Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture)/Archive 1

Merge
The merge makes sense, considering at least two of the "brats" listsed on the Army brat page are not Army: Jim Morrison was a Navy brat and Priscilla Presley is Air Force. John (Jwy) 18:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (((Note: this comment is about a merge that has occurred, not about the current - as of June 2006 - request to merge with Military children))) - DavidWBrooks 13:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Paring the list
I think the list is getting too long. For example, I've never heard of Tanita Tikaram and I don't think Katrina of Katrina and the Waves is really that famous. As there are already a ton of people on here, what do you say we remove some? --Awiseman 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Nobody should be on that list unless they are known specificially for being a military brat - rather than just being a famous person who happens to be a military brat. Which ones those are, however, I don't know. - DavidWBrooks 16:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also don't think we need fictional military brats either. Thoughts? --Awiseman 17:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone through the list of "unclassified" individuals and pared it down some. I validated quite a few military dependents and got rid of some.  In order for me to get rid of a suspected military brat, I checked numerous biographies and found facts that made me strongly suspect that they were not Brats.  For example, Lionel Richie was born in Tuskegee Alabama and grew up at the Tuskegee institute where his family had lived for 2 generations.  Doesn't sound like a military brat.  Steve McQueen was abandoned by his father when he was 6 months old and his mother when he was 7.  He grew up with his uncle in missouri.  While it is possible he's a brat, I saw nothing to make me think he was---and some facts that lead me to believe he wasn't.  Wesley Snipes grew up in the Bronx.  Balloonman 08:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I created a new page List of Famous Military Brats and killed the list here. I also connected this list to the page of Lists of people.  These pages are for real individuals, thus discussion should continue as to the inclusion of fictional characters.Balloonman


 * As for fictional military brats. I say keep them, if their being a military brat played a significant role in who the chracter was.  Margaret Hoolihan was a military brat through and through, it was a major part of who she was.  Jill Taylor's being a brat was an emphasized attribute of her growing up.  But some characters throw this into the character's history without developing it.  Balloonman 18:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds logical. --Awiseman 18:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I hid some of the fictional brats. I think that unless the characters are shaped in some way by their brathood, then they don't belong.  Brian Moreland, from TAPS, for example did what he did explicitly because of the culture that he grew up in.  His being a brat had a direct bearing on the character.Balloonman 21:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Military children
Military children is a ridiculous mess - somebody's personal essay. I'd just kill it, personally - DavidWBrooks 13:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Having spent several years int the military, "military brat" the is the status quo phrase. merge but keep the brat name.

--Electronic.mayhem 05:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody objected over a month, so I killed it. There was nothing worth merging. - DavidWBrooks 11:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

American English
Removed reference to this being American English. Identified several sources referencing Canadian Brats and one for English Brats.Balloonman 09:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

home inspections
Awiseman, I saw your note on the history about having never heard of home inspections. I'm guessing that you are a military brat, but the fact that you've never heard this makes me suspect that you're still in your 20's... I say that because prior to 1987 the annual evaluations for all military personell above the rank of E-4 included an evaluation of the spouse! That's right, when the military personell received his/her annual review, the fitness of the spouse was commented upon and added to the permanente record of the service member. One of the criteria upon which the spouse was evaluated was how clean the house was kept. The notion was that if the military member couldn't lead his family and keep an orderly house, then how could he lead men? I'll add a reference to this when I work on the main article. (note this was added by Balloonman forgot to sign it.)


 * So far I haven't found a specific reference that specifically mentions Home Inspections, so I'm leaving it out of my latest rendention. I know that we had them when I grew up, but I don't know if that was standard practice or a specific CO's requirement. Home appearance was part of the evaluation on the fitness report.Balloonman 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I have found another source for Home Inspections... but it a published primary source. I'm looking for something a little more authoritativeBalloonman 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Truscott p 30---Personal account of when the inspectors came for home inspection. Balloonman 06:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe it should say "in the past" then --AW 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm looking for something more authoritative. If it is a practice that ended in 87 when the Spouse was removed from the service member's evaluation, then that is worth notating.  But right now, it is still anecdotal.Balloonman 18:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sexism and Homosexuality
These are two issues that this article needs to address, but I haven't found any reliable sources on them yet... if anybody can help out feel free to do so.Balloonman 10:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a little bit on the history of homosexuality and how homosexuality is condemned in military circles---thus something that many brats never encounter growing up, but I haven't found anything that deals with brat's views on the subject.Balloonman 08:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Added some stuff on sexism. I'm not happy with either of these area's, but wanted to get something down.Balloonman 09:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as all that pertinent unless you can show a direct connection to the children. Rlevse 00:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Patriotism--Retreat
Awiseman,

There are some who do not stop, but the expectation is that they do stop during Retreat. Failure to stop invokes glares from those who are adhereing to the rules. Failure to stop during the retiring of the colors can have negative implications on the person who continues to drive their vehicle. This can involve a visit from the Base Commander or individual's CO. To say that "some" people stop their cars is not valid; the expectation is that they do so. See the notes 36 and 41. Note 41 specifically refernences a page discussing how failure to stop has consequences. How about: ''At that time, the song "Retreat" is played on a loudspeaker that can be heard across the base. Anybody outside, even if participating in sports or driving a car, is expected to stop their activity and stand at attention. Uniformed personnel salute and non-uniformed people place their hand over their heart. Those who fail to do so may be reported and notated in the military member's permanent record (even if it was a family member and not the military member.)'' The problem I have with your edits is that it makes it sound option or something that people could do, but in reality it is not optional. It's kind of like saying "some enlisted people will not salute an officer when passing outdoors in a non-combat area." You may see it happen, but there is a definate requirement they salute.Balloonman 23:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "expected to" is a good compromise. People were expected to, but not everybody does all the time. --AW 09:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Javascript Peer Review
Upon request by 143.165.168.50:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 16:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Bold text
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
 * Done Balloonman 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per WP:MOS-L and WP:BTW, create links to relevant articles.
 * Done Balloonman 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under WP:IUP and WP:IT that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
 * Done Balloonman 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
 * Done Balloonman 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Not applicable Balloonman 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
 * Done Balloonman 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOS, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .
 * Done Balloonman 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
 * Somebody else did this Balloonman 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
 * Working on this Balloonman 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Working on Balloonman 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Cleaned up some, but left some Balloonman 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
 * Still needs help... this isn't my strong suit.

Thoughts on the article
'''This article is a great contribution, but the writing needs tightening. ''' Editorially speaking, there is a need to tighten some of the sections (there is some tendency to ramble and repeat themes in multiple sections). This looks to me like a second draft in what will become something very significant-- but the writing needs an editorial eye. A bit unfocused and a bit scattered. More bold-face subheadings and adhering more tightly to such subheadings in terms of content may help. A great effort, however, worthy of praise and further development.

65.102.255.230 16:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you... I completely agree with you... but that is to be partly expected. Based on feedback from Sandy and Outriggr, I'm reworking the organization of the article... which means that some of the sections that used to exist are being merged/revamped.  Thus, the way I'm looking at it right now is, the article is back to draft form.  It will need significant work to get back to where it was a week ago---but based one the recommendations received should be better when it is completed.Balloonman 16:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick response balloonman, good writing takes time (no good books are written quickly) so it's perfectly fine that this is a work in progress.


 * Most of all, I am a brat who is grateful for your contribution! It feels so good to read something that acknowledges brats!! We are normally so invisible and people are so oblivious to us!! :-)

63.225.108.158 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to have you on board... you should create an account and feel free to help out with the article... particularly where you see edits being necessary. If you don't feel comfortable making them, point them out, and I'll do what I can... also watch the page... in a few weeks I hope to renominate this for FAC, and having the input of other brats would be great.Balloonman 06:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, I'd remove the Backronym section, or give it a bit more expansion as to why it matters. As it stands though, I don't think it should be at the start of the article. Seems too fluffy. The article itself could use a bit less in the way of reference citations. Especially since some of them are in close proximinity to each other, and in terms of subject matter. For example, 9-12 could easily be handled with a single refence, not four. I think several sections could be removed or reduced as well, and some of the language needs to be improved, but other than that, this article seems to be doing fine. Congrats. FrozenPurpleCube 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which sections are you referring to when you are thinking should be reduced/removed? My guess is the statistics and Pop Culture Section?  I'm looking at revising the statistics section or working it into the text elsewhere, which I think is valid.  The "Pop culture" section is one that I inherited but I'm not sold on it.Balloonman 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pop Culture maybe, but I think the Inter-service rivalry needs to be reworked, and the Reunited sections. Frequent and Unexpected Moves also seems to be a bit long and wanders a tad far from the subject.  This isn't to say the information isn't valid, but it could be trimmed a bit.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Worked on those sections.Balloonman 07:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture
I've removed the Pop Culture section based on peer review comments and my own misgivings towards it. Created a new article List of famous fictional military brats which needs to be worked on.Balloonman 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this might be an ok section to keep actually, as long as the military brat thing is important to the character. Or maybe just keep a couple, and put them all on the new article --AW 22:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I plan on adding a paragraph or section regarding military brats in pop culture and will then create link to the new article. I need to do the same for the List of famous military brats.Balloonman 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Dreaded Walrus Talkpage RE Globalization
Hey Walrus, Just out of curiosity, other than the problem with the focus of the article being on the US, what did you think of the page military brat. I'm working on improving it, but don't know where/what needs to be improved. Unfortuantely I can't find anything on non-US brats right now... so what else can I do to improve it? I'll watch your page for a response.Balloonman 16:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the whole article - I was just browsing Wikipedia, saw the template and a quick speed-read made me think that it deals with the US side of things, so I just swapped it for the correct, more precise template.
 * The problem is, I would say that the whole "military brat" thing is a lot more common in the US than elsewhere. They do exist elsewhere in the world, such as here in the UK, but it's nowhere near as common, and I don't think the same term is used. I suppose it's similar to soccer mom. Parents with similar kinds of ambitions for their children exist over here too (although very rarely), though the term soccer mom is rarely used, as we prefer the term football over here for the sport, and for the parent the terms mum, mam or even mother are used.
 * Going back to the whole military brat thing (sorry for the sidetrack, I often do that), I aren't too clued up on the military in general, though my brother is in the army, and I could ask him in a couple of weeks when I next see him. Until then, there's always google, when you select results only from the UK.
 * As for other ways the article may be improved, again I only had a quick scan through, but perhaps a section on references to the term in popular culture, or how the media uses the term, or links to similar terms, as in the article on Chavs.
 * Sorry I couldn't be of any more help. :) --Dreaded Walrus 16:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks for the thoughts... I'm probably going to add another section to the article because I've been investigating this weakness... and apparently, most of the funding for research into military brats has been from the US military. So I'll probably add a section discussing the research funding and why it is US centric and why the conclusions may not apply to non-US brats. I've also been told that British service members live off base more and might move more while their families stay put...Balloonman 19:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I went back an added a section on the research into Military Brats. My own experience (which is rather limited) is that the research had a heavy US bias and relatively recent (past 20 years.) While reading a compiliation of sociological studies, I came across two interesting facts: Currently there is extremely little done in other countries. I was wondering if, based on the bias within the research and the explanation in the article, would it be appropriate to remove the template? I won't do it because I'm biased, so I thought I'd have you take a look at it. PS respond here, I'm watching your page.Balloonman 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Most research is relatively new as the subject has only been studied for the past 20 years.
 * Most of this reseach is sponsored by the US Armed Forces.
 * Yep, I've done that now. I've also modified some of the references, as if you look at the references in the old version, some of them (such as reference two) end in the author, but don't have a space after the full stop (or period), which looks a bit bad on the eyes, so I added spaces to all of them, too. I've also added the page to my watchlist now, so I can track it for the next couple of days :) --Dreaded Walrus 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks for your assistance and insight. I'm going to copy this to the Military brat/talkpage so that it becomes part of the articles permanent record.Balloonman 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)