User:Carlymac/sandbox

This is my sandbox Carlymac (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sexual  orientation and  military  service

Outline draft:

1. Criticism of the article:

We found a number of areas for critique and potential improvement within the existing article. Many of these would explain why this entry is listed as a “start” class article by Wikipedia. In the most formalistic sense, there are a number of sources missing, the map shown at the top of the page is out of date, some of the citations provided link to informal sources lacking authority and some of the entries are generally poorly written. Of the country entries, some are woefully incomplete and, as discussed on the talk page, some particularly striking country examples, such as Turkey, are missing altogether. More diligent editing, fact checking and source recovery is necessary to make this a more authoritative article.

As it presently exists, the article is a very brief introduction followed by a list of individual country entries of varying depth and quality. We feel that there needs to be more context provided to the issue beyond the simple list that is provided. The existing introduction is very brief and what information is included appears to be randomly selected. The “article” references the number of UN Security Council member states that ban LGBT people serving openly in the military, in addition to those with the same policy among NATO countries, without explaining the relevance of this information. In our view, without greater context it simply serves to privilege US and European policy. Similarly, the article links the move by some countries to allowing LGBT persons to serve openly to the introduction of sexual harassment policies without providing any context to explain if there is a connection here, let alone providing any citation for it.

The language used in the article is problematic. The title of the article is ‘sexual orientation’ whereas at different points it uses ‘homosexual’, ‘gay and lesbian’, ‘bisexual’, ‘non-heterosexual’ and ‘gay people’ seemingly indiscriminately. Most problematically of all is the consistent use of the term ‘gay people’ throughout much of the article, even after beginning with such a variety of terms. We feel that there needs to be a conscious and consistent approach to language taken that is as inclusive as possible of the vast array of non-heterosexual identities and activities that exist globally and does not contribute to the marginalization of women.

On a related but more profound level, the article does not address the exclusion of transgender people its account. While the title of the article orients the discussion around ‘sexual orientation’ we feel that the exclusion of transgender people without overt explanation is problematic. While we are sensitive to the fact that the experience of transgender people around the world is likely worthy of its own separate entry we feel that there are sufficient linkages that this article would be incomplete without some recognition and inclusion of transgender people.

2. Our proposal: Considering that the current article is merely a list of countries with poorly researched explanations of policies concerning LGBT military personell, we will split the discussion into two articles. The first will largely resemble the current article; it will be called “Sexual orientation and military service by country.” The second will be a reimagined “Sexual orientation and military service;” it will bring substantive, encyclopedic discussion of the issue itself.

We will include the following sections that will constitute the new version of “Sexual orientation and military service.” 1. Proper introduction The current introduction is nonsensicle in its choice of states to highlight. Morover, our planned overhaul of the article will require a new introduction reflecting the new content. 2. Trans section Acknowledging the title and topic of the article is sexual orientation, it will still be valuable to write about the phenomenon of trans people serving in militaries. Trans individuals face distinct challenges and gender based violence that deserves mention. 3. Arguments for excluding people (also Military arguments) This section will summarize arguments articulated as to why LGBT people should be excluded from military service. Topics may include concerns for unit cohesian and military readiness. This paragraph will contribute to the balance and neutrality of the article. 4. Arguments for including openly LGBT people (also Military arguments) Including openly LGBT people in military service may actually promote unit cohesian and readiness, contrary to other arguments. We will summarize such research here. 4. Effects on serving openly or closeted for individuals What does research suggest the effect of serving openly has on individuals versus serving closeted? This section will touch on the situation faced by LGBT persons, or those perceived to be so, in the military. 5. Violence faced by LGBT people in the mlitary Physical, sexual, and psychological violence is a facet of life for many LGBT identified persons. In an inherantly violent environment, LGBT people may face specific violence within the course of military service. 6. Discrimination faced by LGBT people in the military in militaries without explicit limitations This section will explore the question of legality versus practice. In militaries where LGBT people are allowed to serve openly, are there continued practical limitations to their service? 7. Meta list (simple lists organized by militaries that explicitly allow open LGBT people, explicitly ban LGBT people, or are ambiguous) This section will simplify the existing list of conditions by country. It will be split into militaries that explicitly allow LGBT personell, militaries that explicitly bar LGBT people form serving, and militaries with ambigous policies. There will be a “see also” link to the new “Sexual orientation and military service by country” page, and each state that has a specific page on its LGBT military personell policy will also have a link to that page. 8. History This section will attempt to paint a broad understanding of the history of sexual orientation in the military. It could include cursory examinations of ancient practices, as well as understandings of how the world’s militaries came to adopt policies regarding LGBT individuals in the first place.

To improve the current “Sexual orientation and military service” article, we will change the name of the article to “Sexual orientation and military service by country.” We will add subsections to better organize the article. The new subsections will be titled: "List of armed forces allowing LGB personell to serve openly;" "List of armed forces without restrictive LGB legislation;" and “List of armed forces of countries explicitly banning LGB personell.” Significant work must be undertaken to improve the language as well. There are currently wild inconsistencies in terminology. Finally, references need serious work. We will add references where available, and will otherwise the “reference needed” tag where appropriate.

3. Suggestions for future expansions: Given the fairly limited nature of the article at present, we have identified a large number of contributions and improvements that we feel would make this a more valuable and authoritative article. There are a number of future expansions that we suggest would be necessary to complete the article but that we do not anticipate being able to do within the scope of this project. We plan to suggest these improvements in the talk page to stimulate discussion and perhaps plant seeds for others to nurture. We feel that the page would be improved by providing a greater focus on the experience of women and transgendered men and women within each of the country entries. We do not propose to take on the labour intensive task of updating the map but we strongly suggest that this work be done in the future. In addition, we do not intend to provide substantial reviews for each of the country areas or to create entries for all of the missing countries. However, this work is very important for a list such as the one in the existing page to be comprehansive and authoritative.

As is evident from our proposal for the creation of a new entry on this topic, we see that there are a number of different subjects worthy of research and discussion that collectively serve to provide context and an accurate framing of this issue. We are alert to the possibility that effectively addressing each of the headings that we have highlighted above for the new article may prove to be beyond the scope of this project. Should that be the case we will promote these remaining headings for further development in the talk page.

Finally, on a topic such as this there will, at least for the foreseeable future, be a need for constant revision and updating. Similarly, we believe that the task of providing intersectional critique and attention is also ongoing and is necessary for every part of the two articles. It is both beyond the scope of this project and also beyond our collective expertise as editors to attempt to undertake this comprehensively and we would encouage all future participants and editors of the pages to take up this challenge.

Carlymac (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Made the first of a series of online edits, as follows... Removed introductory text, replaced inaccurate sexual identity terms 8 times, inserted or fixed 6 citations, added 11 citation needed tags and 7 dead link tags. Carlymac (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate and irrelevant text from France country entry.Carlymac (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Edited up until the Philippines.Carlymac (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed 5 missing references or dead links, made 4 language/terminology change. Edited up until 'Countries that disallow'.Carlymac (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Added an entry for Bulgaria. 1 terminology change, added 2 references. "Bulgaria's Protection Against Discrimination Act of 2006 protects individuals from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in relation to recruitment to the military.[38]"

Deleted text from the introduction, added information about terminology at the beginning of the country information and 2 related references. "Conceptions and categories of sexual orientation are not universal.[22][23] Language contained in the following entries, as much as possible, reflects local usage or official doctrine."Carlymac (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Our group decided as part of our proposal that it was important to improve the quality of the original page as well as create new content for discreet sections. My part of the task was to review and replace citations and references as much as possible as well as undertaking general editing. We also objected to the seemingly indiscriminate use of terminology referring to sexual orientation. We felt it was important that the terminology used reflected the local usage for each country rather than imposing one hegemonic set of terms. I checked each citation to make sure, as much as possible, that the terminology used for each country entry reflected the source information.Carlymac (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)