Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture)/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "feel like outsiders to U.S. civilian culture" 2 Congratulations on Featured Article Status! 3 BRAT ACRONYMN 4 Nominating for FAC 5 Merge with Military brat? 6 Caption? 7 Featured Article 8 This article is good, but a little biased 9 however, it is neither a subjective nor a judgmental term. 10 Article name 11 Article is overly positive 12 Patriotism vs Nationalism 13 Many typically ... 14 Captions 15 Sexuality 16 Pictures 17 Please, remind us: how did this become a Featured Article? 18 POV 19 Americentric 20 Punctuation 21 really 22 Politeness, please 23 Images 24 FA of the day! 25 Racism 26 Neutral pro-US 27 Review under way to de-certify propoganda 28 Featured article??? 29 Lack of neutrality 30 Someone deleted the FARC? 31 Military Brats (Other Countries) 32 Universal claims 33 Differences Among the Services 34 Unscholarly tone/improper citations 35 Pictures 36 THANK YOU Balloonman 37 Great work 38 Suggestions for criticisms 39 TDY? 40 Terms needing explanation to a layperson 41 Future Archiving 42 article title 43 A note about my methodology

[edit] "feel like outsiders to U.S. civilian culture"

• EDIT* Either this was fixed before my eyes or the US Subculture was missing from the main page extract

Someone needs to change this. Either remove the 'U.S.', or indicate that the article is (and when it starts to) refer specifically to U.S.American Mil'Brats. I'm unsure of the author(s)'(s) original intention(s) and have refrained from editing 69.157.49.159 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the main page didn't mention US Subculture, although the article has had that moniker since around December.Balloonman 21:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations on Featured Article Status!

That is awesome!

Sean7phil 23:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, "awesome", dude! Duh!

[edit] BRAT ACRONYMN

Since BRAT has no official meaning, I thought it would be nice to have a place where people could post the variations that they've heard of someplace. These acronymn's don't belong in the main article and don't warrant their own page, thus I'm creating a space here at the top of the talk page. Please do not put crude or offensive variations here:Balloonman 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"British Regiment Attached Travelers"

"Born Rough And Tough."

"Born Raised And Trapped."

"Born Raised And Travelled." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.76.197.156 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

In addition to "Born Raised And Trapped" I grew up with "Born Raised And Trained." Never heard any others. ---Mr. Nexx 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "brat has no official meaning"? It's a word that has been around for centuries, it's not an acronym of anything. See spoiled brat for the origin of the word 'brat'. 81.156.127.25 13:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's something of a backronym, I suppose; I've been hearing supposed meanings for it since I can recall living around other military families. ---Mr. Nexx 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a backronym. Which makes sense given the military's/government's proclivities towards (ab)use of acronyms. --Belg4mit 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominating for FAC

Feel free to join in the conversation.

• I don't agree with the anonymous edits done on Jan 30, 2007 by 70.244.33.233. Whoever you are, would you care to explain the rationale for your deletions? All you said was "FAC edits" in the edit summary. Given the amount of content removed, I think a justification is necessary. My disagreement with the deletions has nothing to do with removal of anything I contributed. I'm a military brat, but I haven't done any editing whatsoever with the article itself since I only discovered it a few days ago and I added it to my watchlist because the subject matter is meaningful to me. - Itsfullofstars 06:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That was actually me who made those edits, but the system logged me out while I was working on the edits. I made the edits in response to the FAC review currently going on. I think the criticism was valid---it wasn't the best written section so I've tried to improve it (which means trimming it down for the FAC.) What in particular did you not like?Balloonman 07:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying who did the editing. This one particular section really resonated with me, since I've personally lived it, many times:

Having grown up around the world, military brats often have difficulty answering the simple question, "Where are you from?" They will often respond with "everywhere" or "I'm a military brat."^[1]

I was nodding my head when I first read it, saying to myself "Yeah, there's someone who 'gets it'". I realize there's a push to shorten the article to meet the FAC requirements, so some things have to go, but seeing that passage left out prompted me to post here the talk page. - Itsfullofstars 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Military brat?

The Military brat article currently has little utility on its own. It seems to me like this article should move over to that spot, and then link to the List of Famous Military Brats at the bottom or something. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonemerson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Are you talking about this article here? I don't agree at all (best to you personally however). This article is outstanding and covers in rich detail what is special and different about growing up as a military brat.

I think it is more appropriate to leave the 'famous military brats' section as the add-on, it's of interest but less so than explaning what a military brat is.

This article is very well done and covers many interesting dimensions of the brat experience.

Sean7phil 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops! You mean the other 'military brat' (spelled in the singular) article which is no more than a stub. I agree that they should be merged and this one should supercede that one.

I'm sure there are many people surfing to the other page (military brat singular) and missing out on what a brat really is in the process (or missing out in connecting with a good page on their heritage).

sean7phil

67.42.240.96 07:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The other article was originally (after this one took a major US focus) deleted and made into a simple link. It is in its current state because Military Brat is a term not unique to the US. I think that article, eventhough it is a stub, needs to be there. (Although I am not opposed to deleting it either.)Balloonman 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. As long as that one links to this one, II think that will suffice.

sean7phil

161.98.13.100 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would eliminate the other one. This is a Featured Article, that is a stub. Polymathematics 02:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That stub may be causing many people to miss this article which is unfortunate.

Maybe this article could somehow (early-on) mention non-American military brats (and the fact that there is little information on them). Would that justify eliminating the stub?

Sean7phil 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was suggesting that the current article Military brat be deleted and replaced with this one. This is a really great article!!! Jonemerson 04:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I misunderstood what you meant at first but then corrected. Sorry about that!

Sean7phil 17:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caption?

I just noticed this caption, which doesn't seem to match the photo. What's it supposed to be?

--AW 07:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That caption really does not match the photograph. OEF is the name given by the U.S. Government to its military response to the September 11th attacks. I'm doubting that the picture is of a serving member of the U.S. Military involved in any OEF theatres during subordinate operations. Also, the description of OEF as "a celebration of the sacrifices made by marines since 9/11" does not really make sense in the context (if at all... describing an ongoing military campaign as a 'celebration' does not seem right). I'm going to change it to something that has more relevance within the articles context. Malbolge 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Malbolge

[edit] Featured Article

WOW!!! I honestly wasnt' expecting this to pass... I started a new job and I've been working 16-20 hours on it per day... it's been a killer... so I assumed this was going to go down in flames. So to those who voted in favor of it or assisted on getting this up to specs, thanks. Balloonman 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Um. No offense, but ought this really be a featured article? I mean, there's way too many photos on here--very few add to the article--and the tone, while swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other, is hardly unbiased at any point. This still needs a lot of cleanup.Phillip 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the artcle would also do well to rejigg the opening section, which currently states makes lots of socialogical statements about military brats before the reader has a chance to get into the article and learn the basics. It's more informative to explain how the military education works for children (do they stay with parent when deployed overseas? are they sent to boarding schools?) before getting into the details of whether they might be socially impaired, or socially more successful as a result of their experiences. As such I'd recommend adding "==Use of the term "Military Brat"==" as a initial section and look to move some of the socialogical analysis further down the article so more of the basic facts are covered first. - 86.154.102.197 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is good, but a little biased

I was very pleased to find this "military brat" entry in Wikipedia. By the author's definition I myself am a "career Air Force brat", and a retired officer with a little "Army brat" of my own.

I must say first that the author has generally gotten it right. Nonetheless, I have serious problems with the "tone" set in the sections on Values and Patriotism ("militaristic songs", indeed!), Discipline (it was the rare family that lived in "Great Santini World"), and Military Classism (the description here sounds more like my mother's childhood days on Army posts in the 1930's - the military has changed since the 1960's).

I'm afraid that a reader unfamiliar with military life [especially one of the many people who already harbor prejudices about military people] would get the sense that "military brats" are raised to become a bunch of brain-washed, jingoistic, goose-stepping Klingons.

In all fairness I suppose I should find and read Ms. Wertsch's book (which appears to be the author's principal source) and figure out where in the world she is coming from. It was probably not the Air Force or Army that I grew up in.

SienkRJ 06:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article uses absolutes to describe military brats-- plus I don't think it overrepresents the patriotism in military culture.

I was fairly liberal as a teenager-- (as was my former military brat mother)-- this, however, did not exclude the values of virtue, honor or patriotism from our lives-- these made strong and lasting imprints and were ubiquitous in the base and near-base communities that I grew up in.

Nor would I define such values as 'jingoistic'.

Wertsch doesn't trade in absolutes either-- she describes the degree of family militarization as being 'on a continuum' (a matter of degree, depending on the family).

And I would not call the 'Great Santini syndrome' 'rare' as you say-- but I wouldn't say that it represents all military familes either--

I would say that there are varied degrees of the Santini syndrome in many military families, just as there are also many gentle military fathers as well.

(Or as in my case-- great Santini at age 11 [immediately post-Vietnam] and a far gentler father later, after he got some help).

Sean7phil 17:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

161.98.13.100 17:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] however, it is neither a subjective nor a judgmental term.

The reference for this seems to be POV in itself. I've often heard the term 'military brat' used as a derogatory designation, especially in the educational community.60.49.70.41 10:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please cite your sources... plus the educational community uses the term military in a derogatory fashion. It's kind of like the educational community using "Republican", "Conservative", "Christian" "Religious" in derogatory manners.... it is meaningless.Balloonman 22:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree that Academia (in general) has a derogatory view of the military.

I have some good profs too, however. Nevertheless-- mentioning brat heritage in a University (or other 'politically progressive') setting can be treated as an admission of insanity at times. Ridiculous but true.

BTW, I am currently an older student at a University and have at times experienced very stigmatizing reactions as the result of writing about my brat experiences. This has been very discouraging at times. (Although some professors including one currently-- and a lot of fellow students) have been great about it. Some also have really opened up after initial hesitation once they see what kind of person that I am.

• • I can't really blame individuals for this-- it's systemic (the 60's generation ruling the Universities still-- and getting a little carried away-- plus they have blackballed conservative professors to the point where there is no real political debate in academia any more-- which tends to create warped perspectives on issues, including the subject of the military). Sean7phil 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think one of the things to remember is that the people who are critical are not critical of the term "military brat" they are critical of people who grew up in the military/respect the armed forces. It is not a judgment on the term, but rather the individuals personal biases towards a segment of soceity.Balloonman 07:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally agree with that. There are people who are biased against the military as a whole. Which is unfortunate because-- without the military, we wouldn't have a free country.

In particular many people from the 1960's anti-war generation are so obsessed with opposing all things military that many of them have lost appreciation for the role the military has played and still plays in keeping us free and safe.

Sean7phil 21:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I grew up as an Air Force Brat during the time frame researched. I lived on Air Force Bases from the 50's to the 70's. I never lived on a base that had movie theaters or churches that were segregated by rank. The only separate facilities were the swimming pools. The clubs (enlisted, NCO, and officer) each had a pool for the service members use and the dependents used the club pools that the military member belonged. In addition to the clubs, there were sometimes general use pools and anyone could use those. For example at Clark Air Base in the P.I. There were at least three general use pools in addition to the club pools. Other recreation facilities (golf course, riding stables, gyms, hobby shops, auto shops) were open to anyone. I remember in the early 60's that the new kids were often asked, "What is your Dad's rank?" (Notice the impication that fathers and not mothers were the military member.) By the late 60's that question wasn't asked often. When I was in Scouts, there were often 2 or 3 troops on a base, but never segregated by rank. Each was mixed with enlisted and officer dependents. When I was in high school in the states there was a division between the "base kids" and the "townies". It might be interesting to look at the attitudes of both of those groups and how they shaped each others values. When I went to high school in the U.P. of Michigan, I thought the "townies" were raised much stricter than the military brats. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.53.15.107 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure what your point is-- but-- I would have disagree with some of your points: I was also raised as an Air Force brat in the 60's and 70's. I was reared much more strictly than most locals. There WAS rank segregation in the clubs and pools and implicitly in other areas, but not at the church or theater, although I don't think the article claims this about the church and theater anyway-- and if it does seems to imply that it's probably only just a matter of clarifying a line or two.

If you look at the overall base culture, I would say there was absolutely more strictness in military families (overall) than local families-- but I did know there were exceptions, I had a friend who had a very easy going, gentle Air Force father-- I always liked the man. But I would bet you even my friend would be able to say that his family was the exception rather than the rule and that a lot of Air Force families were on the strict or more critical side compared to civilian families.

Actually here is an interesting distinction about my own family. My Dad was definitely a psychologically wounded Vet--

And so he went through phases of extreme strictness-- but was actually unable to govern the family at times too (so we swung between overdiscipline to underdiscipline). Also-- my father, overall was more overly-critical (in a military kind of way) than actually strict. His standards for us were too high-- impossible, which hurt. And he went through hyper-strict periods.

But in essence my family was military impacted, which I think all the literature points to (as an observation of an overall pattern).

I think the article-- and most of the small but growing body of brat literature-- plus Musils recent documentary-- all take care to explain that they are discribing overall patterns and that there was much variation within those patterns. I don't think anyone is describing these patterns in absolutes.

Similarly it would not be fair for one brat to say-- "this is the way it was for me, so no other brat has a valid claim or story".

Sean7phil 01:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

161.98.13.100 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

The name of this article seems to go against our practise of only disambiguating where necessary. Given that Military brat is just a redirect here, and there are no other meanings of "military brat" to disambiguate, the article should in fact be located at Military brat. Moving it there is complicated by the fact that that redirect has a substantial history, from when a separate article was started, and needs an administrator to fix it. It would also be foolish to attempt such a move while the article is on the Main Page; nevertheless, I think it should be fixed – Gurch 00:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see why the article title should limit the scope to the US, especially since 1) I'm sure the phenomenon extends beyond the US and 2) even if it doesn't, there's no reason for the extra disambiguation. Axem Titanium 01:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can attest to the fact that "brat" is also used an a non-derogatory sense to refer to military children in Canada. I know a few people born or raised at CFB Lahr in Lahr, Germany who call themselves "army brats".

To top it off, a Google search for "Lahr" turned up lahrbrat.com, a site for former (presumably Canadian) residents of CFB Lahr. So I think the article should at least be generalized to include Canada. --Saforrest 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article for military brat was its own stand alone article until a day or two ago when somebody changed it. The reason why this is US Subculture is because there isn't any research into the effects of growing up in the military in other nations. (This is supported by several experts in the field as cited in the article.) To relate the effects of US brats to non-US brats would be just as eroneous as comparing the experiences of US Blacks with blacks in Europe or Africa. The experiences are completely different.Balloonman 05:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly believe there are many cultural differences between "brats" of different nations, and believe that the U.S.-specific one is distinct. However, there is surely a broad range of common experience here. Could we not have an article on "military brats" and confine the U.S.-specific information to one or more subsections? And, as to your argument, the objective uniqueness of African-American culture is so vastly larger than the uniqueness of American "military brat" culture that the entire comparison is rendered invalid.

Furthermore, I'm afraid you haven't quite convinced me that no other country other than the U.S. has researched its "brats". I'm just habitually sceptical of negative assertions like this. But even if this were true: with any subculture which can be logically divided by country, won't there always be one subculture/country combination that is better researched that all others? Why does this in itself serve as an argument for article uniqueness? --Saforrest 05:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The only two things that I could find related to non-brats was an article by Clifton Grace, a British Researcher, whose research basically looked at US research and speculated how growing up an English military brat might be different. He lamented that "no significant literature" on the subject exists outside of the US. Morton Ender, the current authority in the field, was likewise frustrated by the lack of non-US research. In the introduction to his book, he discusses how it would be interesting to compare the effects of US brats with non-US brats, but as of the time he published his book there was no research on non-US brats.Balloonman 05:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about Ann Cottrell. Ann Cottrell is a person who studies Third Culture Kids. Kids who follow their parents into a foreign culture. There are 5 categories of TCK's and military brats is one of those five. She writes that virtually all Military Brat TCK's are from the US. One of the reasons is because a lot of country's don't deploy families with their military personell in the number's that the US does. She brought this up because when she was discussing military brats as TCKs, she wanted to make it clear that she was talking about US military brats.Balloonman 06:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is overly positive

Why is there no criticism / negative aspects of military brat culture in this article? For example, that large amounts of their supposed "patriotism" also includes jingoism (eg "Love my country or leave it"), and strongly pro-war means advocating violence towards supposed enemies (eg Abu-Gharib prisoner abuse) and highly intolerant of anti-war personalities (eg Dixie Chicks boycott).--PCPP 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably because unlike each of the specific things you mention (Abu Gharib, Dixie Chicks controversy, etc), there's no reason for cultures as a whole to be "up for discussion" —there may be criticism of the use of a term, positively or negatively, but it's kind of nonsensical to be "for" or "against" a culture, at least in a NPOV setting. Can you imagine a "criticism" section in articles like, say, Nebraska, Italy, or Punk subculture? Lenoxus " * " 03:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nod, and military brats are not the reason for Abu Ghraib or the dixie chicks. This article is referencing the effects of growing up as a military brat.Balloonman 05:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Military brats are not pro-war. Who told you that? I dont like it when I have to worry about my stepdad for 16 straight months. Most of us are antiwar because of the risks involved. While many of us do share conservative views for the most part, war is not one of them.--Richco07 16:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patriotism vs Nationalism

The actions described as "patriotism" sounds rather like nationalism and jingoism to me. I find it ridiculous that only American-related articles use the word "patriotism", while if such actions were attempted in other countries they would be described as "nationalism". --PCPP 00:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many typically ...

From lead: Many typically have a love for their country, and have been raised in a culture that emphasizes loyalty, honesty, discipline, and responsibility.. Either "Many have ..." or "They typically have...", but not both. 216.191.217.90 00:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody already made you change, thanks for the observation.Balloonman 05:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captions

The captions of most of these pictures are not describing the content of the image, but expanding on something in the article. For example, the caption of Image:Operation Enduring Families luau.jpg reads "Brat, when used in this context, is seen as a term of endearment" but should read something like "A military brat plays a game at an Operation Enduring Families luau." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I second this; the captions need reworking. Tempshill 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with them being reworked... feel free to help out.Balloonman 06:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality

It would be interesting to include a segment on the sexuality of military brats, if that research has been done. Particularly in regards to homosexuality, since intolerance of homosexuality would be one of the most different aspects of the culture to non-military culture. Are there different incident rates of homosexuality? Different levels of sexuality disorders or suppressions? Sad mouse 01:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked for it, but I couldn't find it. I have my own hypothesis on it, but couldn't find anything scholarly. The closest thing that I came to would center around the discipline... followed by a delayed adolescence. But nothing concrete. But I agree, if it was out there, I think it would be a fascinating addition to the article.Balloonman 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain "delayed adolescence" please?

--Richco07 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one of the consistent findings with Third Culture Kids (which military brats are considered the largest segment of) is that they tend to be "more mature" than their non-TCK peers during grades K-12. But when they are no longer under their parents eyes, they experience what Ruth Hill Useem and Ann Cotrell describe as a "Delayed Adolescence." Namely, they start spreading their wings and testing their independence---something most people do during their adolescence. Rebellion, drugs, alcohol, sex, staying out, partying, dropping out of college, changing majors, travelling around the world, etc are fairly common in TCKs during their 20/early 30's. So in many ways a TCK in their 20's/early 30's often has the maturity/self control of an adolescent. I didn't see much on this subject addressing military brats in particular, Useem and Cotrell wrote about TCKs as a whole. Their observations are probably accurate for MB's; but I try to avoid using TCK research as primary information on any of the subcategories for TCKs---especially military brats. (The reason is that while TCKs share a lot of commonalities, MB's tend to be the one's that are most often the exception to the norms.)Balloonman 17:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh thanks for the clarification. --Richco07 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One other thing I remember is that early writings on brats showed a lot of problems with behavior/sexuality/alcholism/etc---but these sources are heavily criticized because they were written by psychologist/psychiatrist using their clients as the basis for their conclusions. They were not systemic studies, but rather taking the problems of patients and extrapolating them to the whole of the community. These writings are from the 70's and earlier.Balloonman 15:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Too many pictures have the subtitle "military brats are often separated from their parent for long periods of time" I counted 2 or 3, and I think we could be a bit more creative and descriptive. RageGarden 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, the "cute" pictures of toddlers playing with military equipment add nothing to the article. Too many people are using it as their own personal photo-sharing page. 69.250.43.106 02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with RageGarden's concern (I noted this above at #Captions, a note to 69.250.43.106: this is not being used a photo-sharing page. The photos were taken by the U.S. Government, and the children are not recognized by name in this article. If people were trying to get their kids online, they would upload them under a public domain license and name the kids. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are way too many pictures on this page. It's too distracting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.81.92.220 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Removed about 6 pictures...Balloonman 06:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please, remind us: how did this become a Featured Article?

I hate to interrupt this slobbery retard love-fest with some objectivity, but: does anyone else get the impression that this article was inappropriately fast-tracked to featured article status? It's poorly-written and blatantly POV. Just read the rest of this Talk page and you'll understand why. Sure, the Internet is great place for minority groups to congregate and roll around in their own "group identity", but Wikipedia doesn't exist to validate your group's existence or to promote your self-esteem. From the objective Wikipedia viewpoint, this article's subject is no different from furries, diaper fetishists, or crack addicts: an article about any one of those topics could be informative and interesting, but if it were authored primarily by members of the group, especially those who make no bones about their personal bias, then the article would almost certainly not meet Wikipedia's editorial standards. The difference is that, because this article is about "military brats" instead of diaper fetishists, someone felt obligated to use Wikipedia's front page as social welfare. Don't think for a minute that posting self-congratulatary crap on Wikipedia makes it legitimate: intelligent people see it for the pablum that it is. (Oh, and before replying to that, consider that your cited median IQ statistic means nothing when the population is changed from the entire US to Internet users.) I predict the following insipid response: "Sure's, it's POV crap, but if it makes some poor fatherless military brat feel better, then..."---then nothing! Wikipedia isn't FOX News, it isn't your lame Geocities page, and it isn't Photobucket! 69.250.43.106 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how it's blatantly POV; there are plenty of criticisms in the article. Tempshill 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a bit slobbery. Just to put it in perspective, look up the Wikipedia article on Trailer Trash. Trailer trash are as large and socially significant a segment of society as military brats, but the article is only about ten lines long. This article would benefit by being shortened to about a quarter of its current length.Ninquerinquar 03:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is POV, then that should be dealt with. But there's no reason that it needs to be shrunk to a quarter of it's current length. Rather, other articles like Trailer trash should be lengthened. ShadowHalo 03:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does kinda suck. I'll point out some POVs:

• "military brats often have a breadth of experiences unmatched by most teenagers."

And what is wrong with that statement? How many teenagers live in multiple countries? How about multiple states? Most do not, but most military brats do. Most teenagers don't experience moving every few years, having to learn how to adapt and fit in. Witnessing a completely different culture than the one their parents grew up in. It is one of the major points of Henry Watanbe's that brats do get this experience. (Third Culture Kids have, but they are not most teenagers.) Balloonman 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't just assert that, because it's not obvious. Maybe they have more breadth of experience than North American middle-class suburbanite kids, but those are not "most teenagers", in or out of the U.S. --Saforrest 06:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you're obviously biased, I won't do more than point out the homogeneity of military bases around the world and that non-brat teenagers have a lot of experiences (e.g. stable family life, the chance to learn about a part of the world in depth, integration with a normal community, exposure to cultures that don't glorify violence) that brats don't get. You're making a POV value judgment that some experience is "better" than other experience in an attempt to rationalize the lifestyle and improve your self-esteem.69.250.43.106 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there is nothing that says these experiences are better, breadth does not equal depth or quality of experiences.Balloonman 07:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Military brats typically have a love for their country, and have been raised in a culture that emphasizes loyalty, honesty, discipline, and responsibility. Sometimes these values are so strong that they cease to be virtues and become weaknesses.[7] Many struggle to develop and maintain deep lasting relationships, feeling like outsiders to U.S. civilian culture.[8] This subculture cuts across other cultural identities.[2]"

So are these referenced statements POV in favor of brats or derogatory towards them? Military culture does emphasize loyalty, honesty, discipline and responsibility. That's a positive. But the very next sentences is a negative, "Sometimes these values are so strong that they cease to be virtues and become weaknesses." The next sentence is also a criticism, "Many struggle to develop and maintain deep and lasting relationships." Not overly positive... and sharing both the good and the bad.Balloonman 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Humans value loyalty, honesty, discipline and responsibility almost universally. But I guess you can't imagine how these traits develop outside of the barracks. You write like a recruiter (i.e. a romantic, glorified image of the military). I guess the military has no use for training in rhetoric and argument. Sad, really. 69.250.43.106 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem attack there. And yes, most people do value them universally. The article doesn't make a claim that non-military cultures don't value them. But, I should point out, the emphasis on these attributes is a common theme in the research on military brats. Military culture pushes these ideas in a manner that is probably unhealthy. So unless you can cite sources saying that military culture doesn't emphasize these ideals, then we have to go with what the research indicates.Balloonman 07:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• "While some may not like the origins of the term, brats take pride in it.[2]"

Again where is the POV there? It is a cited statement, and I challenge you to find any research or authoritative figure that states that Brats don't take pride in the term. Just do a quick websearch on the term. Military brats do take pride in being called a brats! Fact, not POV.Balloonman 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that, except it needs to be qualified with "many" or "some". Before making universal statements, learn about burden of proof, "sir". I guess that your "breadth of experience" doesn't include, among other things, one of the the bases of American law. Another legal term, "reasonable doubt", leads me to believe that some brats would rather develop their own identity. (But, of course, that involves more work than slavishly substituting for a real personality a stereotype derived from a side-effect of their parent's occupation.) Oh, and "do a quick web search?" Yeah, we all know how reliable blogs are. 69.250.43.106 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

...

And the ad hominem attacks continue. I am not referencing you to blogs. Read the citations and the article. The article provides senators, researchers, congressmen, generals, etc who agree that the term is accepted by the community. I challenge you to find any reliable source that says that brats do not take pride in the term. If you can find ONE RELIABLE SOURCE then I will agree with you. I tried to find ONE, but couldn't.Balloonman 07:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• "This is because the knowledge, experience, values, ideas, attitudes, skills, tastes, and techniques that are associated with the military differ from civilian culture.[25]"

Again, a referenced statement... that is so obviously true I don't know what your criticism is. Military culture is different from civilian culture.Balloonman 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obvious to the point of being unnecessary, and certainly not evidence for any of the prior claims. At this point, you're only making a fool of yourself. 69.250.43.106 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks...Balloonman 07:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• "The comfort found on military bases is not limited to the physical trappings, but is fortified via the consistent rituals common to them. When moving around the world, these rituals help brats to feel at home in their new community. Even though the faces and geography change, the "base" remains recognizable because the rituals are uniform. The underlying principle of these rituals is consistent: to promote patriotism.[28]

Again, a referenced statement based upon a study performed on military brats.Balloonman 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And, again a single sourced statement doesn't make up for the rest of the garbage in the article. (In fact, it contradicts some of the garbage, but we'll leave such rational discussion for the time when this article gets some real editors.) 69.250.43.106 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Life on military bases instills patriotism within the brat.[29] For example, honoring the American Flag is expected. At 1700 hours the bugle call "Retreat" is played while the flag is lowered.[30] Anybody outside, even if participating in sports or driving a car, is expected to stop their activity and stand at attention.[31] Uniformed personnel salute and non-uniformed people place their hand over their heart."

3 citations... but even if it wasn't, then you would only have to visit a military base to know that it is expected.

You don't understand that following a value-judgment with a statement of factual observation doesn't "prove" anything about the former. Given that ignorance, I can see why you're so confused about this article's criticism. Oh, and what, now you're going to claim that we "don't get it" because we aren't on military bases? Yeah, I'm sure that goes over real well at the base's pep rally. The rest of the world just doesn't understand how great brats are! Is that what their parents tell them so that they (the parents) don't feel guilty? Fine---if it helps the parents do their jobs without being distracted, I'm all for it. (EDIT: I had an insensitive comment about Pat Tillman here, but I'm removing it to appease Saforrest. Sorry, Saforrest.) The child's deluded self-glorification derived from this clever parental rationalization strategy is making for some really easy flaming, so thanks for that. However, it oughtn't to be the basis of a Wikipedia Featured Article. I'm happy to continue the butchery, but let's do it on USENET or IRC instead of here: this article has done enough damage to Wikipedia's credibility for one day. 69.250.43.106 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks, how do I report this user for lack of civility? Of course, it might be more meaningful if s/he wasn't hiding behind an anonymous label. EDIT: I should note that this user domain has already been cited twice for vandalism and once for incivility before this discussion.Balloonman 07:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't call something an ad hominem attack and then attack me by claiming that my posting without being logged-in somehow implies that I'm "hiding". Surely, having a Wikipedia account implies nothing about the accuracy of a user's commentary, as I'm sure we've all noticed by now. On the one hand, I understand that my dynamic IP address can sometimes make conversation confusing, and I take trouble to point out the IP address change if it happens mid-conversation. However, generally not being logged-in is no problem: many editors live rewarding offline lives, thus have little time to spend on Wikipedia, thus are happier to spend that time editing and discussing articles instead of designing their fancy user pages. If you'll dare to impugn anonymous users for their anonymity, then you might find your own motives questioned. But really, these tiffs are just a part of the experience! Don't take it personally. They can be fun. In any case, everyone's quarrel is really with how the article got on the front page. 69.250.43.106 07:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's called a dynamic IP address. Lots of ISPs use them. If you want to make nasty comments on my "user talk" page, go ahead. It'll but confuse the next person who gets the IP. That could be a little while, though, so I'll look forward to your 621 complaints. Or, grow a thicker skin, realize that it's just a website, and enjoy your day. 69.250.43.106 07:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't go any further. Even if that crap is sourced, it still represents POV, which is prohibited on wikipedia. Also, the article is just full of fluff and gives very little valuable information. I think this article should have an FA Review. Jolb 04:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand the WP:NPOV policy. Nil Einne 07:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is, by far, the worst feature article I have ever read. And to top it off, military brat in general redirects to military brat (U.S. subculture). --JianLi 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

that's a change somebody made yesterday, that I don't support. I reverted it back, because I don't agree with it.Balloonman 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As a military brat, as someone who spent some amount of time in the US military, and as a Wiki-editor with more than a little knowledge of developing NPOV articles, I have to agree. Who thought that this article was A) encyclopedic, B) well-written, C) NPOV, and D) deserving of FA status. This article not only is not deserving of FA status, but needs a few tags thrown on it. I can count WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY as three. I can't even believe I've spent a good 10 minutes reading this cruft. Orangemarlin 05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for WP:FAR. See the top of the talk page. --JianLi 05:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted your nomination.

It's supposed to go to FARC not FAR. Featured Article Removal Candidate(to remove FA status) not Featured Article Review (to grant FA status). 128.227.188.112 08:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• It was deleted because it was a bad faith nomination. In the future, captain flash, you may want to read the suggested criteria before filing you FAR paper work; otherwise, people tend to look down on the nom. In four days time you can refile your FAR request and the let the fur fly, but for now how about leaving the page in peace. Better yet, why don't you take the time to familiarize yourself with the guidelines for FAR so that when you do refile (and I have no doubt you will refile) you dot all your "i"s and cross all your "t"s, instead of leaving that job for other users. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that this comment has generated a lot of animated discussion! I just wanted to say: you're welcome. 69.250.43.106 08:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that I was what you term a "military brat", but an English one. Frankly, I can't even imagine a page like this exisiting on Wikipedia describing children whose parents serve in the British army. This page is obviously nationalistic, but I don't know whether that is POV, or just America's (and Americans) inclination to Nationalism? ---Adasta- 10:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the FAC process, but it looks like a bot decided to promote this article??? [1] I don't see any kind of consensus there. --BigDT 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Look-- I grew up as a military brat and my experience was hugely different from the American mainstream--

1) I moved constantly as a child, until I was 10 (with the exception of one longer stay in Germany) I lived a completely nomadic life-- I lived in foreign cultures for the majority of my childhood and returned to the USA feeling like a foreigner in my own country-- even though I was born American-- did you experience that as a child? 2) I had my father in a War-- did you experience that as a child? 3) I personally knew a number of children of war casualities during that war (wounded, killed, MIA and POW)...

(**Because Air Force casualty familes in the Vietnam era tended to build up at certain bases--

Since Air Force casualties are mostly behind enemy lines and therefore mostly unresolveable until a war is over). Did you have that experience as a child?

4) Military culture saturated my family life and was inescapable -- did you exeperience that as a child? 5) I lived on, and near military bases in a culture that was very different than mainstream American culture in a way that was distinctly and strongly military-- did you experience that as a child? 6) My father had post-traumatic stress after he returned from Vietnam and I had to grow up with that in my house-- did you experience that as a child?

We are an identifiable subculture with our own identifiable pattern of experiences-- different from that of the American mainstream.

SO STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST US BY TRYING TO KILL OR BURY THIS ARTICLE.

P.S. This post is not directed towards fellow brats or civilians offering constructive criticism, but rather is for those who have posted here deriding the very idea of a military brat wiki page-- and those who have called for removing it's award status and / or even eliminating this article.

Sean7phil 05:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Well I've had my share of dispensing criticisms, but I find it offensive to group a wide variety of people and say that they "find it difficult to establish long relationships" or whatever it said. By teh way, it doesn't matter if your a military brat to be well educated - I knew two military brats in my spanish class in college - one was quite intelligent and had great manners, the other needed some military discipline. This article needs a serious look over, people. By the way, is this the first time it got featured?Tourskin 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you click on the article milestones at the top of this page, you'll find all the answers to your questions. It apparently got peer reviewed (really?). I'm appalled at this article. It falls below some of the worst crap I've read in Wikipedia. I'm actually kind of shocked. Orangemarlin 05:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason why we have a hard time establishing long lasting relationships, is because by the time we get to that level, its time to move. We move about every 3-6 years. I have known only 1 family to have gone 16 years without moving. We are good at making pals though, thats for sure.--Richco07 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Americentric

"Base Brat" is widely used in Canada. Funny how the entire article is written from an American POV and every section takes for granted it is about the US only. Can we not change that?68.146.200.201 03:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the title of this article. Raul654 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem, 8.146.200.201, I believe, is that there is no article for the Canadian subculture. I do not know much about it though. But be bold and take a go at it yourself at Base brat (Canadian subculture). Cheers. ~ UBeR 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There must be a broad range of common experience here; many of the paragraphs in this article could be lifted wholesale and applied to the Canadian military brats I've known. I'm sure there are significant differences, but it seems silly to have all this information specialized to one country when it is not necessary to do so. --Saforrest 06:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you could find research on other country's brats, I'd be more than happy to include it. I tried, instead all I found were 3 researchers who stated that non-US research on the subject is non-existant. One of whom is a British writer.Balloonman 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this some more... and the problem with your proposal is that it would, IMHO, be delving into original research. We as editors would be making judgment calls about what we believe are commonalities between military brats of different nations. While I (now) consider myself fairly well read on the subject, I do not feel any where close to being qualified to determine what are the common experiences between US brats and every single other nations brats. Will US brats have more in common with Canadian/English brats? Probably. But what about brats from communist countries? Dictatorships? Country's with mandatory military service? etc. Without something solid, it becomes impossible to do as you suggest without introducing OR at that point.Balloonman 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Canada/England and the rest of the world hasn't endeavored to research the effects of growing up in their military's. The role of the Canadian military (and every other military) is different from the that of the US (and from each other.) In some country's the role of the military is a police force, others a defensive force, others an offensive force. Some countries the military personel may never see combat, others it is a way of life. Some you move around, others you don't. Some you live on a military base, others you don't. There are too many different national differences to write one all encompassing article on the effects of growing up in the military---and as of right now, there simply isn't the research on non-US brats. I've been told that in England, the military family may stay in one place while the serviceman moves around. These differences can cause significant differences in the effects of growing up in their repsective military's. Research into military brats is an American endeavor as cited in the article.Balloonman 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. I moved every time my father was posted. ---Adasta- 10:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referencing the part about English military being more stable? That's why I didn't include in the article. It's something I've been told, but didn't verify. The point, however, still remains. The experiences between the different cultures would make a single all encompassing article virtually impossible.Balloonman 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But surely the differences within the U.S. can be as large or larger than some of the differences between U.S. military brats and those of other nations, no? I would hazard to guess that a Cold-War era U.S. Army kid growing up on a U.S. military base in Germany has more in common with a Cold-War era Canadian Army kid growing up on a Canadian military base in Germany than either do with the child of a reservist in Iowa suddenly called out of civilian life to go join the Navy. But it is the first and the third who are described in this article, not the second; the scope of the article seems artificially restricted to me. --Saforrest 06:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points: 1) The article does talk about "Suddenly Military" families and how they do not understand/identify with the culture. 2) As for the Canadian brat living in Germany, yes they will have a lot in common with the US brat living in Germany. See Third Culture Kids (an article needing a lot of work.) 3) There isn't research on Canadian Brats (see above) to write a comprehensive non OR article on the subject.Balloonman 06:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then don't make it comprehensive; leave it stubby, let the American sections vastly outweigh the other ones if need be. I guess my point is that I don't think the availability of research should drive the article scope. --Saforrest 07:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If no research has been done in other countries then why does the article use sources from other countries. 87.194.96.149 13:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The only non-US source is an article written by a researcher who speculated on what differences English Brats might have by comparing the British military to written US research. The author laments, and laments would be the right word, that there is "no significant research" outside of the US.Balloonman 14:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The original approach was to try to make it more global (see the first FAC/military history peer review) and that idea was shot down. The consensus was that the US section would so outweigh the others that we would be better off making an article that was explicitly US focused--where a fair amount of research has been done.Balloonman 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation

Although this seems to be an article primarily on American subculture, the punctuation throughout the article appears to be predominately British English. (Overall, though, it seems to be inconsistent, which is a huge eye sore and a big no-no per the MoS, which doesn't reflect well on the FA.) I suggest using American punctuation for an American article. I'm willing to do this if people are fine with that. ~ UBeR 03:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As the principle author, I'd love your help in this regard.Balloonman 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets get to work then. :-) ~ UBeR 05:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I got all of it. Guess it wasn't a big problem. Thanks. ~ UBeR 05:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The "" thing is something I would never have looked at...didn't realize there was a difference.Balloonman 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that there is: I think having punctuation before closing quotes is just considered to be "good style" in both British and American English. It's never made sense to me: as a good computer geek, I like my enclosing scopes properly nested, thankyouverymuch. --Saforrest 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I changed all of the punctuation to American style versus British style a LONG time ago, and was then informed that American style didn't jive with Wikipedia style and thus my edits were reverted. So just because it's correct doesn't mean some yahoo won't come back and change it because it isn't what Wikipedia specified. --ScreaminEagle 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] really

this is really an article??? really??!?!?!? i've found this whole thing to be a crock of shit. seriously. i've lived my entire life on military bases and i cant relate to anything in this article at all...except about moving around alot, and thats a thing of the past. wow...how dumb

oh heres another inaccuracy. most military bases dont seperate housign by ranks anymore, except of course for the top like 6 officers... but mostly its by family size. and i dont know what theyre talking about with segregation and why theres so much crap in here about rank seperation. kids dont know anything about rank nor do they care that their friends daddy is a base commander, dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robkehr (talk • contribs) 21:00, April 29, 2007

I'm one who always appreciates well-written, accurate, and perceptive commentary. Yours is not. Orangemarlin 05:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm one who appreciates well-written, accurate, and perceptive articles. This is not. Way to keep your comments on topic and not derogatory towards other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robkehr (talk • contribs) 21:13, April 29, 2007

First, sign your name. It's one of the basic forms of etiquette on Wikipedia. Second, I agree this is a garbage article, but read above, some people actually laid out some reasoning for it. Third, as an officer and a son of a high-ranking officer, you are patently wrong. Lastly, my comment was hardly derogatory. More pointed at the quality of your comments. Orangemarlin 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ~ UBeR 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

i figured someone was going to sign my name, thats why they have bots. and its not like my opinions really going to matter on the subject anyway, theres always someone else out there whos writing an article about something theyve never experienced, but can be backed up by some regulation on wikipedia. and i must disagree with you, military life differs from service to service. my father was in the air force. he was never gone, i've lived on only 3 military bases, as did most of my friends. in fact the AF just made it mandatory that officers do a minimum of 4 years on station for every tour. minimum of 4 years, homesteading is not uncommon, which was already happening anyway, now its just on paper. my experience being a child brought up in an AF household was probably different than that of a child brought up in an Army household. my father was gone 4 months at a time, while an army soldier, 15 months, so i had no relationship "issues" with my father. i had the same friends from 4th grade to 12th grade. how many civilians can say that?robkehr

The military is changing and the long term effects of those changes aren't yet known. You have one set of experiences, but your experience of having the same friends from 4th through 12th grade is atypical. Most brats don't have that continuality---the research into brats shows that the average brat lives in 8 places and spends 7 years in foreign country's. Now changes are being made, and that will definately impact the lives of brats in the future... but current research indicates that your experience isn't the norm.Balloonman 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

perhaps the difference from branch of service to branch of service should be addressed then. i assume most of this article is based on the lives of army and navy children. homesteading on stateside air force bases has been common practice for many many years. AF personnel are even authorized to stay up to 9 years on an overseas assignment before having to return stateside. robkehr

Haven't seen any research on the subject at that level of detail. :( Balloonman 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politeness, please

I'm seeing some seriously negative opinions about the article here. Please, whatever your opinion, let's understand that 1) the article has a ton of useful information, and 2) a lot of time and effort by the article authors has gone into writing this article and getting it through FA. Let's respect that. --Saforrest 06:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should we respect something that's doing a disservice to Wikipedia? Don't be like uber-biased Balloonman---by the way, if you're wondering why he can't understand the criticism, look through the article's edit history: Balloonman has made 621 of the last 1000 edits! Anyway, I bear no ill will towards Balloonman; there are plenty of garbage articles, and plenty of authors who know nothing of composition, rhetoric, or communication. In fact, it's amusing to have them around sometimes. Instead, I question the admins who pushed this thing to the front page. (If I can spare an hour later this week then, as entertainment, I plan to review the article's full FA history, from nomination through today. I'd bet you a cup of coffee that two groups are to blame: first, a handful of biased authors; second, some bleeding-heart admins who decided to do the Wikipedia equivalent of putting their toddlers' wonderful crayon drawings up on the fridge. Or, maybe some devious admin has decided that the quickest way to clean up poor articles is to put them on the front page where everyone will see them.) 69.250.43.106 07:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, there are things about this article I'd like to see changed. Call it like you see it: crap all over it if you want. Just maintain some level of decency. Drive-by smears like "crock of shit" serve no useful purpose at all. (Nor, for that matter, do flippant remarks about Pat Tillman's death.) --Saforrest 07:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, and I would suggest that the profane comment to which you refer be redacted by its author. However, I would but suggest that, when people make negative comments, and someone tries vainly to suggest that none of the complaints are valid, and it turns out that this someone is responsible for more than 50% of the article's edits, then perhaps it makes sense for this someone to realize his bias and recuse himself from further discussion, at least until other editors have had a chance to work things over. If this person decides otherwise, and perhaps acts as if he the article were his baby and he were responsible for protecting its original form, then somewhat stronger suggestions are in order. I, for one, have reached my limit of amusement and will comment no more. Enjoy the flaming! 69.250.43.106 08:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you are the one who is doing the ad hominem attacks... anyways, yes I have made over 50% of the edits. But I'm also the one who has done the research. In working on this article, I read every book, most published articles, scores of credible websites on the subject. Heck, I even looked at over 100 Blogs/non-credible websites to find a military brat who objected to the term. I have no problem with other's editing/adding to the article and encourage them to do so. The only criteria that I use is that it has to be verifiable and not OR. So, if you (or anybody else) wants to do some research on the subject and contribute, I'd welcome the input.Balloonman 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll remove the comment about Pat Tillman. That was, indeed, unwarranted. 69.250.43.106 08:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that balloonman has constructively responded to many of the criticisms directed at this article. It doesn't help that many people are attacking the editors rather then constructively criticising the article. Asking balloonman to recurse himself is frankly silly since he is one of the ones who as you pointed out has worked the most on it so we can presume he understand it better then many. Many of the criticisms I have seen are the form of "I don't like it" or "This article doesn't agree with my experiences" which is a rather poor argument when something is references Nil Einne 11:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

With most wiki articles (most articles period) there has to be a writer who is a driving force, someone who does the lionshare of the work. Acting like that is a 'problem' is disengenuous. This article is outstanding-- and the recent flack does not surprise me. When it comes to discussing military culture, expect flack.

Traditionally, military brats are always caught in the middle-- between cultures and between nations-- between war and peace-- between 'Left' and 'Right' political debates-- and between veteran and civilian status. So it is not only fitting but normal and par for the course for a military brat article to come under fire-- this is the story, the very fabric of our lives.

I think it is a compliment to Balloonman that he has drawn some fire. That is a sign that this article touches deep feelings, that it is touching on the subjects at the heart of the brat experience. And how fitting that an article about military brats should be born under fire-- a baptism that honors both the writer and the subject.

Sean7phil 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

128.138.230.140 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith on the part of those commenting on the article. They do not have ulterior motives, and they are not driven by an anti-militaristic agenda. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is true for some but not for others. I have seen legitimate differences among brats here, and I have also seen anti-military hatred-- for instance-- if you look higher in this section, you will see that someone has compared this article about brats to articles about "crack addicts" (equating the two).

Also-- there is a post in that vicinity equating the military brat experience with outcomes like "Abu Graib".

So-- yes, I have faith that some of the debate here is sincere-- but if you look around you will also see that some of it is spawned by anti-military hatred.

Sean7phil 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I thought we had a policy banning the use of images of real people for stereotypes. Surely this would apply to this article? User 56 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try reading some first. The article is not about the stereotype per se --Belg4mit 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA of the day!

Yaaayy!!!....Wait a minute, I hate this article, how is it an FA?--Occono 08:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to all who worked on it. Completely unexpected turnaround. - SpLoT // 09:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

FA's are our best articles. They are not chosen based on whether people like them or hate them but instead they have to meet a high quality standard. Nil Einne 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't believe it's an FA either. I found it overly long, just for starters. It seemed to me to be like a first draft of an essay, and could seriously do with some summarisation.Snorgle 11:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly seems long for an FA to me. It's obviously a complex subject with a fair amount of research Nil Einne 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I read this article and suddenly thought, "Did I click over to CONSERVAPEDIA by mistake?" As far as I can see there's almost NO information about "military brats" of other countrys. Certainly other countries have soldiers and those soldier must have children - right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.213.57.50 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

See discussion above in article title section. The reason this focuses on US Brats is because US brats are the only one's to have been studied. (And this isn't me making that statement. Grace Clifton a British writer laments that there is no significant literature on non-US brats. Morton Ender, the main researcher in the field, wishes that other countries did research so that comparisons between US and non-US brats could be made. Ann Cotrell, one of the authories on third culture kids, notes that research on Military Brat TCK is almost exclusively US. Having seen the criticism before, it is an issue that I specifically looked for but instead found 3 sources that say the literature isn't there. I should note that this is explained in the article as well.Balloonman 15:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As above, this article focuses on the USA only. As such I really don't think it should of become an FA or been put on the main page. 87.194.96.149 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles are routinely put on the main page that deal with only one nationality. That would be like saying the "DIME" shouldn't have been on the front page because it is American currency. Or that US Marines shouldn't be there because it doesn't discuss other country's marines. This article doesn't purport to be a comprehensive article on ALL MILITARY BRATS around the country, it simply is reporting the research that has been done on US Brats.Balloonman 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

I've got to ask who wrote the racism section because I've got some serious issues with it. The military is in no way an anti-racist environment. Any society in which there are signifigant racial boundaries as exist in the military community has racism. I know it's there, It was one of the few constants in my life as an army brat during the 80s and 90s. The problem is that as with many communities dominated by White intellectuals who as a majority are not racist, the prefered method of dealing with racism it is to pretend it doesn't exist. I will endavor to find references to document this but certainly this section could be reworded to speak in fewer absolutes. CJ 12:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Significant racial boundaries?" What does that mean? What you meant to say was, "There's white people, and there's black people, so you know there HAS to be racism!", right? I'm an AF brat. Every ethnic type, every skin color, every religious identification lived in my neighborhoods, worked with my parents and went to school with me. Not only did I not experience "racism," the idea of race was not taught to me at home, at school or when I was mucking around with the neighbor kids. If it was to you, the only people to blame are your parents, not the military community.

Signifigant racial boundaries means that most of the officers are White, most of the enlisted are minorities, most of the teachers in DoD schools are White, most of the Whites attend Protestant, Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, etc services while most of the Blacks attend Gospel services, etc. It's really great for you that you neither experienced nor were taught racism. But, that doesn't mean it does not exist. I for one experienced it on several occasions as an Army Brat. Mostly from other kids who despite what I'll assume were their parent's best intentions had a penchant for racist jokes and exclusionary tactics. But, also from adults who despite what I'll assume to be the army's best intentions persisted in racial biases that they grew up with. The truth is that the military community is a cross section of the American community. Not everyone is a saint. I'm not trying to say that the military is full of racists, just that broad sweeping generalizations like that are grossly innacurate.CJ 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral pro-US

Why does this sound very pro-United States? Since when is this a pro-American website, eh? Porkshireman 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any specific complaints or is this just a random unsupported attack? I see pro-American and anti-American things in this article; some parts (breadth of experience of military brats) are good, while others (authoritarian and patriarchal families) are bad. --Delirium 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review under way to de-certify propoganda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Military_brat_%28U.S._subculture%29

Thanks! Article text is abhorrent, sadly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Porkshireman (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

The featured article review has been removed from WP:FAR; please read the instructions, and do not nominate it again until the time from main page has been fulfilled. Thank you. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military brat (U.S. subculture). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article???

Honestly, what has happened to the selection procedure? I only got as far as the third sentence to come up against 'non-coms': no explanation offered of what this means, no link. It's clearly a jargon term (for non-commissioned ie civilians?) commonly used by the military. But hang on guys, this is supposed to be encyclopedic, understandable by all, not written by military brats for military brats. Very poor. 86.138.42.55 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of neutrality

There is clearly a sizable dispute over the neutrality of this article. Neutrality does not mean "there is some critical content". Neutrality means that the article, as a whole, does not favor one point of view over another. This article is so clearly not neutral that it could almost be used as the poster child for how not to write a neutral article. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You again have not provided any reasons at all why this is non-neutral, and the extensive feature-article process disagrees with you. Do you have any new complaints? --Delirium 13:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the tone of the article is not neutral. The language overall sounds positive or friendly towards American regime interests and thus is inappropriate for a globabl encyclopedia. Porkshireman 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't just assert it does and expect to be believed; you'll have to provide more of an argument than that. --Saforrest 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Expanding on some of the comments made on the FAR. There is long-standing consensus — and instructions — at WP:FAR that articles are *not* listed at FAR until several days after their main page date. This affords editors several days to work out issues with the article before bringing it to review: FAR is not dispute resolution. Further AFAIK, an article has never been pulled from the main page, nor had its star removed while on the main page. So, please, heed the instructions, settle in to work on the issues, give it a few days, and if issues are not resolved, then bring it to FAR — recognizing that FAR is at least a month-long process, and the article won't be losing its star anytime soon. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that IAR is policy, is it not? Porkshireman 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So is Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. As a new account, all of whose edits have been on a single topic attempting to disrupt Wikipedia, and probable sockpuppet, you're walking on thin ice. --Delirium 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, if the concern is that a POV article is on the main page; 1) it's not the first time and won't be the last time that has happened, and 2) FAR won't remove it from the main page, so FAR is not the venue for resolving this issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Watch out, Porkshireman, or else the Wikipedia thought police will get you. When they call you a "sockpuppet", it may too late--"sock puppet" is to Wikipedia as "Illegal combatant" is to the US government. That is, if you ask them to show evidence, the ban will only get worse. :-) Indeed, one man's vigorous discussion is another's "disruption" and there's nothing you can do about it. Of course, on some Wikis, some of the best policy-related discussions arise from discussion of specific examples, and the admins realize that this tendency can sometimes lead to an article's Talk page getting cluttered during times when the article is a subject of wide focus, but... 69.250.43.106 07:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Delirium, the entire tone of this article is non-neutral. I cannot point to two words and say "These words make this article non-neutral". Rather, the article's entire tone is to paint a terribly rosy and laudatory picture of being a dependent of a member of the United States Military. That tone is why the article is non-neutral. If you can't see it, then I'm sorry. The article also presents stereotype as fact on a regular basis. It should be telling that a number of former military dependents are arguing against the accuracy of the article. Frankly, this article is a severe indictment of the FA process; for such a terribly badly biased article to make it through the FA process, and even more so to land on the main page, is abhorrent. Your persistent insistence on removing the neutrality tag when legitimate complaints about the neutrality of the article persist is also abhorrent. You are not benefiting Wikipedia by presenting this swill as one of Wikipedia's best articles. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• A further note, just so you're aware: The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007. Consensus at FAR typically allows for a 3-month lag between promotion and FAR listing, which provides editors time to work out any issues. The remaining two weeks can "bend" if there is consensus. Attempting to work on the issues is suggested, as FAR tries to avoid become part of dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps judgment of what is an FA should be used more judiciously so that we won't have remove it in three months time. ~ UBeR 16:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised this article hasn't been improved by oversight. I don't think it blatantly violates neutrality -- it's not exactly out there selling the military brat lifestyle. Rather, it really seems to exhibit unbecoming defensiveness -- "being a military brat isn't as bad as you think -- no, really, don't go, I'll tell you why". It's unfortunate that this tone comes through because it really doesn't need to be there. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I find it strange that Kelly Martin claims to be reading this article, because I simply don't see that (and I have no particular love for the military myself). In fact some of the sentences she removed (since reverted) supposedly as the "most egregious" offenders were downright negative towards "military brats", such as a claim that they tend to be more authoritarian and patriarchal. How is that a whitewash? --Delirium 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone deleted the FARC?

Why is someone repeatedly deleting the Featured Article Review? Whoever's doing it is breaking wikipedia rules and should be reprimanded. Jolb 14:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, it was removed because you can't have an FAR for today's featured article. Is there any way of removing this as today's featured article to get the FAR underway? Jolb 15:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The review subpage is still there at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military brat (U.S. subculture) (although the links have been removed here and at WP:FAR). But featured article review cannot do what you want it to do - it is not designed to get featured article status removed quickly, or remove "today's featured article" from the Main Page.

This page will only be on the Main Page for another 8 hours anyway, but you might like to talk to User:Raul654, the featured article director... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military Brats (Other Countries)

The article is excellent and very informative on the US situation. However, I am surprised by the assertion that brats are primarily US brats.

http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/Canada/Government/Military/Families_and_Lifestyle/

The above web site features 12 links for Canadian military brats.

I think the phenomenon of military brats is common to most militaries of large countries and/or countries with active service overseas. In Canada, typically a military brat can move across the country many times between kindergarten and grade 12. During the Cold War Canada had a base in Germany at Lahr, and it functioned fairly similarly to US bases in that country. One of the web links found in the reference above refers to Lahr brats.

Perhaps the author of the article might wish to note that the while the size of military brat population is probably largest in the USA, other countries also have brat populations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.197.178.2 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I was also taken aback by this article, which asserts that military brats are only American. This is, of course, not true. I am a Canadian air force brat, and I was called this throughout my life. I suggest that the article be changed to be more inclusive of other countries. Don't forget that since this is Wikipedia, there is no "author" to this article; anyone can change/edit it.--BC 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Common folks, this very issue has been addressed at least a dozen times on this very page. Please read other similar (or exact) questions and their responses before requesting the exact same explanation or complaint. --ScreaminEagle 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you're right; I should have read it all.--BC 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article makes no claim that military brats are only American. The first sentence in the second paragraph reads, "Although the term "military brat" is used in other English-speaking countries, only the United States has studied its military brats as an identifiable demographic." The article has a US focus not to be exclusivist, but rather because that is where the research has been done. Notice that for the US section we didn't cite things from Militarybrats.com, military brat online communities, or other networking brat websites. Believe it or not, I did look at those websites while doing my research. Unfortunately, for the most part, they aren't authoritative. Most of them don't address Canadian Brats and the one's that do are "communities" or "Lists" or other social networking cites. Despite the allegations here, I tried to use only credible published sources and documented the hell out of the article to avoid these allegations.Balloonman 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universal claims

One objection I have to the article is that is really seems to paint all or most brats with the same brush, in both a positive and negative light.

• Life on military bases instills patriotism within the brat.

I could accept "within many brats", but using "the brat" here means "all brats". Even if it's sourced, I don't believe a universal claim about the beliefs of a broad group of people.

There is also the question of whether the ambiguous word "patriotism' is the best way to characterize the beliefs instilled. Antiwar protesters believe they are patriots as well.

• The military family knows that the service person may be killed in the line of duty, but accept that risk because they are taught that the military mission is worth dying for. The mission is one in which the brat shares by extension through his military parent.

"accept that risk": how do we know that all their families accept that risk? This is another universal claim about a group of people that seems unwarranted. Certainly in the Iraq conflict we've heard of family members who nurtured private doubts about the mission: what would it mean to "reject" the risk? Abandoning the service person? Going public with your doubts?

• While separation produces stress, it strengthens the military brat.

I could accept "it fosters self-reliance in the military brat". "Strengthens" is too much of a value judgment, and ill-defined. In the sense of self-reliance I was certainly "strengthened" by my parents' divorce, but other senses I was weakened by it.

--Saforrest 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

When dealing with a culture/population, there are attributes that are common within that population. Not every brat will share all (or any) of those attributes. But when the researchers start to see common themes over and over again, they start to document said themes. Do I personally agree with everything in this article? No. Not at all, but it is a representation of what the research/experts say. Also, I should mention that herein is where one of the challenges arise. If you use many/most all the time, then the article looses all value because it's always "most/many." One of the redactions of the article was criticized for doing just that.Balloonman 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The conclusions are all actually original research. The conditions on military bases are well documented. The psycholo gical generalisations of brats have been researched (although this article relies far to heavily on the work by only a few authors in the field). However studies have not been done to link specific aspects of the conditions to specific aspects of the psychology. All statements that try to link a particular aspect of the military to the brat trait (eg, separation fosters self-reliance) are original research without firm psychological basis. Sad mouse 17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The allegation of OR implies that it is OR on the part of the editor(s) of the article. The statement about separation fosters self-reliance is seen over and over again in the literature on the subject. The citation for that statement is from the Deployment Center at Military.com. I saw it elsewhere in the research that I did, but this was the most succinct location making the connection.Balloonman 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement (and that was merely one example out of many in the article) was not referenced. I doubt military.com is a critical source when it comes to selling the positive aspects of the culture, however if you were to insist on it the article should be written to reflect the source, eg "according to the military, the separation from parents that is common among military brats results in self-reliance skills", and so on for all the other examples. Sad mouse 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the artcile is describing overall patterns and I do not see any place where it says this is absolutely how it is for each and every brat.

Maybe a line reinforcing this might help-- but I think it is already implied that of course there are variations at an individual level.

Sean7phil 01:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, to my view any unqualified statement about a military brat is a statement about all military brats, and I provided several examples. If you don't want to read them that way, you're free not to, but I think my reading is a natural one and several others on this page seem to agree. --Saforrest 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A simple disclaimer (similar to ones used by Werscht and Musil in their respective book and documentary) about "these descriptions are not absolutes but rather sketch general patterns on a continuum along which various individual military brats may fall" would settle much of this issue--

The wording could be different, but that kind of flexible qualifier would settle a lot of that concern. That would allow for describing overall patterns without being absolute in their description. (Although I don't think the intention of the article was ever absolute-- but making the language a bit more flexible would remove any doubt about the true intent of the article).

Another slight clarification might be to distinguish between the culture we were raised in (very patriotic) from military brat beliefs about patrotism (unless the data says that most MB's are patriotic-- in which case it should not be changed)-- but you could still leave some flexibility by talking about "overall patterns with individual variation".

Sean7phil 03:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences Among the Services

Kruseje 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Kruseje I have never heard of the term "brat," used in the Navy or Marine Corps. I thnk it is an Army/Air Force moniker. I have, however, heard the term Marine Corps or Navy "juniors."

My husband defines himself as a Navy brat and our child is described as one, too. I think it depends on who you're talking to. --ScreaminEagle 18:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The admiral that I cite from the US PACCOM discusses BRATs, but indicates that the Navy tends to use the term Junior more. I've not heard it for Marines, but it wouldn't surprise me as they share a lot with the Navy.Balloonman 18:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just Google "marine brat" and "USMC" together, and you'll find blogs by people calling themselves Marine brats, web sites describing themselves as intended for Marine brats, YouTube videos by self-identified Marine brats, and companies selling clothing and articles emblazoned with "Marine brat." Same holds for "navy brat" and "USN" together. Another approach: search for "I [am/was] a [Marine/Navy] brat." Not to say these are the most common, but they're certainly out there in droves. — OtherDave 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think there are some Navy differences that haven't surfaced in the literature yet. One is that Navy "Juniors" or "brats" (I have heard Navy kids use the brat term)-- tend to endure much more father seperation-- when Dad goes to Sea for 6 months at a time. I have also heard some Navy brats say that they were less mobile-- but I have also met very mobile Navy brats.

Sean7phil 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unscholarly tone/improper citations

WOW! Quite a heated debate barking back and forth here...I'm hesitant to get involved. Although I don't agree that this article is a total piece of crap, I simply can't entertain that it's completely unbiased and non-POV just because it makes a bunch of citations. It definitely needs a lot of work, particularly in tone and style. The thing reads like a personal account of brat life, not the objective third-party description of military brat culture that it should be.

For instance, the sentence "Life on military bases instills patriotism within the brat." is stated as if it were an accepted fact and not simply a previously-made statement by Samuel Britten. In fact, you misquote him. The reference (http://www.tckworld.com/comparisons.html) is a chart that indicates (among other things) that Third-Culture Kids raised in the military exhibit a comparatively high level of patriotism/nationalism. The chart also states that such sentiments can often drop upon reentry from such a setting. The author even makes the disclaimer: "This chart is based on personal experience, anecdotal material, and discussions with many other TCKs. It is not the direct result of any single empirical study, but is only intended as a discussion guide...," a disclaimer this article fails to make anywhere. It would be far more scholarly to not only indicate who's making this statement and THEN make your own commentary. F.ex.: "On a site for Third-Culture Kids, Samuel Britten claims that those raised in the military have comparatively greater patriotic sentiments[28]. These sentiments are instilled by military life..." This way no one's mixing their own statements with Britten's.

This got a lot longer than I expected it to be, and I apologize if I sound too critical; I realize this topic is the source of a --great deal of emotional pride among many people. This article is far from a lost cause, and with work it can be brought to an encyclopedia-worthy level. 149.125.206.169 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find another citation for that. I liked the chart, but didn't see the disclaimer. But it is a common theme in the literature.Balloonman 18:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, in reviewing "research," that the plural of anecdote is not data. This talk page delivers many examples pointing out how one sentence from one reference balloons (so to speak) into a universal truth; that looks like the origin of half the criticism on this page. Misleading statements about separate seating for officers at base chapels (possibly true in the past, but in context implying this is still the case) and erroneous ones like auto traffic stopping when retreat is played (untrue, as I know from working at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia) detract from the article as much as does its overall tone ("press release"). — OtherDave 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While I have my own issues with this article I must disagree with you the retreat protocol. I work in a joint environment and everyone from every branch of service says that at every installation they have ever been at all vehicles must stop during retreat. I don't know whats going on at Ft. Belvoir, but the army is even more strict. On top of stopping their car they must "dismount" their vehicle and salute at attention during retreat. 143.158.254.228 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I never noticed it at Ft. Belvoir, either. It's possible Belvoir is the exception, possibly because of the many civilian entities (and more to come) housed there; perhaps the military doesn't expect the civilians to know or comply so they just let it slide? --ScreaminEagle 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The separate seating is explicitly in the past, as mentioned in the article. As for Retreat, it is still official policy and expectation. Now, if an exception exists, that doesn't negate what is expected---as cited from the Army Officer's Guide: 75th Edition.Balloonman 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ft. Belvoir is an Army post, so I don't understand the "army is even more strict" comment. I can't believe that everyone in every vehicle headed to Tulley Gate at 5 p.m. was a civilian, but with no reference to cite, suggesting otherwise seems pointless. Balloonman: my point was about implications of language. You talk about "expectations" but fail to note in the same place that the expectations are not always met. I wouldn't call that bias, but it does seem as though you've got a case you want to make. Take the feedback for what it's worth. — OtherDave 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am I vaguely remember Ft Belvoir (when I was young) not having Retreat like other bases---I remember it because we thought it was weird.Balloonman 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Why are there two photos with nearly identical captions (in spirit)? Oughtn't they be adjacent if they are related? Or one of them removed? --Belg4mit 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THANK YOU Balloonman

Thank you Balloonman for all your hard work and dedication to sourcing. I ask all those who find fault with this article to quote unbiased reliable published sources. We can use those for the article. WAS 4.250 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to echo the above comment. Good work Balloonman. Raul654 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, thank you for the hard work you've put into writing this article and defending it from detractors. Cla68 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith on the part of the people who have commented on this article. That is what talk pages are for, and sincere and constructive comments should not be labelled "detractors." Aecis^Brievenbus 11:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the sincere and constructive comments. But the unconstructive assaults are a different story... and yes, if you read this page you will see people making ad hominem attacks and unconstructive comments.Balloonman 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the criticism of this article came mostly from people who clearly wanted to make the article (and/or the FA process) better, but there were a few who brought an unusual level of venom to the discussion, for reasons most of us can probably guess but should not. Hats off to Balloonman for keeping an even keel. —Kevin Myers 15:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That bit I agree with. The way Balloonman has dealt with the discussions on this talk page should serve as an example for many of us, myself included. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear, by "detractors" I meant non-constructive comments about the article. Civil and constructive criticism, is, of course, welcome. Below I see some good examples of civil and constructive comments and criticism. Cla68 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ballonman! You have done a fantastic job--Top Flight!! When it comes to military issues-- expect flak.

Everything is perfectable but that is different than saying that this is a poor article-- it is an OUTSTANDING article, WORTHY OF IT'S AWARD STATUS!

Sean7phil 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great work

Just wanted to compliment all contributors on their great work. It covers the topic in great depth and effectively exploits the convenient body of research available about this demographic. There are statements cited in this article that I never imagined were citable. The photos are also excellent and under good licenses and it's evident many were taken just to build this article. Also lots of great links to a diversity of topics. I'd like to see other articles, especially in sociology, get such an effective treatment. Keep up the good work! Dcoetzee 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you... but none of the pictures were taken for this article. They all came from DOD/military websites.Balloonman 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for criticisms

I don't know if this is going to help since a lot of people seem to ignore what's already been discussed but for people criticising remember

• Specific examples are needed. Even if you feel the whole article is bad, unless you can at least mention some example sentences and explain why they're bad it's difficult for people who don't agree with you to know what you're talking about
• Wikipedia works by referencing. Saying that something doesn't agree with your experience is not a criticism that will be given much weight when your discussing something that's referenced
• I don't like is complete useless
• Keep it civil & focus on the problems with the article. If you spend half your time attacking editors no one is likely to listen to you even if you have a very good point in addition

Also for those people who seem convinced that this is patriotic American crap, I would have to disagree (not being an American and disliking patriotic American crap myself). As I've mentioned elsewhere, a lot of it is scary and it's definitely not something I would want for myself or anyone else. I'm not the only one who feels this way. This is of course all irrelevant anyay. The only issues are whether it is accurate, well written, reliably sourced etc Nil Einne 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TDY?

From the lead section of the article:

and the periodic absence of a parent who is on TDY, or a tour of duty overseas.

I would suggest that this isn't a great bit of editing. A layperson (me, for example) reading this for the first time will come across TDY and have no idea what it means. TDY redirects to Teledyne, an industrial conglomerate. How about this?

and the periodic absence of a parent who is on a tour of duty overseas (TDY).

I'm not making the edit myself because I know nothing about the subject, and so for all I know there may be some reason why my suggestion wouldn't work. But in general I think abbreviations should come after the full name, as indeed happens lower down with "Third Culture Kids (TCKs)". Loganberry (Talk) 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

TDY stands for temporary dutiy. Overseas tours in support of a conflict are coined deployments, TDY's are usually no more than 180 days, anything beyond 180 days is considered an assignment or a short tour. 9 times out of ten, military personnel are sent on TDY for training. Not all TDY's occur away from home station. For example, during base exercises, if a military member is a primary player, they are also put on TDY status, usually in their own services form of a personnel accountability system. Putting a member on TDY status during a training excercise or other situations in which the member is not available to perform their primary duties, is done so to prevent another unrelated assignment from dropping for the member. Such as a PCS or PCA assignment, or another mandatory training TDY. Sometimes if an large scale graded exercise is on the horizon, many smaller exercises may take place within 6 to 8 months before to prepare. It is not uncommon for a member to be on TDY status during the entire 6 months leading up to the graded exercise. Said TDY status can prevent an assignment to a base of preference that you were promised before you re-enlisted, then you would be held the entire 6 months before the exercise in which you really had no role except to record events that heppened in front of you, which they had 3 other guys doing. So really they kept you there because someone at personnel was too lazy to fix your status back to present for duty, and now you are stuck on station for yet another year. But of course the personnelist PCS'd long before the exercise. Robkehr

I think you've made my point for me: there is no possible way I could have known that "TDY" meant "temporary duty" since the article didn't explain that (and still doesn't at the time of writing). For a featured article, that simply isn't good enough. In any case, I wasn't asking "What does TDY mean?" as I can find that out easily enough through Google. I was saying that a person reading the article shouldn't need to do such a thing if the article was well enough written. I note that another editor has now expressed similar concerns (see the section below) so I'm not alone here. Loganberry (Talk) 14:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just read the opening paragraph myself, and was puzzled by the line "...the periodic absence of a parent who is on TDY, TAD, or a tour of duty overseas." Is TDY, TAD and "tour of duty overseas" different expressions for the same thing? What about writing out "...the periodic absence of a parent who is on temporary duty (TDY)" or something similar? Dr bab 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terms needing explanation to a layperson

I've read the whole discussion above (quite a haul) and several people have already made the point I came to make. Too many terms have been used without explanation to a non-military person: surely the whole point of this article is to inform non-military people? Use of jargon, acronyms etc is not encyclopaedic - it excludes those not 'in the know'. This article reads as someone said above, like it has been written by MBs for MBs.

I also can't understand how it got through the FA process with such obvious and basic faults. No, I'm Spartacus 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Its FAC discussion was a long way from being unanimously in support, though oddly the completely unexplained TDY abbreviation in the lead wasn't mentioned by anybody! Loganberry (Talk) 15:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That abbreviation was not in the lead at the time (old version). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nod, it is hard to stay on top of all of the changes (particularly since I wasn't able to watch the page during a move and job change.)Balloonman 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Archiving

Since this is getting to be so big (98 KB), I'm going to archive this discussion on May 4rd. I'm announcing it now because I don't want to be accused of trying to hide criticism. I will leave any threads that have a comment dated May 3rd or 4th active.Balloonman 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article title

Two possibilities exist, to me:

1. The term "military brat" is global but we lack good sources so far for the term's meaning/use in other countries. In which case, further research is required, but the article should be located at military brat.
2. The term "military brat" is not global, and "base brat" for example is used in non-US contexts. In which case, further articles need to be written and crosslinked, but this article should be located at military brat.

In either case, it seems to me that this article is at the wrong title (the disambiguation is not necessary). The current page at military brat is a content fork. -- nae'blis 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC) -- nae'blis 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Respond to this at the talk page for the military brat---not here. That way we consolodate the discussionBalloonman 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note about my methodology

One of the criticisms that people have leveled on this article centers around the research methodology. So I thought I'd share a little bit of my methodology.

• 1) I did not include anything in the article unless I saw it in at least two independent source. (EG the theme is repeated elsewhere.)
• 2) If the second source appeared to be using the first source, I didn't count it as independent. This does not mean that the second author wasn't referring to the first, it simply means that if they were it wasn't obvious.
• 3) I gave heavier weight to sociologist who had systematic studies performed, but I also gave Wertsch (who is creditted by many as the driving force behind brat research) a fair amount of weight as she is a highly regarded authority on the subject.
• 4) One of the repeated criticisms of the article was that it wasn't global enough. I spent hours researching that topic as I knew it would be a major sticking point. I only gave up after finding 3 independent sources that said the same thing (2 american, 1 British) that there isn't anything outside of the US.
• 5) One of the areas that I thought would be interesting centered around sexuality of military brats. It's no secret that the US military (as an institution) is homophobic---how does this affect the typical brat?
• 6) One of the criticisms of the article centered aroung "Suddenly Military" brats. This is perhaps the only area where I relied heavily primarily on one document...
• 7) One of the big criticisms of the article was a belief by those who aren't familiar with the term who hear "Brat" and think it's a negative. Thus, the inclusion of the Linguistic Reclamation section of the article.
• 8) Military Brats are the largest segment of Third Culture Kids, but a lot of the findings for TCKs talk about how the findings are true for TCKs but not for Brats. For example, TCKs are often involved in Anti-war movements, but rarely will Military Brats take an active role in Anti-war protest. TCK's often have a more global perspective, but brats usually have a more nationalistic perspective. Thus, I did not use TCK research unless the TCK research (or other brat research) supported the validity of the finding for military brats. This may mean that there are things that are common knowledge about TCKs, and probably true for brats, that are not included here.
• 9) I included things that I don't agree with. Personally, I have a problem with certain sections of the article, they don't ring true to my experiences. But if the research says otherwise, I included it.Balloonman 15:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)