, beauty shops, bowling alleys, and movie theaters.

I'd prefer something similar to:

Military bases — as miniature, self-contained, government-subsidized towns, having their own non-profit commissaries, base/post exchanges, liquor stores, books stores, beauty shops, bowling alleys, and movie theaters — can add to the isolation between military personnel and civilians. Generally, a military ID is needed to gain access to a base, and to take advantage of the benefits offered.
  • Excellent suggestion. I liked your rewording.Balloonman 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not at all clear why History of the research is a sub-heading of TCKs - except the reader gets the idea that TCK was introduced so that the TCK research could be applied to brats ???

  • Actually, I learned about TCK's before being exposed to brat research. It was through TCKs that I learned more about Wertsch, Conroy, and others. Brats are considered to be the largest component of TCKs followed by Government employees.Balloonman 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I also tried not to put anything into the article that I hadn't seen in more than one place... I let TCK research serve as a personal confirmation of Brat specific research was valid, but tried to avoid applying TCK research directly onto brats unless I had no other option. I tried not to report something unless I saw it more than once.Balloonman 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Another idea of phrases to connect (although I'm not that good at connecting them - it still needs to be done throughout, to make prose flow better):

In the 1980s, the trend in the U.S. started to change. The U.S. Armed Forces began to sponsor research on the effects of growing up as a military brat. This research was usually sponsored in response to social and psychological issues found in military families and communities.[13] Most of the research has focused on the long term impact of growing up as a military brat. The impact of the post-Cold War is only now starting to become available.[14][15]

To:

In the 1980s, the trend started to change when the U.S. Armed Forces began to sponsor research on the effects of growing up as a military brat. Most research &madsh; usually sponsored in response to social and psychological issues found in military families and communities[13] — has focused on the long term impact of growing up as a military brat. The impact of the post-Cold War is only now starting to become available.[14][15]
  • Good suggestion.

That's as far as I got - I think KP Botany's concern that the article is too "negative" is akin and related to my concern that it asserts too much thought and opinion as fact. I think you can get there with some careful work on the article - setting it aside for a bit, then printing it out and re-tackling the organization and these ideas. Sandy (Talk) 22:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at your suggestions a little more in the evening... but I did want to quickly respond that the term is used to refer to ALL children of armed forces people and that most of what I've cited can be found in numerous sources. It's not just one opinion.Balloonman 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the two of you are discussing different things here. "Military brats" means the offspring of active duty military personnel--and Sandy appears to be asking if all military dependents consider themselves bratty (I'm not really sure, Sandy). That's just what the word itself means: offspring of active duty military. It doesn't matter whether any individual person uses the word, that's just what it means. It's a bit like asking if all fish consider themselves fish--they're fish whatever they consider themselves. Well, that's what we use in English. However, it is a word in the common rather than the technical language, so add "military dependents" someone early on to define it more precisely from the jargon. KP Botany 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. But a better comparison might be to a group like "Native Americans" or "African Americans." There are studies and research on both of these groups. Most "Native Americans" and most "African Americans" accept those terms, but some do not like them. If a particularly African/Native American rejects the term, it doesn't mean that the term is invalid/wrong. Nor does it mean that the attributes ascribed to the culture are inaccurate. But I do disagree with you when you say, "It is a word in the common rather than technical language." It has been adopted by sociologist and academians because it is the term embraced by brats.Balloonman 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You missed my comment about "military dependents," it seems. In military manuals, although this may have changed, you don't see the term "brat," what you see is "military dependent." This is the jargon, the professional language, the place where military brats are discussed from a professional perspective, and this is where it is used most, whether or not sociologists and academicians have adopted the vernacular. Oh, my own brat was fondly known as Child 1 on military records, so I guess that's another professional term--there's another one, too, that I can't think of right now. KP Botany 16:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're saying... I know that dependent was removed from the lexicon in the late 90's for military spouses, but I don't know about their kids. I think dependent is very fitting for the Brat, because they are completely dependent on EVERYTHING from their military father. I still remember in the second grade losing my 'nemisis' because her father died---she was kicked out of the base school and had to move. So without warning she lost more than just her father, she lost her school, friends, culture, etc. I wish I could find something on that. But yes, you are right, on formal military documents they do use other terms than "brat." But I do believe that the term is more than just a colloquialism/slang now because of its widespread acceptance among the population AND academic/scholarly research. If it wasn't for the later, I would side with Sally (despite my personal preferences for the term.)Balloonman 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Balloonman, as someone's who been going over the article, I agree with most of Sandy's comments. (Though, unlike Sandy I think, I can go along with the usage of the word "brat" in this context. However, there's no escaping the fact that when we read the word "brat", and we're not steeped in military culture, it's a bit of a jolt.) For that reason I would like to put off the copy review for now, while you look at the organization and flow of the article. I do find it to have a bit of an "essay"-style voice, and I think that if you made the article "harder edged", by being more explicit in your use of references, it would help a lot.
Can you elaborate? What do you mean by "harder edged"? Also, I've seen the phrase "Essay" style used before... again, I'm not sure what that means or how to "fix" it.Balloonman 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I mean incorporate the research directly into the article. You have long explanatory footnotes. For example, you had a paragraph that said "Strict discipline, however, does come with a price. Many brats rebel against the rules and others develop psychological problems due to the intense stress of being well behaved.[26]", with a long footnote. I put the footnote text into the paragraph, to read

Strict discipline does, however, come with a price. Many brats rebel against the rules, and others develop psychological problems due to the intense stress of being well behaved.[26] A military psychologist publishing in the American Journal of Psychology concluded, "The parents who came to our [military] clinic used three methods of dealing with their children—authoritarian, democratic, and mixed, inconsistent way. Some of the parents who felt they were democratic were actually authoritarian or inconsistent when examined. As one might expect, the greatest number of behavioral disorders, nearly 93%, came from the authoritarian families."[27]

That mostly strengthens the paragraph, and even more importantly, the writing sounds more authoritative because the fact that it's researched is more obvious. On the other hand, a sentence like "The local community has a personality, a life, and a history that the military family doesn't fit into or know." is what I mean by "essayish". It may be very true, but it sounds like one person giving their their own ideas of life as an MB (which, as I mentioned, is not in the spirit of WP:OR and such). Part of the problem, IMO, is the uniqueness of this subject in relation to a standard encyclopedia article, but with the sources at your disposal, you can overcome it. By the way, it is easier to reply when you don't insert replies within one person's comments. And finally, thanks for the military barnstar a couple of days ago! –Outriggr § 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yet, I don't find the article to have a negative tone at all, so I can't comment on that one. If anything, to me it has a tone that suggests the writer is sympathetic to the life of brats, and wants to share what their lives are like. Unfortunately, that is somewhat at odds with Wikipedia's obsession with presenting everything in a measured tone. I can return later to continue reviewing the text, after you've examined some of these comments. On the bright side, you have lots of people offering feedback. :) –Outriggr § 01:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
First, I appreciate the feedback---I know my limitations. Second, one of the people on the Military History Peer Review agreed with you that if there was any bias it was in favor of being a brat. To read her interviews/articles, Mary Wertsch is vey Pro-Brat, but her book (for a brat) is very dark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 December 2006 UTC

I'm continuing the discussion from my talk page here, so as to keep it all in one place and join in the broader discussion.

Balloonman, would you like for me to correctly withdraw the FAC nom and archive it for you, to prepare for your next submission? You mentioned that you wanted to withdraw it, but it hasn't been done, so I wasn't sure if you've changed your mind, and/or if you know how to archive it. If you want me to, I can do it for you.

I would appreciate it if you did it, I'd have to figure it out ;-)Balloonman 19:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I really want to see this article become featured, and I believe you can make it, but I do think it will take more than a week to be able to address some of the concerns. In my own experience with writing a featured article on a topic that I was very close to (Tourette syndrome), I found that I had to edit in spurts, and then set aside the article for long stretches of time, so that when I came back to it, I could better see where things that were completely clear to me (being so close to the topic) might be less clear to the uninitiated. It took me nine months - hopefully it won't take you that long.

I want to see it make it there too... but I decided that the criticisms you and outriggr gave were enough that I should withdraw it. Since I figured it would take at least a week or two, I decided it would be best to withdraw the nomination rather than try to push something through that wasn't quite there. (It's been pointed out to me that worse articles have made it, but I don't want to make it as a 'weak' FA.)

I also had to constantly re-evaluate the writing to make sure that it was achieving an encyclopedic rather than advocacy tone. This is hard to do: some of the things "insiders" might want to say may not be of encyclopedic interest (I had to spin off Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome to address the kinds of things people in the TS community wanted in the article, but really weren't as encyclopedic as the main article). Because you are so close to this topic, and because you are also somewhat of a "brat advocate", I suspect that you're facing the same issues I faced in trying to write about a topic I knew inside and out.

My guess is that's why KP_Botany felt it was negative towards brats... I have tried to be as objective as possible... and knowing my personal position, have tried to make sure it was balanced.Balloonman 19:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My friendly recommendation (feel free to ignore me :-) is to set it aside until after the holidays, and then come back to it with an eye towards the uninitiated, the non-military family, those what aren't comfortable with the "brat" term. Instead of writing for and from the perspective of "brats", try to lead those of us who aren't familiar with the research, the terms, and the military through the topic, with a new organizational structure of the article. Military families will inherently understand your writing, so don't write for them - write for the rest of us. Doing this will take some time to get some distance and "outsider" perspective. Re-phrasing some portions to account for the study design, strengths, and methodology will take work. Common sense says it's not likely that there aren't families who don't embrace the "brat" terminology; can you seek out some opposing sources and cite them?

I'll look again, I tried to find some... but I think they will be in the extreme minority. But if I can I'll add them.Balloonman 19:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you decide to take this route, then I suggest you resubmit the article to peer review and MilHist peer review, and then re-consult those of us who are anxious to help before re-submitting it to FAC. We will be a good test audience :-) I'd like to help, and I believe this article can achieve FA, but I really think some distance and time to think about how to best address non-military readers in encyclopedic nature is needed.

Don't worry, I was planning that route already. It'll go through the MilHist Peer review for A quality article first, and when it does I'm going to contact all of the people who posted on the FAC to join in the discussion. You aren't going to get off that easily ;-) Like I said, it is primarily out of respect for you and your critique that I'm withdrawning the nomination. I suspect that if I were to keep it on the FAC that it would pass. But it is easier on my ego to withdraw than to find out I'm wrong ;-) Balloonman 19:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And, with time, perhaps the article title can be improved - it still feels awkward. (Would U.S. military brat work?) Regards, Sandy (Talk) 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a little awkward, too, thought I thought "Military brat (U.S.)" would be simpler. The "subculture" thing seems tacked on, which is it I suppose. The original was Military brat, and then it changed to reflect the U.S. Military brat. Thus, the only disambiguator needed would be which country you're talking about in ( ). If other countries make their own Military brat pages, that's when you plug in their country at the end (this is also based upon preferences within the Military History WP that has decided that country disambigs are best placed within parenthesis after the name of the article). --ScreaminEagle 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I too wasn't sure about the title... I'll pose it again when I put it up for MilHist. Your last comment about it conforming to the MilHist WP guidelines makes me think it will probably change. I don't lime the idea of "U.S. Military brat" because that implies that the U.S. is part of the title/name. "Military brat (U.S.)" would probably be the best if we were to change it. I do kind of like the "subculture" being in there because it indicates that there is something substantiave there.Balloonman 19:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is something substantive there, so I don't think the article title needs it; the article as a whole speaks for itself. I think the prose is the place to make the argument that there is something to report on here rather than the title. The title should reflect only what the article is about generally, and the article is, indeed, generally about military brats. Basically, I don't think it needs to be disabigged anymore than beyond the title and the country as the article will do the rest. Did that make sense? I feel like I'm rambling....--ScreaminEagle 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think "Military brat (United States)" would be a good title. (So I'm agreeing, except that "U.S." should be spelled out.) A question is, what should "Military brat" redirect to? I would still say this article. Another option would be a disambig page thatincludes some of those "in fiction" etc. brat-related pages. –Outriggr § 01:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
But aren't most of those fictional brats American brats anyway? In which case they could link from the main article on U.S. brats. As for where Military brat links to, like it to here until more countries get their own articles, then create a disambig page. If no other countries ever get their own articles, then oh well--no harm done and it still links to the only page that talks about it. --ScreaminEagle 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)