Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture)/Archive 6

Military Brat Online Community
This is a new online service for all military brats (former and current)--


 * Military Brats Online Community A free facebook-style interactive online community for all former and current millitary brats. Created recently by one of the founders of the original Military Brat websites (Vann Baker).

Military Brat Magazine
Interesting... apparently there was a magazine in 2006 for Military Brats that was printed with the Pentagon's approval [Fox Report], [NPR Report],[Guardian].Balloonman 22:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Parental Choice
So as to avoid an edit war ;-) I'm bringing this here... The reason why I believe it is important to mention that military brats grow up in military culture due to their parents decision is because of the nature of culture. One of the criticisms of the article (in the past) was that if it is a culture then you have to choose to belong to it---if there is no choice to belong, then it is a demographic.  According to these people, being a military brat (if it is a sub-culture) is not something that can be applied to everybody based upon it's definition.  If it is something that applies to all, then it isn't a sub-culture.  Well, it is something that applies to all brats because the parents chose the culture in which the brat was raised---thus, the brat had no choice but to belong to it and thus be affected by it.  The parents chose the culture/lifestyle that affects the child.  The child is thus, forced to adapt to conditions/culture that s/he may have never chosen.Balloonman 14:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe in the moving aspect, but other parts of the brat's life may be chosen (IE delayed adolescence) if the circumstances are right.(unsigned comment)
 * The delayed adolescence is the impact of growing up in this culture. The parents chose to belong to the culture that moves around, has high expectations related to patriotism/nationalism, high regard for structure/order, that accepts the military mission, tends to be more conservative than the general public, etc.  This culture, thus impacts people who were raised in it...Balloonman 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture is mostly not a choice. Someone who is French usually didn't choose to be French (unless they immigrate to France)-- French people are mostly born and then raised French.

The Military brat experience is very total (relatively speaking, and of course, this is meant as a generality-- individual family patterns will vary)-- but for the most part, it is not just "Dad or Mom are in the military"-- the military intrudes into the lives of military families far more than say, corporate life usually intrudes into the home life of business families. (In terms of citations-- to see more evidence of how the career military is a cultural entity, see the recent ducumentary "Brats: Our Journey Home" Directed by Donna Musil, or read "Military Brats" by Mary Edwards Wertsch).

Some people instinctively resist the notion of military brat culture for political reasons-- but the existence of American military culture is a fact, not a political statement.

Sean7phil 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree---it depends, however, on the definition of culture that you are using. Because some people will argue that you are technically talking about a demographic and not a culture.Balloonman 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely! There are people who don't see the cultural aspect. They think 'this is just what your Dad or Mom did'. But there was so much more to it than that.

Sean7phil 02:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That view, 'this is just what your Dad or Mom did/does', is one that seems to be one that shaired by people who don't realy interact with military families and/or bases, and as such, rarely see how a brat has to live when they move often, or have a parent move often. MaisReaper 01:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree! We are like this huge but invisible American sub-culture.

Sean7phil (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Militarization of the family unit
In the second paragraph it says "This group is shaped by .... and the militarization of the family unit." What is meant by "The militarization of the family unit?" I just don't understand the phrase. Spebudmak 20:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See the section on discipline. It is generally referred to in the manner in which discipline and authority are structured in a family.  Stereotypically, the military parent brings military organization home.  "Duty Rosters," bouncing quarters on beds, "yes sir/ma'am", older children given not only more responsibility but actual authority, etc.Balloonman 21:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Also there is a strong 'warrior ethos' in military culture that tends to affect the children of career soldiers-- the various aspects of the warrior archetype loom large in military life and tend to soak into the lives of career military families (I'm not saying the pattern is uniform, but overall it is there). This 'warrior ethos' is neither good nor bad-- but is made up of elements that can be used in balanced or unbalanced ways depending on the purpose it is used for. What to do with this warrior ethos is the challenge that every former military child must come to terms with at some point-- it can be used to accomplish great things, to move one to serve a higher purpose, and to serve others in many ways-- or it can become self-defeating and even self-destructive.

The challenge in later life for many ex-military kids becomes, "How does one channel this energy?"

Reading "Military Brats" by Wertsch can allow for a deeper and more wide-ranging exploration of issues related to growing up in a military-influenced family.

Sean7phil 03:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

International phenomenon
It is my proposition that the bracketed specification within title of the page be changed from "U.S subculture" to "Subculutral phenomenon." This is because military brats occur in most military forces around the world.

If there are no objections within a week, I'll make the changes.

 Exemplar Sententia.
 * There is a long history of why it specifies US Subculture. Basically, it boils down to this, while there are "military brats" in every country, their experiences differ greatly based upon what country they are from.  U.S. brat have a different experience than do Canadian or Israeli or Chinese brats.  This is due to the amount of mobility of the family, the nature of the military service, how likely the family is to have the parent deployed, etc.  But this issue has been discussed in depth and the "US Subcuture" was the verdict in identifying the fact that the research and this article deals with military brats of the US variety.  Research on non-US brats, as of yet, does not exist (see section on research for supporting documentation of that statement.)Balloonman 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, no edit.  Exemplar Sententia.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exemplar sententia (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted a LONG post from Exemplar sententia on why he thinks the article needs to be moved to just Military brat. He cross posted it to Talk:Military brat and to consolodate discussion I'm deleting it here.  If you want to participate in said discussion please do so on that talk page.

Classism and ME Wertsch
Mary Wertsch is neither a sociologist nor historian, she's a self described reporter To use her and her alone for many of the references in this section is to say the least problematical. She wrote a fine book based on mostly anecdotal material and most of that is almost forty years old now. This section is deeply flawed from a neutral point of view. I looked in the archives to see if any similar concerns had been raised and nothing stood out. No one can deny that the military itself is hierarchical and regimented, however, neither I nor any of my peers were in the military, our Mothers and Fathers were. Awotter 04:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * While she may not be a sociologist, she is recognized as an authority in the field. Most of her research has since been validated and cited by others---including sociologists.  Personally, I don't agree with everything she said, but her work has since been validated and affirmed by others.Balloonman 06:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We are all in trouble if we leave social or historical observation solely in the hands of PHD's. The suggestion that academic writers are somehow more scientific or unbiased about these things than anyone else implies that Sociology is a hard science, which it is not-- nor is History a completely hard science for that matter.

Sociology in particular is a very soft science, if a science at all, and more art than anything else.

Most importantly, Wertches book has been well tested by time-- countless readers have found her book to ring true to their own experience as former military children (especially of career military families-- although even children of non-career military families may be able to relate to parts of it)--

It has also been received with wide critical acclaim, from reviewers in both 'Left' and 'Right' leaning media outlets which says a lot as well.

Lastly Wertsch in her book never casts a 'one-size-fits-all' description on anyone. Instead she describes a very wide range of patterns & issues related to growing up military. There is a great diversity of experience in her interveiws and description of former military kids.

People should not form quick opinions about the book without giving it a fair read. Most importantly I think it explores the issues related to a military childhood far more than it draws any final or absolute conclusions.

As a former military brat myself, I have read a great deal of the book and found it to be very wide-ranging in it's observations as well as being quite perceptive.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Parenthesis
Why is "(U.S. subculture)" part of this article title, if there is no other sense of the term military brat (which itself is a redirect to this article)? This seems like a purposeless disambiguation. &mdash; Dan | talk 08:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * please see the info box above which directs you to the numerous discussions on this very question. If you have further questions not answered in those archived discussions feel free to ask them here.Balloonman (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with OP. It contravenes naming conventions. It's a fudge to get around writing an article with a world view. It could be replaced with a proper dab scheme (military brat as a dab page). It ignores the fact that "military brat" is primarily an American term anyway. It's trying to use an article title to cover up inadequacies in that article, which is not what article titles are for. "U.S. subculture" is not a succinct nor accurate title ("American slang" would be better). Umpteem reasons why the article should be at Military brat and improved, not fudged like this. --kingboyk (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved it back as I just know one or two vociferous folks will be all over my talk page if I don't. I don't need the hassle. Nonetheless I think this is a pretty horrible fudge, per above. --kingboyk (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not exclusively an American Slang term. It is used in England, Canada, and Australia.  I have first hand (eg non-reliable source) knowledge that French and German kids used it in the 80's.  But the fact remains that the research on the subject has been done exclusively in the US.  IF you, or anybody else, can find reliable sources from other countries, I would welcome such, but as has been documented in the article, numerous experts have lamented the fact that other countries haven't studied the fact.Balloonman (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to grow up as a military brat to understand it, but 'brat life' was very much an all-emcompassing subculture.

A point of confusion for some-- This article is not an attempt to promote any kind of political agenda. It does not promote patriotism at all-- It just describes what we children of career American military families were often heavily exposed to.

Some people get stuck on this. They read the term 'patriotism' and they think that the article is pushing a patriotic theme. It isn't doing that at all--

It's decribing how many of us 'brats' were raised. It is descriptive, not promotive. This is the subculture that what we were immersed in while growing up--(and for many of us in very large doses): lots of patriotic themes, lots of moving from place to place (often with much more geographic mobility than average Americans) and very often with an intimate family connection to war:

We are therefore a subculture, not a political movement. The article describes this immersion in certain themes and ideas rather than endorsing or opposing any such ideas. Our lives speak for themselves-- covering many thousands of miles, many painful uprootings, and for many of us, immersion in different nations and cultures as well; and always the shadow of war on our heels. This has bred a unique set of outlooks, an unusual mix of perspectives; a patchwork of strengths and challenges. This is the subcultural phenomenon known as 'the military brat experience'.

Sean7phil (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

66.227.84.101 (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sean7phil (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert of revert in the Military classism section

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

First of all, I did not create this Military Brat entry. I think the entire entry is silly, but there it is. I am unfortunate in that I know a little bit about this subject: I married a US Army colonel's daughter, and my own daughter was born at Camp Lejeune, NC. Like I said, I think this entire entry is silly and not needed, except perhaps in the narrow area that all professional military organizations around the world produce military brats that share similar characteristics, and this manifestation is independent of culture, religion, and country.

That said, the original entry on which I made my comment left an erroneous impression, and that is that the prejudices of the brat have some basis in fact. I assure you that these prejudices are completely ephemeral and are not real at all. If one wants to speak on the prejudices of military brats matching those of the military parent, it is important to emphasize that the prejudices of the parent are erroneous as well.

For example, in US military Special Forces units, Air Force Special Forces units are a joke. They are a joke, that is, until someone tries to perform their mission, and then they might understand their specialized mission and training. In other words, prejudices among military units arise from a misunderstanding or misapprehension of their assigned missions. All such units are needed, and no one unit is more important than the other, when mission is taken into account. All prejudices about military units are just like any other prejudice: emotional only, with no basis in reality or fact.

This is the rationale of my original entry. I believe this concept is self-evident once it is explained, but I have no scholarly reference to prove it. Perhaps this concept could be stated better, or maybe cited better, and I am amenable to any well-intentioned rewrite. That said, I would appreciate at least a half-assed explanation for reverting well-reasoned comments that you personally don't like. Military brats are called "brats" for a reason. I am not a brat, but I see very clearly that you are. I know the type, and I know you can't be convinced of anything without a threat of force. How about this: Revert again, without a good reason, and I will be glad to take this issue to the pump (insert personal perjorative here).

I have already wasted more air on this issue than my original entry. You wiki-whateveryouares are very tedious. Nevertheless, I am glad to know you. Have a nice day.

Jarhed (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * one of the core principles of Wikipedia is verifiability and no original research. Just because it *MAY* and you believe it is true, does not make it encyclopedic.Balloonman (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, Balloonboy, forgive me, but you are not the god of wikipedia, you do not get to revert just because you do not like something. If the community agrees with you, then I will submit.  Until then, you are just a wikichump just like me.  Take your revert and shove it.  Jarhed (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jarhead has been warned about OR and civilityBalloonman (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Revised entry posted, although I believe my original entry was much more clear and concise.


 * In the context of the "military brat" article, I will prove just how unresonable your criticism is. Under the heading of "Values and patriotism", the following claim is made:


 * In the 1990s, the army officially adopted what have come to be known as "The 7 Army Values," which are summarized with the acronym "LDRSHIP." LDRSHIP stands for Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. While this acronym is relatively new, the ideas it represents have been at the heart of military service for generations.


 * The only link reference in this paragraph is on the words "The 7 Army Values", and the link goes to the Wikipedia entry for the United States Army. In other words, every statement in this paragraph is completely bogus.


 * This is just one minor example of unverifiability in an article of dozens! And yet you choose to single out ME?


 * If you really want to clean up this article, let's start with the LDRSHIP paragraph. Do you have some agenda other than cleanup, Mr. Brat?  I have no dog in this fight other than accuracy, so what is your excuse?


 * I will not be intimidated by anyone. Make your objections fair and reasonable, or stand aside.  I will not back down from petty attempts at intimidation, here or anywhere else.


 * Have a great day! Jarhed (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First, LDRSHIP is not a supposition of facts or overlay of opinion on an article. You are inputting opinion and supposition that requires sources.  You are representing your beliefs as facts.  You've already been warned for civility, please refrain from personal attacks.  Your latest efforts, while closer to something acceptable, was still based upon unverified opinions.Balloonman (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha ha ha, this is rich. Please explain this to me: a complicated acronym (LDRSHIP) is introduced into a wikipedia article, attributed to a government agency, but the entry provides not one scintilla of source, NOTHING.  Is it real?  Is it propaganda?  Is it imaginary?  Is it fake?  I say fake, but who knows?


 * And yet you still assert that the LDRSHIP paragraph "is not a supposition of facts or overlay of opinion on an article"? I am trying my best to be civil to you here, but please sit back and think for a minute about just what you are asserting.  Would you accept the claptrap coming out of your mouth from anyone else, on any other subject?  I certainly would not, and I do not expect you to do so, either.  Please admit that I have an encyclopedic point to make, and stop quibbling about minutiae.  At the very least, please treat all of the idiotic additions to this article at least as hostilely as you have mine.  The point that I am making is valid on its face.  If you do not like what I said, then rewrite it; do not merely revert it without comment like some intellectual charlatan.  Jarhed (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reality check: you ought to be rebutting things actually said instead of things not. Namely, we're talking about the whole swatch of personal interpretation/opinion you put under that bit of DOD PowerPoint Ranger-sourced LDRSHIP hoo-haa. If you're unable to see that or unwilling to conform to local standards, that's not our problem, it's yours. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jarhed, is there a text that you could point to or a study that has been done on the rationality of prejudices? That might help Balloonman with the OR aspect. I understand the statement that all prejudices have no basis in fact, but I think we could find a psychological study somewhere that might reenforce that, then we can say we are citing the study and it's not OR. And you are right, that the army has adopted the LDRSHIP values should be cited. And the statement about the ideas being at the heart of the military for generations is opinion and unverifiable. Both good points. Now let's see if we can find a study on military prejudice and we'll be done with this. Padillah (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Padillah, I appreciate your temperate mediation. Here is the issue: before I made my edit, the article made an erroneous statement: military brats adopt the prejudices of their parents and that these prejudices are true.


 * Now, I know from my experience that this is absolutely not the case. Prejudice is prejudice, as you have made perfectly clear that you understand.  I do not pretend to be an academic expert on this topic, and I would be happy for any informed rewrite of my entry.


 * This issue is extremely abstruse and does not lend itself well to academic sourcing. I will grant that.  I stated that I find the entire entry silly, but there it is, in all of its pregnant, unsourced, incomplete, imperfect glory.  If I had the gall of Balloonman, I would delete the entire entry.  The entire entry, really, smells of bogus on the half-shell.


 * However, here it is, with citations and everything. I made an entry that clarified a very small part of the issue.  Balloonman disagreed with what I entered, but instead of rewriting what I said, here merely reverted it, and he did so multiple times.  Forgive me, but my contribution was a valid one.  A mere revert is not sufficient to address the point I have made, and I resent this treatment.  His phony indignation about my "civility" completely belies his intellectual obtuseness and rudeness about his multiple reverts without real explanation.  Please forgive me, who is the rude one in this dialogue? Jarhed (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it goes a little beyond just finding a study, but rather the interjection of opinion:
 * "Because of the cruelly competitive nature of the military environment, if ever there were a Meritocracy that awarded individual achievement and individual achievement only, the US Military would be it. All units combined in this meritocratic force are needed, and would be ruthlessly eliminated if not. In other words, a parent might form disparaging judgements about other military units besides his or her own, but such judgements are emotional in nature and not based on the Darwinian reality of military existance. Such emotional evaluations are identical for the military brat.fact"
 * That is opinion, not fact and while it might make for a good book/newspaper article, such colorful descriptions is not encyclopedic.Balloonman (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh give me a break. Everything I said there is flat flipping the truth, and there are millions of military people, in the US and around the world, who would back me up.  If you consider my references a little light, like I said, before we start on my paragraph with references and millions of people who agree, let's start with the LDRSHIP paragraph where the references are ABSOLUTELY ZILCH.


 * Forgive me, Mr. Brat, but your husbanding of this article for your own personal purposes amuses me greatly. May I suggest that you get a life and a girlfriend (or boyfriend, whichever way you swing, it is none of my business.)  However, your enormous efforts against my minor and paltry contribution to this silly little article betray what I consider to be an unhealthy attachment to minutiae, and an egocentric desire to dominate.  Well, to each his own and all that.  I hope you enjoy your fiefdom: you may have it.


 * Have a great day! Jarhed (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely zilch??? er... I currently see five references in that paragraph alone.   As for the acronym itself, you don't have to have every fact single sentence cited if it is common knowledge and easily accessible.  Wow, the article it links to has sources as does a quick google search on the word ldrship. As for your maintaining civility... if this is civility, then I would hate to see incivility.  I have no problem with people editing the article, so long as they don't add unsourced biased opinion such as what you've tried to add.   It's your exposition on the facts that deters any merit from what you have to say.Balloonman (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I can understand that some of that language could be inflammatory as well, which is all the more reason to leave it out. I was reading the first post here and it looked like his point was regarding the factual basis of prejudice, so I guess that might be a good place to start. What are the feelings regarding some mention of prejudice and it's basis? Could we find a way to agree that there are aspects of this that conform to prejudice/discrimination? If that's the case we can find something to make mention of the fact and then link over to Discrimination. How does that sound as a plan? Padillah (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jarheads edit is competly OR and shouldnt be included at all unless a source can be found. БοņёŠ ɓɤĭĠ₳₯є  22:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Padillah, I appreciate your mediation, really I do. However, I know the type, and no mediation is possible.  You guys run this article as you will.  If you ever need any help with your logical fallacies and your academic gaffs, please call someone else.


 * Have a great day! Jarhed (talk)


 * And if you need help with your spelling ("gaffs"?), your attitude adjustment, your lack of familiarity with basic academic and/or encyclopedic sourcing, or your inability to distinguish your personal opinions from objective fact, give us a yell, will you? --Calton | Talk 05:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think No original research is worth mentioning. Things must be explicit. It was not Jarhed's fault but now after reading the Wikipedia policy, I believe he will understand better. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  06:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned it to him... but he doesn't accept it... nor does he accept that little word below above the edit summary that says, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."Balloonman (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is full of personal attacks and false personal accusations made by Jarhed. I think it would be completely fair to remove them. He was warned about personal attacks and has persisted in making them.

Sean7phil (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And of course, you, Sean, agree with the original deletion of my contribution without comment, in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines. That is perfectly fine. I will wait a month, a year, a decade...perhaps until I retire. After you wiki-whateveryouares go away, and I will make a perfectly reasonable edit to this article. I don't want to argue with you or anyone else right now or ever. Have a great day! Jarhed (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, you decry the assumption that the military leaves any imprint on it's personnel or their children... ...and yet you do so with all the stubborness and determination of a U.S. Marine!

Not that I have anything against Marines-- but my point is that military traits should not be so easily dismissed when looking at the impact of military life on individuals.

Sean7phil (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not our experience
We are an active duty U.S. Army aviation family. I am personally a U.S. Army community educator (AFTB, 7 Habits, Red Cross, Family Readiness Groups). In a month I meet numerous family members from all ranks and I absolutely do not see pervasive authoritarian family dynamics or strong patriarchal authority in our community (nor in any in which we have lived in the past 10 years). Furthermore, these things are also quite unusual in the many Air Force and Navy families we know. I question this source and wonder if it is not out-of-date. Though published in 1999, I believe it reflects the realities of military life one or two decades earlier. Furthermore, numerous other assertions made here about rank classism and other aspects of military life are not representative of our personal experience, unflattering to our (male and female) commanders, and generally a sensationalist, damamging and unrealistic portrayal of military life today.Saseigel (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest (as the original driver behind getting this article to its current shape), it isn't entirely my experience either. I felt that parts of it addressed my parent's experience more than my own---or now the current generations.  That being said, we have to go with what is published.  Most research on military brats is on people who are 30+.  But if you can add more to the article that is researched from today's perspective, please do so.Balloonman (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That seems like a fair response.  I am still bothered that, since FA articles carry a lot of weight, it's crucial that they portray the most current realities, annotating historical content as such.  Some resources that could be invaluable for updating this article are official publications, various more recent military and scholarly studies (of military family life), the Military Times family of newspapers, the Pacific and European editions of "Stars and Stripes," and the entirely private "Military Spouse" magazine.  As I find resources, I will try to incorporate them.Saseigel (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am an "army-brat" myself (to German army though) with similiar experiences and I also cannot see a big difference in our family-structure compared to non-army families. But I had friends that really had a sort of military drill at home.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.56.4.247 (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wertsch never calls such dynamics absolute or equally true for all military families. Rather she describes a continuum that includes such dynamics to varying degrees for some families.

An additional point-- in a divided country (as the United States is today)-- it seems we end up with two distortions about the military brat experience--

Distortion From the Left: The military brat experience was highly abusive and military families are largely authoritarian.

Distortion From the Right: There are no problems in military familes and there was nothing challenging about growing up military (with the exception of challenges faced by war families).

Such games of ideological football make a casualty of the truth. The reality probably varies significantly from family to family and doesn't fit anyones 'ideological agenda'.

I would personally say, however, that it isn't accurate to suggest that military life has no impact on military kids--

Nor is it accurate to insinuate that most military kids experienced abuse or extremely strict upbringings.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A third distortion may come from military parents--

Nothing could be harder than to look at any critique of parenting directed at ones own community. The chances for denial in such cases should be taken into account. Yet on the other hand--

The fact that the military is a political football in our society also means that exaggeration of "the military impact on families" is always a possibility as well.

Sean7phil (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job
Nice job. Last saw this article a few years back and it was total crap. Congratz on FA status --Armanalp (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in Nov 06, I had a hell of a fight on my hands to save the article because it was garbage---more of an add for a military brats website.Balloonman (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that the motivation for the original article was to promote any other website. That is quite a stretch.

I don't know the original authors-- (I also do not own or run any military brats website myself).

But I also think it's a bit unfair to assume negative motives on the part of anyone who does own a military brats website--

There is a huge need for online services for brats. The handful of people who provide them deserve thanks, not aspersion.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I think this is a very fine article in it's current form. Outstanding-- and to the current authors credit. Despite the occasional cantankerousness of the author!

Sean7phil (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, there are many authors, it's a collaborative website --AW (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What extensive research?
Please show sources for "extensive psychological research done by the Department of Defense". Without citation that is an innacurate line in the main article.

Observations can be made (and quoted) about brats. But a comment about the supposedly large amount of research done should be cited.

Also, the word 'demographic' is not a noun, it is an adjective. "Demographic' modifies (helps to describe or characterize) a noun. The word 'demographic' in this context should appear next to the word 'group' or 'population' or some other appropriate noun.
 * It can be used as a noun. And there is a citation:
 * Clifton, Grace (2004) "Making the case for the BRAT (British Regiment Attached Traveller)" in British Education Research Journal, Vol 1 No 3 June 2004. p 458.
 * Unfortunately, I don't have access to this paper. -SpuriousQ (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Any Evidence For Origin of the Term "Military Brat"?
I'm wondering if the British Military acronym "British Regiment Attached Traveller" might be the original source. Whatever the origin, it would also be interesting to know how far back in history the term goes...

Sean7phil (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's probably a backronym --AW (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the earlier definitions I heard, but couldn't verify, was that the term came from kids who followed military units around like prostitutes. The kids would be there to polish the soldiers shoes, run errands, etc.  And somebody would as "Is that your brat?"  Another variation was that military brats were the bastard offspring of the prostitutes/families who followed military units arounds.  When researching the article, I couldn't find a "reliable" source to support either of those stories.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Baloonman,

I just saw your response today (I'm sorry about the delay, I don't have this site on watch).

Those are interesting leads, and push the term 'brat' back farther than I have heard about before. (Although it makes a lot of sense).

The prostitution connection sounds very plausible. There have been woman "camp followers" for armies going back centuries (if not for millenia)-- and now that you point it out-- it does make sense that their children would have been the first "brats". The children of camp followers would have certainly had to follow the armies too. Opens my eyes to to how far back the brat experience may actually go. Sean7phil (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Images
I find some of the images accompanying this article to be mawkish, especially the lead image and the "Friendships" image. They are both highly emotionally charged and detract from the excellent article itself. I feel they add very little to the entry, aside from attempting to elicit a strong emotional reaction from the reader - in my opinion not the role of an encyclopaedia.

ahpook (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Military brats are children of soldiers. What else could be posted in the article other than pictures of these children in this context? Children are endearing. What are you going to do?

65.101.251.116 (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of children of soldiers dealing with war seperation are not 'mawkish'. If you had ever been such a child then you would understand.

205.240.5.37 (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

General/Colonel's Row
I'm removing the citation request for General/Colonel's Row. The terms are fairly common in military commuities, and I don't believe they need citations. Here are google book searches Colonel's Row General's Row "Colonel's row" and housing because just Colonel's Row is too many.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Article name
This is a very good article - a featured article, in fact - but there's one thing wrong with it: the title. Why is there a need for the '(U.S. subculture)' brackets after the title, when no other 'military brat' article exists? (Military brat is a redirect to this page.) Naming conventions (precision) states: 'If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word or phrase (unless it is unlikely that the related usages deserve their own article)... but over-precision is not necessary either and should be avoided'. In this case, it seems unlikely that anyone is going to write an article about non-American military brats; if they do, then Military brat can be made a disambiguation page, but for now I see no reason why it should not be the title of this page.

All that is necessary is a sentence or note in the lead mentioning that this article concentrates primarily on the American culture of 'military brats', and not military families of other countries; but there is no need to state this so explicitly with the disambiguation brackets in the title, especially when no general Military brat article exists. Terraxos (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At the top of this talk page there is a box that documents the past discussions concerning the name of this page. Please read those discussions and if you have any further comments, feel free to ask, I'll be happy to try to answer them.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for bringing up an issue that has been discussed many times before, but I did see the box at the top of the page and read through the links there, and still couldn't find a sufficiently convincing argument for keeping this page at its current title. The main argument against just calling it Military brat is that it is written about the American experience, and while military children of other countries do call themselves 'military brats', they are likely to have different experiences not covered by this article. That much is clear. However, it also seems that there is insufficient material available about military brats of other countries to write a more general article, or one about Non-US military brats; such an article would unavoidably consist of original research. Therefore, until someone is able to write an article on non-US military brats that complies with Wikipedia's policies, it seems to me the best thing to do is simply move this page to Military brat, but add a note stating that it only covers the US experience.


 * (Alternatively, perhaps a rename to United States military brats might work. It's not ideal, but I think it would still be an improvement on the current awkward title.) Terraxos (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, once you move it to just "military brat" the page will be flooded with various tags and insistances that it be globalized and that it is biased. This was tried and failed.  Such a move, would result in the article instantly loosing it's FA status.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure; looking through the previous conversations, I'd say you've given plenty of reasons why a non-globalised article on military brats would be acceptable. Personally, I think it would be fine to have the article under a generic name, but just have a brief section at the end called 'Military brats outside the United States' or something like that. However, it doesn't look like there's much consensus for a name change either at the moment, so I'm happy to let this drop and keep it under the current name for the time being. Terraxos (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an admin who moved the article about a little over a year ago without discussion or referencing the previous discussions. That moved was done in correctly and lost some of the history of the two pages, but the page was without the dab for about a day or two, and was tagged with several tags and a few major edits to globalize the article.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Although I was the primary author and watchdog, I haven't read this article in a while. I just re-read it and wanted to thank those who have helped improve it. I keep seeing small little changes that have been made, that are clear improvements over what was originally submitted to FAC. To those who have helped out over the years, thanks.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Patriotism
The pledge is absolutely NOT said in all DODDS schools. At least not the ones I attended as a military BRAT and not the ones I have volunteered in as a military spouse. This seems to be attributed to the fact that some children who attend DODDS schools have parents who are foreign nationals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.231.236 (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The term Brat
With respect, I beg to differ on the origin of the word Brat. For example, the term "Brat" has been used with great affection in the Royal Air Force since at least 1922 to refer to one who has been trained at one of the Schools of Technical Training established by The Lord Trenchard. We are known either as Trenchard Brats or as Halton Brats. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_1_School_of_Technical_Training Please can you amend the article to reflect the other conotations of the word? Many thanks, Stuartmorgan48 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it was used back in 1922 does not negate anything in the article. The origins of the terms usage are unknown.  When researching this article originally, I found several explanations as to the origins of the word.  One of the earliest known usages of the term dates back to at least the US Civil War, at which time the affection wasn't as clear.  The use at that time was in regards to the various camp followers, which often included families (both legit and illegit.)  The children were known to be called "brats"---again the usage back that far doesn't indicate if it was a negative or affectionate term.  Also, there is a WWII era (US) film wherein the term is used with affection (I just don't remember which one, but recall it being one with protagonist being a pilot.)  The term has been used for centuries, the origins are unknown, but what is known is that in the military context it doesn't have a negative connotation.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: the use of brat on that article and Military Brat are two entirely different connotations. Looks like the use of brat there is in reference to the students who were part of Aircraft Apprentice Scheme---it does not appear to be one that was limited to children of military personel.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Move?
no consensus to move. There seems to be a building consensus to make Military brat a sort of disambiguating stub - someone needs to take care of that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture) → Military brat — Doubly-unnecessary disambiguation, latter redirects to former. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This exists for a reason. Moving is not uncontroversial. Gimmetrow 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Military brat has just redirected back to the current article since December 2007. There is no reason to have a disambiguation when it's not disambiguating from something else. Unless there is gonna be another article named "Military brat", then this page should be moved.  TJ   Spyke   04:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unnecessary to say that it's "U.S." and that it's a subcultre, especially since the article military brat redirects here anyway. Furthermore, if you needed to disambiguate for the United States, you should use the demonym "American" rather than U.S. For that matter, there is no need to disambiguate at all, since you could just name the article Military brats in the United States, which would be the proper name if there was any content at military brat other than a redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. "Before moving this page or questioning the need for the (U.S. subculture) disambig, please review the previous discussions". Gimmetrow 13:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nod, this issue has been discussed on numerous occassions before. There is a reason to IAR in this case. Without the Dab, then the problem with this article is that it will get tagged with numerous tags such as clean up, globalization, US focus, etc. The reality is that this is a global phenomenon, but has only really been studied in the US (as is testified in the article by both US an non-US scholars.) The research in this article ONLY applies to US Military Brats. It is NOT applicable to non-US brats.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support There is no other article named Military brat, so a disambiguation is not needed and goes against Disambiguation. Disambiguation terms are only used when needed to resolve a conflict between similar named articles. Just because no one else has bothered to put non-US uses of the term in (I personally have never heard the term used other than for US children) is not reason to add a un-needed disambiguation.  TJ   Spyke   17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. People were aware of typical disambiguation pages when this article and redirect were set up and discussed, and the article and redirect are this way after multiple discussions. Those proposing the move seem unaware of the prior discussions, and as a result have provided no argument that could possibly be persuasive. Gimmetrow 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not persuasive to you, but that doesn't matter. Disambiguation are only used to, get this, DISAMBIGUATE. Do you have any legit reason for why you think it shouldn't be moved? Disambiguations are not used if there is nothing to disambiguate.  TJ   Spyke   21:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument was rejected by multiple prior discussion. Since you refuse to address this prior discussion at all, you have no argument that merits further response. You are not arguing based on a policy requirement, but on an editing guideline. Guidelines admit of exceptions, so even if some guideline appeared to be against this situation, it doesn't matter. Prior editors considered the guideline, discussed it, and did something else. Gimmetrow 21:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, did you read the prior discussions? There are reasons why numerous discussions prior to this have rejected your notion and concluded that this is a case to, and this is policy, make an exception--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole argument against following the guidelines is "people are too lazy to add mentions of non-US uses", that is the gist of the brief discussion before. Just because you and some others are too lazy to add in non-US mentions is not reason to have disambiguation when there is zero reason to do so. There is no other article named Military brat, so this should be moved. It's as simple as that, it doesn't matter what lazy editors talked about in 2007.  TJ   Spyke   02:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Brief discussion"? This issue was discussed multiple times at peer review and featured article candidacy. So far, all you've offered is "a guideline says something". If there were no past discussion and nobody objected, then a guideline might be an adequate argument for a change. Here, given the past discussions on this topic, you should offer something more. Gimmetrow 02:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, no, the argument against is not "people are too lazy to add mentions of non-US uses" but rather that research into non-US Military Brats does not exist. The "research" in British Brats was to take Morton Ender's research on speculate on wether or not it might be true for British Brats and the research lamented that there was no significant research outside of the US.  Morton Ender in turn has stated that he hopes other countries might research their brats so cross cultural analysis might be performed.  Ann Cotrell, in writing on Military Brats as Third Culture Kids, warns that brats who are TCKs are almost exclusively from the USA.  You are more than welcome to showing yourself not to be a Lazy editor, but this lazy editor, who happened to do a tad more research into this subject than you appear to have, challenges you to find reliable sources for your contention.  Until then, provide a reason other than a guideline why numerous prior discussions (including to FAC's and a peer review) should be ignored.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose just to make it a formality. I really wish people would review previous discussions before making such a motion. BTW, if you somehow do succeed in getting this moved, you might want to immediately make a request at FAR to have the article reviewed, as part of the reason this article became an FA was due to the name and without the umbrella identifying this as applying only to US Military Brats, this article will quickly deteriorate. (As happened several times before when moves were made without discussion.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, a less cumbersome title, ideally barring any parenthesis, is needed. Military brats in the United States might work. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You would still end up having the redirect at Military Brat and you would introduce errors into the article, because the subject is not "Military brats in the United States" it is on a studied subculture known as Military Brats. Military brats in the US, would include non-US military brats who happen to be in the US as well as exclude US Military Brats who are not in the US.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose My initial opinion coming in to this discussion was to support the move.  After reading through all the links at the top of this page and the article itself, the current title is the appropriate title for this article.  The article is not about Military brats in general but about military brats from the US military.  There doesn't appear to be enough research about military brats from other countries.  If additional research is done about military brats from other militaries then make the generic Military brat article.   GB fan  talk 02:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Putting something in parentheses after a title is only done as a disambiguation, never to explain what the title is. This is a uniquely U.S. term and there is no need for disambiguation. If that proves to be wrong, the title would be changed to Military brat (U.S.), but not to U.S. subculture. Subculture is never going to be needed as a disambiguation. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Major fallacy with your argument. This is NOT a uniquely US term.  British, Canadian, Australian militaries also use the term military brat.  In fact, I suspect that most English speaking countries use it.  The term "brat" has also been used by both German and French.  If it were a uniquely English Term, then you would be correct, but as your premise is not valid, your rationale is not valid.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Canada], Australian and New Zealand, one of the hypothesis on the origin of the term is British Regiment Attached Travelers, India, etc--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, disambiguation is not added because you think it might be needed in the future, it is only added because it is currently needed. By all means change it to (U.S.) when other articles are created, but I strongly suspect that if any are they would just be stubs and better served by combining them into one main article. And subculture? Please, there is surely never going to be more than one article about U.S. military brats. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not married to the subculture part... it was the name that consensus reached 2 years ago, but if we want to get rid of it today, we can. I will, however, oppose all efforts to get rid of the (U.S.) because experience has shown us what happens when this is listed as just as military brat (unfortunately, some sloppy moves as documented in the pages history, lost some of that history.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest adding a section at the end of the article for other uses of the words military brat, i.e. other countries that use the term. You simply don't have a leg to stand on saying you want a dis when it is not disambiguating itself from any other article. That simply is not done. You can, however take out the parentheses, and call it U.S. military brats, but nobody calls them that, so I am going to say that while you could do that, it is a really lousy idea. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of the dab has been discussed ad nasieum and was determined the best option. There is actually policy that supports this, ignore all rules.  If there is a reason to ignore a policy/guideline that makes sense, do so.  This is just such a case.  Normally, you are correct.  Having a dab when not necessary is not required.  But does having a dab make sense?  Yes, the article is about a specific sector of Military Brats.  Does getting rid of the dab make sense (strictly from the article's perspective)? No, getting rid of it would mean that the article would have to globalized/butchered and there simply isn't the data to do the broader topic justice.  So while a guideline may exist saying not to do this, common sense says, this is the best option.  And that is exactly why WP:IAR came into effect, if common sense says to do soemthing, even if it isn't supported by policy/guideline, then do it.  And yes, U.S. military brats would be a lousy option (and would still keep the redirect from military brat.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not read the archives (my apologies), but I have a suggestion that might fix this. Perhaps the article Military brat could be changed from a redirect to a stub that basically says the following...."Military brat is a term used by countries X, Y, and Z. It has only been extensively studied in the United States...." That way we retain the title of this article (which is appropriate for its scope) and open up a military brat article for potential improvement in coverage of non-US uses. Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been open to that... the article under military brat has had articles and they've been redirected/unredirected/redirected for aeons.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like a very reasonable solution. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good solution to the issue I think, as it does leave a clear path forward for new material should it become available. And if nothing else it is an editorial solution to the repeated problems of non-global tagging and non-standard naming. DMacks (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That picture...
If someone could track down the first picture on this page in a higher pixel form, I would love to see it nominated for FP status. It is simply amazing. User:Nezzadar (speak) 18:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

discussing the topic in Germany
There's a recent report by Der Spiegel here, discussing the effects on children of soldiers. You could ude this to highlight that experiences for children are similar in other countries. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Slight change to intro 02DEC09
To justify my change from: "Although the children did not choose to belong to it, military culture can have a long-term impact on the children." to "Military culture can have a long-term impact on children." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.39.66 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 1) it goes without saying a child didn't choose the occupation of their parents at the time of the child's birth 2) The amount of impact a set circumstances is going to have on a person isn't necessarily made greater or lesser by whether they themselves made a decision effecting the circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.39.66 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Choice does affect ones response to challenges or trauma. I'm not saying that a military childhood is difficult for all military kids-- but for those who do encounter difficulties, the fact that the whole family has so little control over what is happening in their lives (not even much choice about where you live) can ad another layer of challenge.

I'm not saying that challenge is all bad either-- it can also make one stronger / give one special abilities.

But yeah, the military family itself has less control over a lot of things than a civilian family does-- that is not to be confused with personal control over ones reactions-- many military families are highly adaptive and resilient too-- but the lesser degree of control over life circumstances can be an added challenge, thats all.

Clearly you are talking about just the children-- my point however, is that it impacts the child to be in a family with the added stresses of diminished control in comparison to many civilian families.

Sean7phil (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My two bits: first. leave as a topic. It is worthwhile; second. I've found the correct link for reference no. 3. It is http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44766. Can someone make this a wikipedia worthy reference please. It is a bit to late in the evening for me. --S. Rich 06:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs)

Facebook Reference
Remove the Facebook reference. It is merely a description of what the author, Jill Brink, intends to do. No research or data is presented.--S. Rich 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Sure: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=124588367049#!/group.php?gid=124588367049&v=info. The offending page -- this one -- is not in the article anymore which is why you cannot see it. Another point about the problem is the matter of how a non-facebook user can access the page -- do they have to sign up with facebook in order to do so? If so, then facebook is not a generally accessible source. Again, the offending page is not a worthwhile or useful reference. --S. Rich 06:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? I can't see facebook in the main text, and I'm not particularly keen on going through the edit page to find the facebook web link.  I agree it should be removed though, facebook isn't a source.  Feel free to do it yourself of course. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody keeps adding it and it keeps getting deleted. Nobody believes that facebook is a RS... hell, I probably wouldn't accept facebook even if it was an official site of an organization/individual.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that one. Quite agree, it doesn't appear to be anything more than someone's facebook group, doesn't mention any research (as far as I could see) and as you say, requires membership to see it. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A Wikipedia "Link" is totally different than a Wikipedia "Source". A "source" is for something that is being quoted in the article, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia "links".

Wikipedia "Link" guidelines are totally different than "Source" guidelines--

And require only that the link be 1) relevant to the topic and 2) that it be non-commercial.

As far as Facebook goes-- the study is not on a "Personal" page, it is on an "Organization page", and is devoted to doing a Non-profit study of "Military brats". That is totally relevant to the article topic.

Facebook is merely a platform, you wouldn't ban a website because of the company that provides the 'platform' for that website. It's irrelevant.

Facebook isn't doing the study, they are just providing the website. And on a non-personal (organization) page.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Another thing-- I am a former brat myself and I have noticed in some Online Brat Communities, people get paranoid about discussing anything to do with mental health and brats. It's a ridiculous fear. No study will ever show that most brats are mentally ill. **But for those brats who might have been adversely affected by War, Dad's PTSD, or constant moves, the study will help efforts to help those individual brats who are in need (due to their families service to their country). So please don't feel threatened by the study link, and please just leave it alone.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct this is not a source for any of the information in the article and it should not be held to the standards of a reliable source. This is an external link and should be held to that standard.  My analysis of the link based on that standard.
 * What should be linked
 * 1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.
 * Does not apply
 * 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work.
 * Does not apply
 * 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons.
 * There is no information on the page only what the study is going to do.
 * Links to be considered
 * 1. Criteria no longer exists
 * 2. Very large pages.
 * Does not apply
 * 3. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations.
 * Does not apply
 * 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
 * No indication this is the case.
 * Links normally to be avoided, will not discuss each one only those that are applicable
 * 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
 * This is not a unique resource that contains information beyond a featured article.
 * 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.
 * Don't have much to say, it is a facebook link.
 * This site does not meet any of the items in those external links that should be or maybe linked. It does however meet to of the criteria of links that should be avoided.  It does not belong according to the External Links guideline.   GB fan  talk 21:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * From the page:
 * "I am a psychology graduate student and military brat. As part of my thesis I would like to do research either among military brats or military families, assessing problems many military dependents face."
 * Does that sound like an authoritative link to you? I'm afraid it doesn't to me and I happen to meet both of the first two requirements. I wouldn't consider myself a reliable source on the matter and nor would anyone else. If you'd come to wiki looking for facts and further information, would this page really suit your needs?  There is zero information about reliable research on the page, only a cursory note about what the founder intends to do, on a minimum of volunteers. What is there on that page (which you need to be a member of facebook to view) that adds to anyone's understanding of the article?  Please please please acquaint yourself with External links before you try to re-add the link. Any further attempt to do so will (I'm sure) be considered vandalism. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No one is trying to crush the efforts of graduate students studying military brats. We are discussing what is or is not appropriate for the Wikipedia article on military brats according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  The link does not meet the external link guideline.  Once the study is completed and if it gets published and discussed then it might be appropriate to insert the conclusions her. At this point there is nothing to report.  I hope the subculture does get studied the way it should be as I am a military brat also along with my children.  Good luck in your efforts.   GB fan  talk 00:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I removed my post, thanks for the encouragement.75.166.179.110 (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC) NOTE: IP is referring to this edit wherein he deleted his comments to which subsequent editors responded.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Going out of our way to crush the efforts of a graduate students and eventually a few will get through clearly indicate the purpose/goal of tying the post here. You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:SPAM and WP:COI.  The purpose behind Wikipedia is not to provide a sampling base for potential researchers.
 * As for this being an official page---that just goes to show the amateurish nature of the project. Get sponsorship by a University or recognized authority in the field or research organization, and we might give it more credence.  If your name was Ender, Wertsch, or Pollack we might consider adding it... but no offense graduate student research projects just don't cut the mustard.  Even on a subject I care about---and I've completed the work for two graduate degrees in two separate fields.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Intro Photo
A bit of an edit war has started re the introductory photo. This photo is good in the sense you cannot discern which of the services is depicted. But the photo does come from a USAF photographer. To resolve the caption controversy, may I suggest the editors go to http://www.af.mil/photos/index.asp and select one that does have a caption on it provided by the photographer. (I've looked for the caption in controversy, but cannot find it. Perhaps someone else can.)  But rather than take this spat and blow it out of proportion, let's find a good photo and settle on it.--S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a good picture, it has been nominated twice for Featured Picture and the reason why it hasn't passed is because of technical aspects of the photo not the photo itself.  The debate has been a person who doesn't like the caption, but I am open to other captions.  The key is, that the caption needs to describe what is going on.  And the description provided by the original photo was to the effect that the child was saying goodbye to her father.  If I remember correctly, the name used for the photo "I'll miss you daddy" is the name the photographer gave the image.  The picture is effective explicitly because it captures the emotions involved in a child saying goodbye to their military parent.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Balloonman, the picture is good and the caption effectively describes the picture. I don't see any reason to change the picture or the caption.  I also wouldn't say that a single edit to change the caption with a single revert is an edit war.   GB  fan  14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, one GF edit and one reversion does not make an edit war. As this photo has been there for over 3 years, and to my recollection this is the first time anybody has raised any objections.  Instead it has been nominated twice for feature picture.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "edit skirmish" instead of war. --S. Rich (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets not become politically correct about making every single photo "service neutral". Most people have the intelligence (and the emotional grace) to understand that each photo only represents one small slice of the military brat experience.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Who came up with this title?
This seems more disparaging than anything else. "Brat" seems more appropriate as a nickname than an official term or label for the child of a soldier. 75.199.149.242 (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "Military Brat" is a major part of military culture (and has been for hundreds of years). **In the military it is not seen as an insulting term at all, but is a term of affection. "Military brat" also implies a certain "spunkiness" (says Mary Edwards Wertsch in the documentary "Military Brats" our journey home)-- as well as resourcefulness, resilience and strength that many military brats have. So it is also seen by many current and former military brats as a complimentary term and is often used by us as an expression of pride.

The fact that most of us military brats use the term to describe ourselves should be the deciding factor. It's the most common term we use to describe our own selves, our own experience growing up as military children, and our shared sense of identity. And the term has been in use for generations. So not only is the title of the article fine, the article would be unsearchable by most current and former military brats if they were looking for articles on this subject. Hence changing the title would also be crippling to the usefulness of the article.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the Definition of "Military Brat" Too Narrow?
Some thoughts on what makes a military brat (I'm not saying I have a clear answer, but these are some reflections that may pertain to this article/the subject in general)--

I thinks it's fair to say that there are different kinds of military brats. Just like there is diversity in other ethnic communities (or quasi-ethnic communities in the case of military brats) there is diversity re brat experience and criteria.

Some examples:

(Non-mobile) National Guard brats: They don't move around like many of us brats, but otherwise go through almost everything else that most other brats do (wartime deployment of a parent, after-war family issues, and varying degrees of militarization of the family). Yet they often live their whole lives in one small town, which is a point of difference, or diversity, within the military brat population.

Children of non-active duty military-impacted families: I have a personal friend like this, her father was a Vietnam vet who was out of the marines just before she was born. But her family experience was totally militarized--

She was raised like a little marine (put through 'boot camp'-like experiences growing up). So the military was a major influence on her upbringing. Plus her father had major PTSD from Vietnam. She also is a classic "warrior woman" (tomboy who acts like a soldier and is proficient in martial arts, firearms, etc). But "technically" she isn't a "military brat", even though she really is in every other sense.

I think as awareness continues to grow about military brats, we will begin to find words or terms to describe these "non-active duty" or "non-mobile" military brats.

All populations have diversity and I think these are some examples of diversity within the U.S. military brat experience.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Should Avoid 'Absolute' Descriptions, Instead Get the Ideas Across with more Ambiguity/Ranges of Experience
Getting away from the "definition of military brat issue" and looking at other parts of the article--

Avoiding absolute statements will make the article more credible, without sacrificing any of the key ideas. No journalistic article about anything social in nature should describe anything in absolute terms but should rather describe ranges of experience, and ranges of patterns, that still describe overall patterns. As soon as something is stated in an absolute sense, it loses something, and becomes harder to trust or believe.

Overall this is an excellent article-- but the use of too many absolute statements (implying that something is 'exactly this way and no other way') undermine it's credibility at points.

Describing ranges of experience is the way out of the trap. The ranges will still have approximate end-points, on either side of the continuums they describe, but will then also have the ambiguity that looks more like reality.

Here are two concrete examples of what I mean:

The article stated that the military brat is patriotic in nature. That's an absolute statement (absolutely all brats are this way) which is less believable than saying. "Many brats" (range of experience implied- instead of absolutes) "grow up exposed to a heightened sense of patriotism, due to these ideas being heavily emphasized in their environment". Also adding "Patriotism may come to believe different things for different military brats" also adds more 'range of experience' rather than implying an absolute (it's exactly the same way for each and every brat).

Another example: Stating that military bases give military brats a sense of security: That's also an absolute statement (does each and every single military brat really feel exactly this way? Not likely given what we know about how individuals can vary in opinion and perception).

Instead saying "Many military brats feel..." describes a range of experience (not an 'absolute identical experience for every single military brat'). Also-- allowing the opposite idea into the range, along with some ambiguity "security, or feeling of restriction, (or both)" adds ambiguity without losing the same idea.

In the process it also makes the section much more believable (no one is going to believe that each and every military brat has an identical experience, but people will believe that there is a certain range of experiences that many military brats tend to have).

Adding some ambiguity = more believe-able/better writing. Stating descriptions in absolute terms all the way through the article (when describing a social and not a scientific phenomenon) = less believable/less reader trust in the writing.

It's one of those minor things that has a major impact. It's a fly that should be fished out of an otherwise very good ointment.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There a few places where non-absolutes and ranges are used. But a number of places (as shown in the post above) where absolute statements are an issue.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Problems corrected as of this posting: Most of these problems (of absolute descriptions) have largely been corrected, without changing the (overall) meaning of those passages.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Added "Origin of Term" sub-section
This is salient to the article by itself-- but I also included a passage on a non-U.S.-specific term, "Camp followers". This is also salient (so as far as it is referenced, in a limited way, in this article) but it also creates a good place in the article to "link-out" to any other (future) "non-U.S. brat" sites that may develop.

Thereby also addressing the "non-U.S. brat" issue in a way that is supportive of creation of other (future) articles about non-U.S. brats without sacrificing the primary (American subculture) focus of this article.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Donna Musil Documentary "Brats: Our Journey Home" is a Legitimate Citation Source, According to Wikipedia Standards
FYI--

" What counts as a reliable source... . . . Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria."

Here is the link to the abovementioned Wikipedia standard: WP:SOURCES

Here also is the Wikipedia definition of Electronic Media.

I've been using the documentary for some citations under the aegis of this policy.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

==Help Needed from Other Military Brat Wikipedia Editors: "Military Brat" mention removed from Elizabeth Edwards Wikipedia Article (they probably though the term "Military Brat" was vandalism/didn't understand the term)==

It had been mentioned in the "External links" section on that page, and in one other spot, but has been removed--

Here is what I wrote over there (but any additional comments over there would help, see the bottom of the discussion page of that article by following this link to that Wikipedia article discussion page)-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Edwards

Or read a copy of the same below:

"Link to Wikipedia "Military Brats" article should not have been removed, the term is often misunderstood by non-military people and did not violate Wikipedia editing standards--"

Edwards is listed (on the Military Brats sub-page) as a "Famous Military Brat". Chances are someone thought that the "Military brat" link here on the Elizabeth Edwards article was an insult or vandalism--

In fact the term "Military brat" is a term of affection in the US military and is not derogatory at all. It means "child of a career military family". The term has been used for over 200 years in the United States military.

"Military brat" also has become a term of cultural identity, and most current and former military brats use it with pride--

It has come to engender, in just two words, a summation of the unique challenges faced by the US military childhood: constantly moving as one's soldier father (or mother) is transfered throughout their career from military base to military base. Never having a hometown as the result. Living constantly with loss on the one hand, and yet a sense of adventure on the other hand. Bravely facing a strange new world again and again and again while growing up.

It also refers to a sense of international identity, since many Military brats also lived overseas for a part of their growing up. So it implies world citizenship as well.

And it can also reference how military kids and teenagers often live indirectly with the stresses of war, while their solder father or mother is deployed during wartime and also the psychological aftermath of war in some cases, after the parent returns.

So overall the term "Military brat" acknowledges the challenges and character demanded by a military childhood or adolescence.

So no, it was not an insult, nor was it vandalism at all (nor was it a violation of any Wikipedia editing standards) that the link to the Wikipedia article "Military brat" stood for so long at the bottom of Elizabeth Edwards Wikipedia article. In fact it was a badge of honor. And it also stood in quiet thanks to Elizabeth, as it does for so many others, for their years of nearly invisible service and sacrifice as a military child or teenager (or both, in many cases).

Others may not know much about the unique and challenging lifestyles of military brats, but we who knew this life personally have (for years now, and very appropriately, by Wikipedia editing standards) placed these links on many Wikipedia pages of notable former military brats. And that is why this link should be returned to this article, because it truly belongs here, and as you (now) know, it never was vanadalism in the first place.

Respectfully and with best wishes to all,

(Again here is a link to the original post [where fellow military brat editors could be of assistance regarding this matter] is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Edwards)

Telemachus.forward (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This issue now seems to be largely resolved.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Help Needed: Many Wikipedia Biography Articles (of Former Military Brats) Lack Adequate Description of Brat Aspect of Their Upbringing
Often Wikipedia editors (who don't understand the military brat lifestyle) will just pick one place where the person lived--

And then they write the article as if that (one) place was where they grew up! As the result, the true nature of the persons military brat upbringing is rendered invisible / represented inaccurately.

Wikipedia rules should be followed, but volunteers are needed to help edit/correct many of these "Brat-invisible" articles.

Other brat life experience (parent in war, living at high-casualty bases during wartime, etc) should also be added, if found and cite-able. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.148.9 (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * When fixing these articles, be sure to also include proper citations (according to Wikipedia standards), or any corrections made won't last.

Here is a large list of Wikipedia articles about former military brats: * List of famous military brats (Look in the "Early Life" sections of these articles, or help add such sections if needed).

How to add Wikipedia links back to this article (from other Wikipedia articles) (please only add within other relevant Wikipedia articles)--

If you can't find citations (other than the article already mentioning a military parent) then add a link back to Military brat (US subculture) Put two brackets (on each side, four total) (Left and Right, inward facing) on either side of " Military brat (US subculture) " (leave out the quotes).

You can add these links inline (in the text of the article) or to the "See Also" section, or to the "Categories" section or as an external link at the bottom of the article (add the text "Wikipedia article on US military children") to the right of the link.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Layout and Structure (Discussion spurred by posts in previous section)
I just converted much of the lead to sections and sub-sections. This also opens the door to rearranging sections-- and also integrating some sections together. I am not attached to a particular vision of the overall article layout.

My main impetus was to get the article away from statements that were absolute (implying that this is how military brats are, period) and also somewhat cookie-cutter in description.

I do however have one idea/strong opinion about layout/article structure, and it is that the article should have--

A flow from 1) Brief description (that relates to/foreshadows the meat of the article content) to 2) Semi-brief overview description (in a paragraph or two) and then 3) sections and sub-sections that expand on those ideas.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Balance in the Article
Most importantly of all (in my opinion)--

I think the article lacked some balance before.

There are some really tough aspects of the military brat life, (especially war-related issues for some brats, along with the rootlessness), and studies show that some brats are deeply scarred by the experience (and I am against white-washing this).

But there are also some very strong (positive) traits (overall) that show in studies of military brats that were missed/under-emphasized previously in the article.

I did a lot of work in the last few days to correct that imbalance (by adding more of the positives) along with valid facts and verifiable sources/citations.

But I wasn't so happy either with the layout that resulted in the process.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I also added more (a few days ago) on the wartime (and war-aftermath) stresses on some brats (verified and cited)--

Detailing how it is not just simply "threat of parental loss in war" that is an issue--

But that it's also the psychological aftermath of war (dealing with a returning war-affected veteran parent) and also the stress of having your friends fathers (or mothers) becoming casualties etc (while your parent is still deployed and at risk, which can heighten the brats stress considerably)... That part was actually under-represented before, and I corrected that as well.

But it's a complicated issue and I also added a passage (with citations) on how National Guard brats may suffer because they don't have the support of a military community during wartime.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede too long
Hi article regulars - the lede is extensive, very long in fact - it seems to mew like an article unto itself. Could consider narrowing it down. Cheers, Ingolfson (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the lead needs work.

And I agree that the whole section (with all the additional paragraphs) needs to be sectionalized/rearranged. I was adding new material (with citations) but the article layout was getting affected in the process.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A point about the opening paragraph--

The opening paragraph (was) also (originally) very long, too abstract (focused solely on the term), and (a major issue)-- The opening paragraph didn't touch on the meat of the subject at all (the life of military kids and teenagers).

It also may still be a bit over-explanatory (a common reflex, since the term "military brat" can be misunderstood by civilians), needed, however maybe a bit overdone.

I just now made a first attempt at a fix--

I added a brief reference (in the lead) to the two most primary features of military brat life-- 1) moving all the time and 2) the very intimate connection to war via deployed soldier parents and also deployed soldier-neighbors. And 3) ended the new opening with (paraphrase)-- 'And there are other areas where studies show that brat populations are significantly different'.

This is a common writing practice (brief topical foreshadowing) & avoids the opening being just an abstract, slightly winded discussion about terminology.

I can also see how the rest of the first part of the article could be converted to sections, or sub-sections (was thinking the same thing myself). They really aren't meant to be a part of the lead. It's just hard to do all the work in one shot, since it's a large article.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also I want to make an ID clarification. The IP address "98.245.148.9" and Telemachus.forward (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC) are both me. I am just lazy/forgetful about logging in sometimes. A habit I am trying to correct.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing the Word "Pejorative" from the Article Opening
Removing "pejorative" which is not a word that the average reader will readily understand, nor will most readers want to take the time to click a link in order to learn the meaning. Thus the term distracts from, rather than helps, the article.

Changing to the more commonly used words "negative" and "insult" to make the article more accessible.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?
In the intro it says -- "Military brats parents (and friends parents) go to war at a much higher incidence than the civilian population". Apart from apostrophes being needed after "brats" and "friends", this passage is very airy fairy. Surely it would be at a much higher incidence than civvies who don't do to war anway, so why the mention? Puzzles me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.15.198 (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and changed the sentence, I think your point is right (to an extent) as the sentence was overstating the obvious.

I would not entirely leave out the war-related aspect of this life though (there is a difference between overstating on the one hand and omitting a key fact on the other). I adjusted the sentence, however to avoid overstatement. Thanks for your point!

98.245.148.9 (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Highly Mobile Aspect of Military Childhood is Central and Should Not Have Been Removed from the Opening Paragraph
Adding highly mobile aspect of military brat life back in. If anyone thinks this is not a major part of the lifestyle, ask any military brat. I don't know why, but people who didn't grow up this way don't always realize this.

Never having a home town, and always moving while growing up, is one of the most challenging aspects of the military brat lifestyle (I said challenging-- which is not to say that it's all negative, but if anyone thinks that moving all the time while growing up is easy, or somehow a less-important fact, think again).

98.245.148.9 (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The passage has been restored.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Category (Not the article) "Military Brat" is Being Considered for Deletion
Please go to discussion page and discuss and vote.

Please note that your comments (there) should be preceded by *comment and your vote to *keep or *delete (be sure to boldface your  votes) should be followed by you signing with four  tildes (four of these, right next to each other, ~ ) 20:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

Here is the link where you can discuss and vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_5#Category:Military_brats

Please also read this article (here, Military brat (US subculture) ) before voting. You should never vote unless you are well familiar with the topic that you are voting on.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently comments (over there) are needed just as much as votes, as the vote is non-binding but is part of an (important) overall discussion, where the involved editors will make the final decision.

Informed input is nevertheless needed over there as the fate of the "Military brats" category is decided.  Here again is the link for the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_5#Category:Military_brats

Telemachus.forward (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please expand on/explain exactly what you mean where you say ''"the vote is non-binding but is part of an (important) overall discussion, where the involved editors will make the final decision. "" (My change of emphasis).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.15.198 (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not my choice, but it's the way that Wikipedia works in these matters.

Votes (and also opinions expressed [over there, not here, see link above]) are weighed by the involved editors and then a decision is made. This decision can then be appealed to Wikipedia administrators.

Most importantly, both your vote and your comments will have some weight over there. And as I mentioned, appeals can be made if one doesn't like the consensus that is reached at the editor level.

Again, I'm not the one who created that system, but that's how it works.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Decision: Category Will Be Kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telemachus.forward (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I didn't fully understand the procedure, apparently a Wikipedia Admin does adjudicate the issue (it's not consensus among involved editors).

In any case, the decision was to Keep the "Military Brats" category.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Small Boy Wearing Fighter Pilot Helmet with Thumbs Up
I accidentally deleted this image a while ago, while editing. (my apologies). There is no way to revert back to it (it's too far back).

Does anyone know how to find this image again so it can be added back into the article?

98.245.148.9 (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bold-facing May Have Been Overdone Before-- But Going to Zero Isn't Good
Especially in a long, complex article, some bold-facing is helpful, and having absolutely zero bold-facing may make it a little harder to read.

Can we strike a balance?

Telemachus.forward (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For use of italics in emphasis, see WP:ITALIC. No go on bold, as even a little is the camel's nose.--S. Rich (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Use of bold is extremely limited by the Manual of Style, see WP:MOSBOLD. In most articles, only the first occurrence of the subject gets bold text. Yworo (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Military brat (2nd nomination)
The Military brat parent article has been nominated for deletion. If you are interested in commenting please join in the discussion.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an excellent article and a valid subject and deleting it is an absurd idea. There are many sources that support the validity of an article on Military Kids, called "Military Brats" for generations in the US military, as an identifiable subculture--

A subculture, by the way, that for too many years remained invisible to the general public...

1) See the widely-acclaimed book by Mary Edwards Wertsch: "Military Brats: Legacies of Childhood Inside the Fortress"

2) See the award-winning documentary: "Brats: Our Journey Home" by Dona Musil (it won 19 awards).

3) See numerous novels released in the last several years on the Military Brat experience (easily searchable on Amazon.com).

4) See the Oscar-Nominated movie "The Great Santini" based on the book by the same name by Pat Conroy.

5) See the the two long-standing Military Brats Online Social Networking Communities: "Military Brats Online" and the "Military Brats Registry" which collectively have over 75,000 registered members.

6) See also the 291 (two hundred and nintey-one) separate "Military Brat" groups on Facebook alone, not mention hundreds of independent web pages for Military Brat alumni groups...

No one of these works alone could represent the whole military brat experience-- but all together they point to the existence of a huge identifiable sub-culture commonly known as "Military Brats".

Invisible No More!

Sean7phil (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I may have slightly missed the point of the debate here-- it looks like the issue is not removing this article but rather making it international in scope. I have mixed feelings about that-- I think whichever solution is taken that American military brats should have a great deal of separate space devoted to their unique story. Up to and even including keeping this entire article separate.

I do think brats from other countries deserve articles as well. One thought I am having is that there should be a parent article on brats overall (although shorter), that then has branching links to (more expanded and detailed articles) for various brat nationalities.

I really do NOT think that this (current American brat) article should be internationalized because it would end up watering down the American brat experiences as well as watering down brat experiences of other nations that are mixed in.

I think the list of American brat organizations and works of film and writing listed in my original post above still make a strong case for why the attempt to sketch the American brat story should have ample space of it's own.

If anything the American brat story could be expanded a little to cover more of the spectrum of that experience. But overall it's very good.

Sean7phil (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You should have a look at the ongoing FAR for more info. There are several issues at that discussion, but on the subject of internationalisation, there are some debates/issues/thoughts you might want to check up on.  There is no doubt that there deserves to be an article on US brats, but it should also have a comparison section with similar demographics in other countries (children of armed forces personnel live in a lot of countries after all).  This article would also benefit from an section about the numerous references to brats in the public media and the popularisation of the term, such as the aspects you mention above (remember Brat Patrol anyone?).  A parent/international article on children of armed forces personnel is a good idea as well, but I think calling it Military brat would be a bad idea, as not every country uses the term in the same way as the US (if at all). Ranger Steve (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a new disambiguation page. I would title it "Military Children" and then go from their to Brats of different nationalities.

American military brats have their own unique story. Although the hard part is, there are strong similarities, as well as differences, between brats of all nations. (Maybe a separate article on "Military Brats (International phenomenon)"

75.166.179.110 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This idea has come to fruition. Someone had started a stub some time ago, but it has recently been expanded into a full article.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Another Sub-Page?
I was wondering whether or not this would be a good idea. One thought would be to have a sub-page for "National Guard/Reserve Brats". This would make this sub-area independently search-able as well, but would still be mentioned and linked to from this article. That sub-page could also link back to here in reference to studies that are relevant to both National Guard Brats and Mobile military brats.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have also seen long articles (such as the wikipedia article, "United States") that work very well. So I am not sure whether a sub-page is the right thing or not.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's good as a large, comprehensive article.

205.169.70.173 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Clean up
The recent changes to this article need to be cleaned up or face reversion. First, the citations need to be done properly. Citing a book without giving a page is not sufficeint citation---and Wertsch's book, while it opened the door for further research is not the best of sources. It is a journalistic endeavor which is self published. It does have the advantage that it is a recognized/accepted source in the field, but subsequent research should be used when available. The photos also need to be sized and spaced better.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 01:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Adding page numbers is no problem. I'll need some time to dig out my copy of Wertsches book. But I have to say, Wertsch is a great source. She is a highly recognized authority on the subject and did significant research that should not be ignored. She was also quoted frequently in Musils documentary. Musil interviewed 500 brats, and seemed to be in agreement with a lot of prior observations by Wertsch.

I am concerned, if I am understanding you correctly, I apologize if I am not, that the standards you are suggesting, esp discounting Wertsch, run the risk of overly restricting the scope of the article. That would be an extremely limiting standard and might kill the article.

I saw your revert a while back about someone trying to politicize the health care issue in the article. I whole-heartedly agree with you there. I was not the source of that "political" edit, that may have been using the article in an ideological way to push medical socialism, or social medicine, and like you, I don't want any political agendas biasing the article.

I am not a Left-winger seeking to use the article. Nor am I a far-Righter wishing to wholesale edit away the harder side of military brat life.

But I do hope that we can have an article that gives an as full as possible presentation of the subject. I hope it won't just be abstract studies or tightly restricted fragments. You don't need that, for example, to substantiate that military bases are different in some verifiable ways, culturally, and in lifestyle, than the civilian world for kids growing up on them. Wertsch is sufficient for that, along with some good photos.

Cheers

69.171.160.16 (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

New Images
All of these are from Wikimedia commons with links to military or other DOD sources. Unfortunately the original one on "moving", which had a nice composition, in spite of a grainy resolution, turned out to be from a non-military website. The company logo (on that site) did, rather surprisingly, have the words "US Army" in it, and I didn't realize right away that it was not military. Apparently they are a private business (or collection of businesses) that provide various moving-related services to dependent families. That does not, however, qualify the image for Wikipedia so I removed it.

Anyway, the file was replaced with a U.S. Army-sourced image. I like this new image (it's a good presentation of the subject of military moves) although it's also a little bit "posed"-- the caption does note that it's a from a US Army online publication, however, which accounts for it's "posed" quality. Such images are hard to find (it takes hours), but I'll keep an eye out for a more natural looking replacement, which could take some time.

I'll be digging for Wertsch quotes soon (finally found a copy), that will also take some time, as each page quote will require skimming through the whole book. No problem though, it will also strengthen the article so I don't mind, but it will be a slow process.

I also wanted to mention that I use a wireless service which has floating IP addresses (it changes automatically, quite often, this is an automatic security feature that comes with that wireless service, more and more Internet providers are doing this). I will try to remember to login with my current username (keep forgetting to log in).

One more thing about Wertsch, although her book is currently self-published, I think that was not always the case. I could be wrong, but I believe that the earlier editions of her book were not self-published, but came from a publishing house.

69.171.160.232 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wertsch Page Number Notations Have Commenced
I have begun adding page number notations to the Wertsch book citations. This will be a slow process as it will require in some cases searching though large parts of the book to find the correct corresponding page. However it is doable and this work has started. It actually was a good request that this be done, it will strengthen the article.

98.245.172.142 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
On several occassions, the question has come up as to whether this subject needs separate articles (Military brat and Military brat (U.S. subculture)) to distinguish between a global perspective and the U.S. perspective.
 * Initial military history peer review where somebody from England and Germany discussed the problems with making this a global article.
 * Initial discussion on name.
 * Discussion on the article name.
 * First FAC review, during which time the article name was changed from Military Brat to Military Brat (U.S. subculture).
 * Second FAC, again DAB discussed and appropriateness thereof determined.
 * Discussion on U.S. bias vs original research if effort made to globalize.
 * Section from article exploring research into how military brats has only been done on U.S. brats.
 * Discussion on the use of (U.S. subculture) when no main article exists
 * Analysis on why a single generic article for military brats is impractical.
 * Discussion leading to creation of stub for Military Brat

Before moving this page or questioning the need for the split, please review the previous discussions.
 * See also the discussion at Category:Military brats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.6.163 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported claims in the classism section.
I notice that most of the passages describing classism in the military are followed immediately by claims that the problem isn't real or at least not widespread. For example:

"Any "social" rank discrimination among families is isolated and typically frowned upon by the general population. Rank is primarily enforced among active duty personnel during working hours."

And:

"Most military brats on a personal level do not let this affect their social interactions, and in most cases it is frowned upon to treat others by their parent's pay grade or rank."

None of these claims has a citation to support it, but on the other hand the opposite claims all rely upon Wertsch's book which is two decades old. It's certainly possible that military culture has changed in recent years, but such claims really need sources to back them up. 24.126.101.215 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Brat, or Military brat?
The article currently uses both the term "military brat" and just "brat" - for consistency it should only use one variant. Which would be the preferred option? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not expect this to be so well documented
I was not expecting this to be such a rich page. Well done. Puppier (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing disputed material
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_brat

The citation for the origin of the term "brat" only comes from the title (see above discussions) the actual paper is not available to review and per Wiki guidelines should not be the sole source of documentation if it is behind a paywall such as JSTOR or Wiley. The asseration that brat is an acronym for British. Regimental. Attached. Traveler is farfetched given that no other documentation exists. The etymology of 'brat' comes from the gaelic word 'bratt' meaning 'rough hewn cloth' or 'apron' with which is associated the term "tied to mother's apron strings" hence the term 'brat' for children of military wives or camp followers. Awotter
 * No. Per what guideline, essay, etc? First, that a source is behind a paywall (or not online) isn't a bar to its use. Your story about "bratt" appears to be just that, a story. If you have a reliable source, provide it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the previous discussions about this issue. Since it would be considered original research I will not include the standard etymology of the word ´brat´ which comes from the Gaelic ´bratt´ meaning rough cloth. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/brat The definition given is completely anecdotal and just as many brats will tell you it means. “Born.Raised. and Trained." Please respect the process, the burden of proof is high for any disputed fact and if people have to pay to see a paper (which by the way has nothing to do with the historical term, it's an educational monograph discussing issues related to military families.) then it's not readily verifiable. I have requested the author make the paper public, failing that if you are willing to pay for it and you can legally post it here then please do so. Awotter (talk)


 * There are several previous discussions about this in the archives and the consensus was that there is no concrete evidence for 'any' of the several backronyms suggested for the origin of brat. Awotter (talk)
 * "Please respect the process"? Seriously? The source (which you removed against typical practice) doesn't itself make the claim, outside of the title. You read it or you haven't. Obviously it doesn't need to be available for all to be used as a source. I added a second source (and provided a quote) and you removed that, too. I have reverted both. If this is a problem for you, start a Request for Comment. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My reading of the section is that some sources make the assertion of the history of the term, and then the sentence offers two examples of sources making those assertions. The section doesn't make the claim that other explanations are wrong or even unlikely. Given the careful wording of the sentence, I can't see any reason for the recent removal of content. The issue of what sources are readily available to the casual viewer is inaccurate; while viewable sources are preferred, sources do not have to be viewable or even online for them to be considered reliable. (Per WP:IRS: "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.") For my part, and speaking as a Navy brat, I don't like or agree with the assertions made, but I have no reason to quibble with the sentence as it accurately reports what some reliable sources do assert. If User:Awotter can present secondary sources backing up that user's view, I'd likewise have no difficulty with alternative views being inserted. BusterD (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

British Regiment Attached Travelers
Ok, there is a little flair up in the brat community going on---a group wanted to change the name by which kids are called. One of the founders of this group stated and published that the origin of the term is British Regiment Attached Traveler. While this term has been around for years, it is almost undoubtedly not the origin story. But more and more sources are starting to use it as such (none would be considered reliable.) This all stems back to a supposed email claiming to come from the President of the National Defense University. According to the Internet Story, he challenged his librarians to find the origin of the term BRAT and they found a book published in 1921 that said it was British Regiment Attached Traveler. The problem with this is that the origin is from a never seen email that cites an untitled book. But lets assume that it is true. Does that mean it is the origin? No, the first recorded use of Brat was back in the 1707---or 200 years before the book was supposedly written.76.31.130.126 (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, where is your source that the term was first used in 1707 then? And you're confusing me by saying "But lets assume that it is true. Does that mean it is the origin?  No..." - because if we assume that it's true, then yes - it is the origin.
 * Incidentally, I'm right tempted to remove that entire "CHAMP vs BRAT" section. It's - with the best will in the world - a storm in a teacup, and doesn't decserve anywhere near the level of inclusion it has there.  Couple with the fact that many of the references are either dead, incorrect, or unreliable, and the poor formatting, it's not worthy of inclusion.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with User:Chaheel Riens in regards to CHAMP vs BRAT. I don't see sufficient sourcing to call this a controversy worth covering at such length. BusterD (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with removing it entirely. The self identification/acceptance of the term is at the core of this section---which is what the BRATS/CHAMPS issue was.  The section on modern usage is about how the Brat community uses and embraces the term.  That it is not deemed a derogatory term by the community that uses it, and when a group attempted to change the term used (because the founders thought it was derogatory) the brat community organized to defend their identity.  I think removing the section entirely, would be a disservice to the section for the very reason that it does show a current widespread acceptance of the term and the self-identification of brats as a sub culture.  I also think the second sentence needs to be tweaked/expanded. I'm not sure of the wording, but "rejected" doesn't accurately describe what happened. "Adult brats, feeling their cultural identity threatened, organized a grassroots campaign that eventually forced supporters to back away from the proposed name change and for Operation CHAMPs to shut down."50.201.228.202 (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The term
Not recommending a change (for multiple reasons), but I'd like to point out that in 22 or so years as a Navy brat, then 16 years as a dad for two Army brats, I've never heard the term "military brat" except on this page. I don't have a recommendation to change it either. My experience is that the service is specified and have not heard a generic term. That said, I note that Army brat, at least, brings one here, and this is a darned good page. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Army brat was the term I grew up with too (even though I was an Air Force dependent, I was still an Army Brat.) From my experience, the individual branches started being used in the 80s, and the 90s it turned to "military brat"---of course that is all personal experience.76.31.130.126 (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was an Army brat in the fifties. The term was ubiquitous, whereas I never heard "military brat."  Still, I don't have a recommendation to change it either.Kdammers (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Military brat (U.S. subculture). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051025220344/http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1032831537.pdf to http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1032831537.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Military brat (U.S. subculture). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008035156/http://www.incengine.org/incEngine/sites/figt/information/emplace_lives_summ.htm to http://www.incengine.org/incEngine/sites/figt/information/emplace_lives_summ.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060309142023/http://www.k12.wa.us/OperationMilitaryKids/TrainingManual/Chapter_4_Final.pdf to http://www.k12.wa.us/OperationMilitaryKids/TrainingManual/Chapter_4_Final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110530002856/http://www2.k12.hi.us/~radfordrams/files/about/main.htm to http://www2.k12.hi.us/~radfordrams/files/about/main.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414134106/http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15422 to http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15422
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413192731/http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15438 to http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15438
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830080558/http://www.economics.ucr.edu/seminars/spring06/ped/HeatherAntecol5-1-2006.pdf to http://www.economics.ucr.edu/seminars/spring06/ped/HeatherAntecol5-1-2006.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041102091837/http://www.iss.edu/pages/kids.html to http://www.iss.edu/pages/kids.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061030170829/http://www.ces.purdue.edu/terrorism/ to http://www.ces.purdue.edu/terrorism/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060309142207/http://www.k12.wa.us/OperationMilitaryKids/TrainingManual/Chapter_2_Final.pdf to http://www.k12.wa.us/OperationMilitaryKids/TrainingManual/Chapter_2_Final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608045448/http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44766 to http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44766
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209131756/http://www.pacom.mil/speeches/sst2000/milchild.htm to http://www.pacom.mil/speeches/sst2000/milchild.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621025539/http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=7222 to http://www.podcastalley.com/podcast_details.php?pod_id=7222

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)