Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military brat (U.S. subculture)/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:49, 12 January 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: User:Balloonman, User:Awiseman, WP:MILHIST

I have nominated this article because I feel it has significant structural weaknesses and does not meet certain criteria of WP:WIAFA. I noticed that there was a prior FAR, however I do not feel that it touched upon any of the critical weaknesses of the text. So here I am.

The main issues as I see them are 1c and 1d. There appears to be a heavy "pro-military" view pervasive through the text. Most strikingly, it shows in the choice of images—US armed forces pics of smiling families and happy kids complete with inane captions reads like a US Army brochure. The references do not appear to meet the "high quality" requirements: I could find little in the way of evidence that Aletheia Publications, for example, meets the criteria, and a great deal of references (Ender, Cottrell, Eakin, Jordan, Price, Tyler, Smith, Williams) are from one or more Aletheia publications. They do not appear to have a web presence, but they are definitely a small press and suggests they are relatively recent and only have five employees.

Examples of in-text POV language or issues with tone:
 * "...In researching her book, Wertsch identified common themes from interviews of over 80 offspring of military households. While this book does not purport to be a scientific study, subsequent research has validated many of her findings..." There is no citation for this; the next citation comes for a blockquote and is a dead link.
 * Weasel phrasings: "While some may not like the origins of the term, most are comfortable with it", sourced to, which shows that the citations to Wertsch may not be the most neutral either.

Among the more minor issues are dead links (as mentioned above) and tags in the body. I'm concerned the external links section might need auditing as well. I'm a bit pressed for time, so I haven't fully checked the images; at the very least lots of them need cleanup, which will help in checking that they are all actually legitimate free use images. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments I agree with the 1(c) and 1(d) concerns discussed above. My comments are:
 * While the article states that the term 'military brat' is applied to the children of service personnel in several English-speaking countries, the article contains no comparisons of the experiences of American children with those from other countries. This means that the article isn't comprehensive and criterion 1(b) isn't met.
 * Some of the referencing seems a bit dubious; for instance, the statement that "But most assimilate quickly and well as they have to do so with each move" is referenced to something which, according to the text in the footnote, states that a very high proportion of these kids feel isolated, and the statement that "In 1991, Mary Edwards Wertsch "launched the movement for military brat cultural identity"" is referenced to an Amazon.com product page and the two paras devoted to her book feel a bit spammy and aren't properly referenced to independent sources (the second para is a direct quote from the book's introduction praising it!).
 * Some text isn't referenced at all
 * The article strongly implies that all military families live on base and that there are no significant non-military or non-school influences on the children. I doubt that this is correct for the US military.
 * I agree that the photos are sentimental and detract from the article's credibility Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason why this is on the (US Subculture) is because there has been no research done on brats from other countries. The only "research" was for Grace Clifton to take US research and speculate whether or not it would be true for British brats as well.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * File:I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.jpg: source is a dead link, but no-one picked that up at the featured picture candidate page, so I guess that's OK.
 * File:Marine Brats waiting for families.jpg and File:Marine Corps Community Services.jpg: no author or description, and the source is a dead link, so I can't add them.
 * File:Waiting for the return of a Marine father.jpg: source is a dead link, but all the information is there
 * File:Yokota High School JROTC Honor Guard.jpg: no author; couldn't find it at the source given, so probably moved
 * File:Where's YOUR Wingman by Nicholas J. Pilch.jpg: source broken, but all the information is there
 * Other images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Please add alt text to the images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I notice the ref for the use of Brat in the UK seems to imply a different usage of the term Brat (ie. British Regiment Attached Traveller, as oppose to a buzzword for child). I'd like to see a few more refs for the line "The term is used in several English-speaking countries, especially Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom" in the lede.  I grew up in a military environment with all the postings abroad and fatherly absences that accompany it, and I'm afraid to say I've never heard the term used in the UK. Ranger Steve (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the British Regiment Attached Traveller is one of the many explanations as to the use of term Brat being tied to military children and is used to reference military Children. Grace Clifton, the only person whom I found to do any research on British brats (and his research was only hypothetical at the time) uses that acronym explicitly for military brats.  One of the more reputable Brat organizations takes it for fact that British Regimented Attached Traveller is the origin for the term, but based upon my research, I think that is highly unlikely.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment re ref other militaries esp UK. the OED has this to say on the meaning "military brat n. N. Amer. colloq. a child with a parent, or parents, in the armed forces; esp. one who exhibits behavioural problems associated with the unsettled and itinerant nature of military life. " I personally think if there is a British term for the same thing it is unlikely to have the word "brat" which is uncommon in British use except as "spoiled brat". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of it being applied to the children of Australian military personnel either. Nick-D (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through the history of this article I notice there have been numerous debates and effort on its title and world view before, so I'm sorry to tread old ground. I'm obviously going to be a little guided by the fact I've not experienced this term before, but it seems to me that there are very few refs to back up its use outside of the US (or at least its use in some other countries).  Would it not be more appropriate therefore, to just make that very clear from the outset?  A year ago I deleted an extremely annoying opening sentence on an article, but it seems to me that it might be an appropriate opener here.  If all the research has been done in the US and none outside of it, then we have to go with what the sources tell us.  Personally, unless some other sources can be found, I'd be tempted to delete (US subculture) in the title as well, and just explain that it's a US phenomena in the first sentence.
 * At the moment, by trying to claim some sort of usage in other countries, I agree that it fails criterion 1(b) and 1(c). It might also fail 1(d), purely because it is trying to present a worldy topic where there may not be one.  I'd also say it fails 2(b). Where is the section on the history of the term?  I would also very much like to see the opening sentence referenced, as I can't see a ref for it in the main text.
 * I'm also concerned by the spin off effect this article will have in its current form. If this is a US centric ideal then it seems wrong to apply it to other countries so easily, as this article does.  Backdating a term that (as far as this article makes out) has only existed since the 60's, to apply to people in other nations another 40 years before that seems dubious and maybe WP:SYNTH to me.  There is no indication in the list as to whether or not their parents being in the military had any bearing on their development, or that the term Military Brat has ever been used to describe these people (Yep, I'm thinking of people like Christopher Lee specifically). Ranger Steve (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The term is most definitely used in those countries, just because you may not have heard it does not negate the fact that it is used for self identification among non-American brats. Here are just a few sources.  Note, some of these may not be "reliable" in the sense of [{WP:RS]], but they do show self identification.  Americans do seem to have embraced the term more than other countries, but that does not negate the fact that it is used elsewhere.
 * British: ,,,,,,,
 * Canada: ,,,
 * India:,,,,
 * Australian and New Zealand: ,,http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4832724558]
 * As for the term being coined in the 1960's. That is simply not accurate.  Morton Ender, the main researcher on the subject, indicated he has traced the use of the term "brat" to define a child of a military person dates back to the US Civil War.  While he admits to not knowing the origins of the term, the origin story he believes to be the most compelling is that the term came about from the camp followers.  Soldier A: "Whose that kid?" Soldier B: "Oh he's my brat."  At that time it probably didn't have the same positive connotations, but this is the origin story I find most compelling.  Debbie Adams, an author for the magazine Military Brat, mentions two of the origin stories.  One from the Civil War and the other from it originating in Britian during the 18th century.
 * While it may be true that the specific term "military brat" is probably more recent than the civil war, that is more likely the result of linguistic reclamation of the older term "brat." As for applying it to people who predate the term?  Was Malcolm X really an "African American?"  How about any of these List of African-American abolitionists?  The term African American was not used back then, but has evolved to be the term used to describe Blacks/Negroes/Colored People/etc.  I personally called myself an "Army brat" (and cringed) all my life despite my dad being in the Air Force.  The specific term "Military brat" only became widespread after I graduated from High School.  My dad who graduated from HS in the early 60's grew up his whole life knowing that he too was a "brat".--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info Ballonman, must say I find it interesting that this is used by people in the UK at all, but as this link you provided states, it seems to the influence of the web that is seeing it used in more countries. Don’t worry, I don't mean to imply that just because I haven’t heard of the term means that it doesn’t exist, only that that’s why I’m commenting on the issue.


 * I must admit though, I ’m having trouble with this article. I realise that there are very few studies on “Military Brats” in countries other than the US, but I would frankly be absolutely astounded if there wasn’t any research into the social effects of growing up in a military family in Britain. I can say this with confidence because I remember covering it to a minor extent in my Sociology GCSE, and I know people whose job it is to help military families with many of the issues described in this article.  The thing is, we just don’t refer to children as Military Brats.  Yes, some may self identify themselves as brats, but there is a difference between self identification and a recognised term to identify a group. I’ve heard plenty of phrases – service families, forces families, forces kids, etc… but not Military Brats.  Saying that there has been no research done on brats from other countries is not something I can believe I’m afraid.  It just goes under a different name.


 * So, is the problem here that the article is about a social phenomenon but limited to one country’s name for it (and thus limited in the research it can make use of)? Perhaps this article should be renamed Military Brat, and just say something like “In the US, Military Brat is a term used to describe Children of Armed Forces personnel…. Slim the rest of it down and transfer the rest to the new article and then expand that with international coverage.  Just a thought.


 * On the subject of this article as it stands now, as I’ve said, you’re dealing with someone who has no familiarity with the term here (despite apparently being a Military Brat myself, although it is not something I would label myself as), so I can only go with what this article tells me. As I’ve said above it would benefit from a history section especially given that, at the moment, there is no mention of any use of the term pre 1970’s (guess I should have said 1970 instead of 1960 above).  This is why we’re here of course, as I would personally expect more information on the history of the term from a featured article.


 * As for extending the name to other nationalities, while the term African American might be relatively new, it is a widely recognised term internationally. It is also considered respectful. Military Brat, as discussed, is a US centric term to describe a socio factor, and may well be considered derogatory in other countries.  Listing a number of British (and other nationalities) people who just happen to have had a parent in the armed forces as ‘Military Brats” is like listing President Ulysses S. Grant as a Victorian man.  Besides which I’m sure it won’t be difficult to find a reference saying “Malcom X was an African American….”, but I’m still waiting to see one for any of the people in the list saying they are “Military Brats”. I’m sorry but I find the comparison a bit tenuous.  As you say yourself  below: “any cross cultural exploration would be original research”.  Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have little doubt that the use in other countries has increased due to the use in US, but it is used and when the article goes without the US Subculture it gets tagged repeatedly with Globalization and US Centric, and all sorts of other tags.
 * As for research, I can't respond to your personal experience. I can only respond to what researchers have stated.  Morton Ender, the premier authority on the subject, has stated in several of his publications that he laments the fact that no significant research on the children of military personell have been conducted outside of the US.  Clifton, a Brit, similarly regrets the fact that there hasn't been actual research into the subject.  His reserch provided the only research into non-US brats that I could find, but his research is mere speculation on how British Brats would compare to the research performed by Ender/Wertsch.  His reseach is not supported by actual studies, but rather lays the foundation for which such research might be conducted.  He blatantly states that there is "no significant literature" on British Brats.  My guess is that what you've read would be insignificant speculation or extrapolation, not true research on Brats. Ann Cotrell, who is an authority on Third Culture Kids, has also mentioend the lack of research on non-US brats.  When she talks about Military Brats she has gone out of her way to indicate that what she says about Military Brats is true only for US Brats because of this dearth in research elsewhere.  She has explicitly stated that brats in other countries do not fit the same criteria as US brats because most countries do not relocate families (particularly overseas) to the same degree as the US military and that the role of the US military is different from that in many countries.  When she talks about other types of Third Culture Kids, she will talk about the similarities/differences between nations, but goes out of her way to indicate that there is no research on non-US brats to make these comparisons.
 * The use of African American was just one of many that could have been made. When new demographic populations are identified, it is not uncommon to look through history to see if certain demographic themes can be identfied.  The fact is that "Military Brat" is a term used by sociologist to describe the segment of community that are children of military personell and it contains no inherent bias/negative connotations.  (Even Clifton uses the term Military Brat in his British sociological research to describe the segment of the population that has military parentage.)
 * I would not be opposed to a history section, if we had something other than original research on the history. Like I said, my dad grew up pre-1965 with the term "brat" and I grew up as an "army brat" (despite my dad being in the air force) I personally never heard the term military brat as a child---but I was firmly aware that I was a brat.  According to Ender, the term, "Brat", has been traced back to be used in conjunction with military children back to the civil war.  Also, note the book "Psychiatry and the Army Brat" which was published in 1970.  Unless that book was coining a new term, I think it is safe to say that the term was in common use back then.  Mary Wersch's book may have been published in 1991, but it dealt primarily with baby boomer era brats and before---who proudly referred to themselves as brats.  Some of the interviews discussed how/when people became aware of the term and how the might not have liked it at first, but came to embrace it... again we are talking about kids who grew up in the 40s/50s/60s.
 * As for your notion of moving the article and trimming it, please review the extensive discussions on the subject. That is a very bad idea which I firmly oppose.  Trying to "trim" it to fit what works for brats of other countries would be 100% original research.  The subject has been discussed, but there are very few things that you can state universally about military brats.  I also oppose "trimming" for the sake of making it "global" or less US specific, you don't get rid of information because of a lack of information elsewhere.  That makes no sense whatsoever.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said above I'm afraid I just can't believe that there has been no research into the children of forces families in any country other than the US. I wonder if the researchers you mention above are perhaps too fixated with the brat tag.  Here are some articles from a very quick google search using just one alternative name for a child with parents in the services:
 * BBC - Forces children face 'time bomb' Recent report into military children, doesn't use brat at all.
 * The Independant Please notice in this one that Military Brat is mentioned, but is considered derogatory.
 * Children and Young People Daily Bulletin This looks like it may be reporting the same paper as above, but doesn't use brat at all.
 * BBC Report from three years ago.
 * BBC Report from ten years ago.
 * Forces Childrens Trust A quick scan doesn't reveal brat here.
 * The Armed Forces Childrens Education Fund This one's interesting, its an American charity that doesn't use brat.
 * News of the World Not the best paper, but they don't use brat either.


 * I also think that some organisations might dispute the researchers claims of no study of the phenomena of forces kids outside the US:
 * The Royal Navy and Royal Marine Children's Fund
 * Sailors Families Society
 * SSAFA
 * The Army Welfare Service


 * It strikes me that this article is all about the social and psychological effects of growing up in a forces family. Whatever name is used, that is a global phenomena, but this article is tied to one country's name for it.  Thus it fails to provide a worldly view, even though I imagine there is loads of research into the subject.  As for the lists of famous brats, "Military Brat' is, as you have identified yourself, a term used almost exclusively by American sociologists to talk about a name that has only been seriously studied in the US.  Although Clifton uses the term, he would appear to be using it with a different meaning.  A more recent study has now considered it derogatory in the UK, so it clearly does contain negative connotations.  Once again, there are no references to suggest that the other nationalities in the list have ever self identified themselves as brats, or been called brats.  It seems to me to be original research to take one country's cultural identities and apply them to another without any references.  You agree with this position below, the same applies here.  Ranger Steve (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I think you may have misunderstood my suggestion for moving the article. I wouldn't trim it at all.  First I would move it, in its entirety, to something like Children of Armed Forces personnel.  Then I'd expand that article to make use of research from other countries that doesn't use the term Military Brat (such as above) to provide a more worldly view of the cultural phenomena of growing up in a military family.  The article Military brat (US subculture) would exist as a redirect, and the article Military brat could take a condensed version of the research currently contained here, with a similar opening to the one it has at the moment.  There's no question of trimming it, just moving it to a more appropriate title and expanding it.  This is a global phenomena, and the references to expand it do exist.  Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide some sources. I've provided three sources, who have explicitly stated that research on non-US brats is non-existent.  I do believe that Ender (the premier expert on Military Brats) and Cotrell (one of the leading researchers on Third Culture Kids) are smart enough to know to look for research using other terms than just military brat.  These are highly respected individuals within their fields.  (I don't include Clifton not because Clifton isn't qualified/respected, but rather because I am not as familiar with him.  Both Cotrell and Ender are routinely cited as authorities by others.)  EDIT: The source that I just noticed above is just within the past month... so it is new and might be worth incorporating into the article.
 * As for providing a more "worldly view of the cultural phenomena of growing up in a military family." Can you define it?  How often do military families move?  In the US quite frequently, in other countries not that often.  How about moving to foreign countries?  Unless engaged in a military action most militaries do not have bases in foreign countries, but the US (and formerly USSR) it is quite common. Do families accompany military personell, in the US generally yes, in other countries not that often (especially overseas).  What about the risk of war?  Some countries the military is more of a police force where in seeing action is unlikely, in other countries you are essentially guaranteed to see combat regardless of your job.  Is the military voluntary or is mandatory service required?  Experiences in an all volunteer force are different from ones where everybody has to serve a term.  To what degree do families live on military bases?  This differs from country to country.  How about the role of women?  Are woment allowed in the military?  How about combat roles?  What about (country specific) racial minorities?  What is a "wordly view of the cultural phenomena of growing up in a military family?"  Can you provide ANY sources to substantiate your position?  The answer will be no.  When I researched the subject, the authors of various studies routinely indicated that their research was on U.S. brats, not on children from other countries.  In short, I would oppose the creation of any a generic article that used the sources I've read.  Heck, I'd cite Clifton to support that opposition!
 * As for Clifton using the term Brat in a different meaning, bullshit. That tells me that you didn't look up the source.  The article is explicitly a summarization of Ender and Wertsch's research and how Clifton thinks military brats from England would compare to the American version.  The article summarizes findings from Ender/Wertsch as they apply to US brats, then Clifton explains why he thinks the finding would apply to brats from England.  Clifton attributes the acronymn "British Regimented Attached Traveller" as the origins of the term Brat, but he is definitely talking about children of military personell.
 * As for your "study" please provide the reference that show that brat, when used in the military brat context. I have no doubt that the word 'brat' by itself is considered derogatory.  It is considered derogatory in the US as well, unless used in this context.  I've provided sources above that show that the term is used to self identify military brats from other countries (such as England) and that when it is so used it is not derogatory.
 * As for Children of Armed Forces personnel please provide sources to support that name change. The article shows sociologist and academics who use the term "Military Brat" in academic research/studies.  The term "Military Brat" is the appropriate term, changing it as you suggest would amount to original research and personal bias.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just took a closer look at the sources you provided:
 * The research study that is not yet available, but reported on in November 2009 looks like it probably has some interesting things to say that could possibly be added to the article. I am interested in seeing what it says, because it appears to be a piece of significant literature to which didn't exist prior to last month.  The fact that there are negative stereotypes to the term military brat does not negate the fact that it is A) used and B) accepted.  The fact that the authors use it supports the notion that it is used in England in this context.  The fact that it has negative stereotypes does not mean that it isn't accepted.  The authors may view them as negatives, but part of the reason why Military Brats use it is because it becomes a badge of honor.  There is a Disney movie, Tiger Cubs, where the lead character is adamant that she is not a "Military Brat."  She is extremely vocal about that fact because she isn't a brat, by the end of the movie she has come to grips with the term and embraces it herself.  In other words, I am extremely interested in the full report not just a sound byte.  But of course, this article is about the US subculture, not British brats.  This source MIGHT make the foundation for changing the name of the "List of"s but it does not affect this article, I am also a little concerned about the scholarship of that "study." (see below.)
 * The BBC articles are not significant pieces, but rather fluff pieces that really don't say much if anything.
 * The fact that articles don't use the term does not mean the term is not used or accepted. Do non-military families have trouble using the term?  Yes.  One of the researchers, and I believe she is cited in the article, actually said that she was uncomfortable using it, but it was the term the studied community used and embraced.  It is part of linguistic reclamation.
 * You provided four organizations with the note, 'I also think that some organisations might dispute the researchers claims of no study of the phenomena of forces kids outside the US.' Only one of those organizations actually has a link to a study, the one released LAST month.  In the US, research didn't really begin until the 1990's on brats.  There were a few published pieces, but not much.  Most of what was used prior to the 1990's, was conjecture and opinion pieces based upon individual experiences.  With the exception of the new report that was announced a month ago, none of the links you provided had any mention of any research or studies performed on children of British military.  At least I couldn't find any.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 On a slightly different topic, I have to question the report that was released on November 4 2009. If you look at the footnotes supporting the statistics used, the footnotes indicate that the survey was conducted from October 30 to November 4, 2009. This is a huge red flag regarding the reliability and objectivity of the report. Now it may be a misprint, but if they just finished the survey, how can they provide results to said survey the same day? Like I said, I am interested in seeing the report and have no doubt that this will be an oft cited report, but this makes me question the reports scholarship. (It is definitely self published.) Also, about the research, note that one of the principle reasons behind the report is a cry to do more research on this community. I am also curious as to how they used the US research. Did they use US research in lieu of actually studying British Brats or did they use it as a jumping off point to do valid comparisons? Based on what little I've learned over the years about how the British army works, I suspect the former and not the later. There are several things that *I* associate more with US military experiences than with British military experiences. For example, it is my understanding that British Military families are not nearly as mobile as their US counterparts, but this article cites that as a defining characteristic. This is contrary to what (little) I know about the British military. If that is the case, then I have serious problems with this "study" as most of the research done in the US is exclusive to US brats. Most researchers want there to be research performed on British brats, not extrapolating US research onto the experiences of others.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. Just wow.  Ignoring the insults and aggressive attitude, you have clearly misjudged what this FAR and my comments above are about.  I have just demonstrated that research into military forces children exists in countries other than the US.  And not just research, but organisations tasked to work with these kids as well.   So what if they haven’t published a paper in an academic journal?  Does the fact they are working to alleviate the problems suffered by some forces children not prove that this phenomena exists outside of the US?  The 2 BBC articles aren’t good enough for you?  Please read them more carefully.  The British government has been studying the effects of this for at least the last ten years. I don’t think that that’s insignificant speculation or extrapolation.  Please understand the point I’m making here. I’m going to lay it out really carefully so that it is clear, because you don’t seem to have understood it from what I’ve said above.


 * The concept of a Military Brat is not limited to the US alone. It exists anywhere where children have parents who work in the forces.  However, in different countries these children are referred to differently.


 * That this is an international phenomenon keeps getting brought up here, but also that the name is not recognised outside of the US. Yes, some people may self identify as brats, but there is no official use of the term outside of the US.  In other countries it can be considered derogatory, as I have shown.  Here’s the quote from the Independent link above:


 * "Some face bullying at school, dismissed as "military brats" once it is known they have a parent in the forces. "One of the main problems of being labelled a 'military brat' is the stereotypical image of a child from a military background – one of authoritative parenting, buzz haircuts, withdrawn emotions and relocating frequently," the authors say."


 * And the OED:


 * "military brat n. N. Amer. colloq. a child with a parent, or parents, in the armed forces; esp. one who exhibits behavioural problems associated with the unsettled and itinerant nature of military life."


 * These are hardly positive references to the term are they? Anyway, as it has been shown that the cultural phenomenon exists in other countries, isn’t it worth expanding the article to incorporate this?  Yes.  Is it appropriate to use the title Military brat (US subculture) in such an article? No.


 * Consider this idea: So far there isn’t a catchy name for forces kids in Britain or other western countries, but lets just assume that there was.  Lets call it Forces Kids for the sake of argument.  If an article were written on it, would that be a good idea?  Or would it be worth merging it with articles on exactly the same phenomena in different countries?  There is no reference for Children of Armed Forces personnel, it’s a generic name to describe an international cultural phenomena. Much the same as Military use of children.


 * This is Wikipedia, not a research institute. All of the refs I provided show evidence of the phenomena, and could easily be incorporated into this article (note article – not a research paper).  Speaking strictly personally here, one problem I find with this article is that it reads too much like a research paper into the psychological and sociological effects of being a ‘brat’ and not much else.  It isn’t about the term Military brat at all (if it was I doubt we’d be here).  If it was, there would be a history section, there might be a section on attempts to deal with the issue (which is where all four of those organisations would come in, Think of something like: In Britain several charities and organisations have been set up that work to deal with the issues faced by military families and children…  On several occasions in the past the British government has studied the effects of growing up in a military family on a child’s education …etc…etc…)  At the very very least there would be a section about the concept outside of the US.  But hey, that’s just my opinion.


 * As for your second paragraph above, Britain still has a lot of bases around the empire you know. Besides which, the differences between military forces and their effect on children is exactly what Wikipedia should be tackling (WIAFA 1b). Admittedly we can’t describe the effect of growing up in a military family in Iceland lets say, because there is no research and no other Reliable Sources to use, but as we already have one country that does, we can start. And what about historically?  I’m sure there’s plenty of RSs about the huge number of children who grew up without a dad because they went to fight in two world wars. Is that not relevant? As for Clifton, quite right I didn’t pay to download the article. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to exactly how he defines that “The term is used in several English-speaking countries, especially Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom”, the line it is referencing. From what you say, he merely compares the effects from two countries.  Or is it perhaps a throwaway line he uses in the paper’s introduction to set the scene but without providing any data?  Regardless, I’ve already demonstrated that the same phenomenon exists in this country, whatever it’s called, so it doesn’t matter.


 * Anyway, I’ve had enough of this. I’m well aware of the troubles of communicating in text, how it can be difficult to work out the tone and slant being used in a reply and so on.  You’ve clearly misjudged my attitude, but don’t worry, you own has been made perfectly clear.  I strongly recommend you have a coffee or something and sit back and read what I’ve written above again, but try to imagine it more softly, perhaps like Morgan Freeman or something.   Perhaps then you’ll realise that I’ve been politely making suggestions to help improve the article by solving some of the issues that it clearly suffers from (otherwise we wouldn’t be here, would we?)  Heck, I’ve got so interested in it I might have even helped.  But I think I’ve wasted enough time here now, so lets just summarise:


 * I support taking this article to FARC, as it fails several WIAFA requirements. Namely 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 2a.  I’m also dismayed to note that despite your interest in the article, you have so far made no edits to incorporate the concerns raised here.  With no hope of improvements soon, I strongly support FARC.


 * Good day Ranger Steve (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have zero problem with expanding the "Military Brat". In fact, I fully encourage it and would love to see the effects of growing up in other countries expanded upon.  Especially if reliable sources can be found.  Nor would I have a problem changing that article name to something else with a discussion of the term "Military Brat" therein.
 * What I do have a problem with is the notion that we have to gut an FA which is comprehensive for the subject being discussed. The phenomena of military brats is different for every country/culture.  One of the problems that has repeatedly come up in the past is that there is very little that can be said about military brats that is universal for all countries... and that research has been dearth in other countries.  Clifton/Ender/Cottrell all support the notion that research has been lacking in other countries.  The study you provided, I'm sure will get a fair amount of air time, but I suspect it is questionable for the reasons I cited above.
 * As for the OED, dictionaries (even the OED) are not perfect. I suspect that the person who wrote the entry did not understand the term or its current usage.  The article cites numerous authorities on the use of the term and nowhere have any of them had negative connotations to the term.  The quote from the person who authored the survey you addressed above is the first one which raises any question on the use of the term---and does make a case for renaming the parent article on "Military Brats".  (I should point out that there are almost 7000 people on the British Military Brat facebook page would would probably agree that the OED is wrong.)  But that is a different topic than this one.
 * This article is not about non-US brats, it is about US brats, and thus is comprehensive for that subgroup. What you are proposing is tantamount to taking an article on the American Bald Eagle saying, no we don't need this article lets generalize it to discuss the concept of "Eagles."  Frankly, that's a bad idea---the better idea is to expand the article on Eagles.  We can have both, we are not constrained by size or pages.  If we have a good article that focuses on the US Subculture, why get rid of it?
 * As for Clifton, no she doesn't cite any studies/research. Her essay is basically a compilation of research into US military brats, where in she basically speculates on how/why the research done in America would or would not apply to their English counterparts.  Clifton, who was apparently a graduate student at the time (her PhD was written in 2007) basically presents the findings of Morton Ender/Wertsch and says, "I think this applies/does not apply to British kids because...."  She then explicitly states that there is no "significant literature" on the subject.  It does appear as if she has done more research on the subject since then and I would be interested in knowing if she was involved with the study you linked to above.
 * As for bases around the Kingdom, I can only go on what I've been told here and elsewhere. What I'd been told previously (when somebody was arguing that the article didn't apply to British brats) was that in England families tended to stay in one place.  That they didn't move around and rarely accompanied the military member overseas.  Again, I do not know if that is true or not, and based upon your comments above, I suspect it isn't.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Stepping in to this for a moment, it was I who objected to the internationalisation of the article, based on the fact that the term is pretty unique to the US and there was a dearth of available sources. On reflection I'm also unconvinced that what is available adequately captures the extent of the topic.  Previously the debate has been around the term Military Brat rather than the sociological phenomenon around the families of servicemen.  If we're discussing extending the article to be around something like that then it may be possible, although I have a feeling that the topic becomes a lot more complex.  As an article describing the US term then there are weaknesses, as identified.  The article is lacking in certain aspects of discussion of the term and is dominated by the sociological elements.
 * If there is a change in focus then I think there are clear weaknesses in what can be said. I'm unconvinced that there is one single social profile, given the very different cultures in the US services.
 * I have a few friends in the Welfare and Families services so will try to find out what there is. They're generally all trained social workers so have exposure to the research.  Whether much of it meets the needs of WP:V might be an issue.
 * fwiw I'm a little uncomfortable with your representation of what was said about British military culture, in my experience there is a lot less wholesale family mobility in the Royal Marines, Royal Navy, Royal Air Farce and some elements of the Army. That varies according to rank range, with Officers much more likely to have home location stability and specialisation or branch, with Inf more likely to move around as a formed unit.  What we're seeing is a lot of the Corps now having SNCOs and Officers living in the vicinity of the Depot and weekending when posted away, that brings it's own tensions that are different from uprooting every two years.
 * My main objection is that by trying to infer UK behaviour from US research there was a significant risk of portraying UK military family culture as similar to US military family culture. It's a very different thing.
 * Essentially we get down to making a decision about the purpose of the article, is it about the term or the social phenomenon?
 * ALR (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you've described the issue quite well ALR, at the moment the article reads too much like an investigation into the social phenomena. But if it's about the social side, then it needs to be balanced with research from other sources (even if outside the States) to meet comprehensiveness requirements.  I'm concerned that at the moment by not doing that, it already tends to infer UK (and other countries) behaviour based on primarily US research (see my comments below).  I think an article can cover both country's aspects if it uses all the available literature.  Yes they will be different, but that's what the article should be explaining.  It might not be extensive enough to meet a FA, but that's life for a wikipedian! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The focus on "this" ariticle is pretty clear, it is about the social phenomenon in the US (eg the dab.) Frankly, I don't care if it remains an FA or not... I'm not involved enough anymore with WP to put the effort into it.  But I do care about diluting a perfectly good article to try to "internationalize" it.  Which is what would have to happen if we tried to make this a generic article about military brats (or children of military personel) as a whole.  The experiences of US/British/Australian/Canadian/etc militaries is entirely different, I appreciate ALR's discussion on some of those differences from a first hand perspective.
 * As for inferring behavior to UK brats and other countries, I have to disagree. The article is fairly clear that this is about the US phenomenon.  The title itself indicates that it is about US brats and there are several places where the article explicitly reiterates that: They've been researched as "third culture kids"  but they are almost exclusively from the U.S or the U.S. Armed Forces sponsored research on the long-term impact of growing up as a military dependent or but a studied segment of U.S. culture.  It talks about the US Pledge of Allegiance, God Bless America, The US Code of Military Justice, Directive 5120.36, Executive Order 9981, DoDDS or DDESS, the terms U.S./America/United States  are used over 30 times. The only references to non-US brats are explicit statements that the research is not about non-US brats.  For example, Outside of the U.S. there is no significant literature on the effects of growing up as a military dependent and it is in the United States in particular that this term is ascribed to a collectively identifiable demographic.  Between the title, the repeated use of U.S./America/United States, and explicit statements that this is about the phenomenon in the US, I don't know what else we could do state this is about the US subculture.  None of the images or quotes are from or about British children.  Right now, I could see a short paragraph or sentence being added based upon the November study, but I honestly don't see what else could be done to indicate that this is about the US phenomenon.  Can you provide specific reasons why you think the article makes those inferences?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)EDIT: I did make two changes based upon your comments below (where the article mentioned For example, in the United States and primarily from America... I made them more explicitly about US brats.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don’t want to appear condescending by pointing out prose issues, but that’s what lets it down. As I’ve said below I don’t feel it distinguishes between the term (used in various countries apparently) and the demographic (in the US) sufficiently. The lead explains that the term is used in various countries and in the US is applied to a demographic, but doesn’t state that the focus of this article is on that demographic enough.  It needs to be clearer to avoid misunderstandings.  The next paragraph opens with the term again.  Are we talking about the term or the demographic?  It isn’t instantly clear.  Although US identifiers are used in the article, only once is “US” or “American” used before “Military Brat” to distinguish that that’s the demographic group being described in following sentences rather than people just collectively identified by the term (and that’s the change you made yesterday).  There are 16 headers or sub headers in this article, but in only 4 instances is the term US or American used in the opening paragraph for that header.  Another 4 use a phrase that implies American origins (Truman or DoDDS etc…).  But that’s only half of the headings, and most lead paragraphs should be an opening into the contents and themes of that section.  The whole section on Military Culture for instance takes some time to clarify that it is talking about US military; even then it could be argued it doesn’t really even clarify that.
 * Surely you must be able to accept that there’s something wrong given the number of people who have commented on this issue in the past? There have been various comments, with a real mix of opinions drawn from reading the article.  Some feel that it’s condescending and derogatory to US culture, some feel that it’s too self-worshipping.  Some get annoyed that this paints too many countries with the same brush, while others say it is too US centric.  This is because the article is too ambiguous.  It is very hard to clarify exactly what group is being described here.  Using US more in the right places will help.  Don’t underestimate the power of opening the article with “In the U.S. a military brat is …” either, which makes it clear from the very start (I don’t feel the title does that fwiw).
 * On a related note, briefly commenting on the comments in the archive that echo vandalism like this, I suspect it’s because the article comes across as too authoritative. There are too few terms like “Research has suggested…” or “It has been shown that some…” to put this research into perspective. There are a few “may”s and “can”s but that’s insufficient. Studying several hundred participants cannot allow inferences to be made about a demographic of millions so strongly.  They only suggest possibilities.  Statements like “The military family knows that the service person may be killed in the line of duty, but may accept that risk because they are taught that the military mission is worth dying for. The mission is one in which the brat shares by extension through his military parent” is referenced but still extremely strongly opinionated.  It should open more like “In his 2002 paper, Williams suggested….”
 * Again this is all linked to the prose and structure of the article. I’m sorry to have to say it so bluntly, but there are a lot of people who don’t think this is a “perfectly good article”.  I’ve tried my best to rationalise the various issues as I see them (and which are echoed by other comments over the last 2 years) and suggest ways to restructure or make the article more comprehensive.  But seeing as no-one seems interested in improving the article that seems to have been a waste of time.  Ranger Steve (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
 * There are no works concerning this topic in Germany while these children face similar problems. The same may be tru for other countries leading to the focus of the article.
 * Alatheia seems to be a small company, but size is no guarantee for quality.
 * The photo captions do point out the stress placed on these children while missing one of their parents and the joy of reunion. That's typical for them, crying children are a bit hard to photograph and it isn't obvious that this is something typical for children of soldiers. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, that is why this is (US Subculture) and not just the generic term. There has been no research performed on German brats, which has been lamented by US researchers, so any cross cultural exploration would be original research.  But this goes back to the original discussion concerning the name.  There has been a fair amount research on the US brats, thus the focus on this article.


 * Since there haven't been objections in this space, I have boldy removed some of the most daft images; I will try and add alt text for the remaining and see about their copyrights. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, NPOV, comprehensiveness/breadth. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mary Wertsch is considered to be the original push for study into the subject, most of the academic research that I saw was to validate/contradict her initial research. Morton Ender has emerged as the primal authority on the subject of Military Brats from an academic perspective.  His book, which collects academic research, is definitely a high quality source, as are many of the journals.  Alatheia, as Wandalstouring mentions may be a small company, but that doesn't discredit the company and using its sources might be a bigger concern if the article relied upon it.  Comprehensivenees/breadth seem to focus on the fact that this article on the US Subculture of Military Brats doesn't include discusion on non-US brats, which is a different subject.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like relying on the promotional fluff on a dust jacket for evidence of a sources' authoritativeness. As for Alatheia, yes, size doesn't disqualify them... the fact that they don't have much of a reputation, however, does concern me. The fact that I can't verify how long they've even been in existence does bother me, as does my suspicion that their editorial staff may be just one person. Show me that these authors are reliable and experts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The company is small and I beyond this book, *I* am not familiar with the editor (which doesn't mean she isn't respected or good.) The authors, however, (namely Eakin and Ender who are used in the article) who contributed to the book are definitely reliable and experts.  Ender is the premier researcher on Military Brats, after Wertsch Ender is probably the biggest name in MB research.  The other source that uses Eakin was  (666 KiB), which is a document of the US State Department.  Eakin is more known for works dealing with Third Culture Kids.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are widely cited by the government doesn't exactly inspire the confidence I'm looking for. Do you have a reliable source for Wertsch's "pioneer" status? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend delisting this article. I am not confident most of the Alatheia publications meet high-quality source requirements. Issues with weasel wording, unreliable citations and original research not addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I’ve just noticed that this article has in fact passed into FARC (dunno how I missed that!), so with that in mind I’ll elaborate on my concerns further here, comparing them to the main criteria of WP:WIAFA. I currently recommend delisting the article, based on my reasons below.


 * 1a. Well Written.
 * I find that some of the text is disjointed and not necessarily related to other statements in the same section. In sub section “Values and patriotism” for example, the fourth paragraph is an isolated sentence that seems awkwardly placed amongst the other ‘rituals’ being described.  A similar issue can be seen in “Reunited and reaching out” - the first sentence is totally isolated and may leave the reader thinking “… so what?”  The second paragraph only answers the question “why?”
 * The prose is not always engaging or brilliant. Consider the first line of “War in the 21st century”. There are several ways to rewrite that without repeating the same words.  In the second sentence, despite the fact this is now a comparison, no reference is made to past figures.  The first paragraph of “Growing up military” also contains awkward sentence structure and confusing grammar.  Had the children lived in another country and then come home?  It should be “His study revealed that 97% had lived in at least one foreign country”
 * There are numerous other grammatical errors (eg. the entire last paragraph of “War in the 21st Century” is full of them, and I note several others as I read through sections).
 * These are minor quibbles, but most of them are things that would hold up a GAN. I believe the article needs a thorough copy edit to rectify the issues; most of the text is okay, but I’m afraid that personally, I find very few examples of brilliant or professional standard prose.


 * 1b. Comprehensive and 1d. Neutral
 * This is the big issue I suppose, that concerns all of my issues raised above and the use of this term outside of the US. First I think it is important to consider what this article is about.  An early assumption might be that it is about the term “Military brat”.  But there is no section on the (interesting) history of the term, it’s use outside of the US, or its criticisms.  The section on “Linguistic reclamation” is the only part that deals with the words themselves.  The rest of the article is about the sociological and psychological effects of being a military kid, and the life at home and at school for such children.  Lamentably it lacks a section dealing with attempts to integrate and work with this demographic, something I believe it would benefit from.


 * Although the title specifies that this is a US subculture, the article frequently implies a more worldly perspective. In the lead we have the statement “The term is used in several English-speaking countries, especially Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom; but it is in the United States in particular that this term is ascribed to a collectively identifiable demographic (with extensive psychological research done on the group by U.S. Defense Department).”  This is referenced to a single study that, it would appear, does not cite any research to back up the assertion and regardless, is only making comparisons between the US and the UK.  Added to which the researcher was apparently a graduate student, so I’m really not sure his/her opinion is a high enough class of resource.  This assertion in the lead is then totally ignored in the body of the text, where one would expect it to be expanded upon.


 * Although the claim is made that the article is US centric, the big problem is that the prose and tone of the main text fails to make that distinction. By implying that the term “Military Brat” is used in several English speaking countries, any subsequent uses of the phrase in the article appear to be describing the phenomena in all of those countries as well.  This is compounded by specific references to the US in some cases.  For example, in “Values and Patriotism” 2nd paragraph: “It has been claimed by Samuel Britten on the basis of anecdotal evidence that life on military bases is associated with comparatively greater patriotic sentiments. For example, in the United States…”, or the 3rd paragraph of “School life”: “Military brats, primarily from the United States, are the most mobile of the Third Culture Kids, moving on average every three years.”  I imagine this is why the article gets so much negative feedback and vandalism decrying its (seemingly) opinionated stance on other country’s military forces.  I realise it doesn’t intend to, but the prose lets it down here.


 * The issue is then compounded by the fact that further study in other countries does exist, and references to the fact can be found in several reliable sources. The biggest problem is that in these examples the term Military brat is not used, although the demographic being studied is the same.  This is a very serious oversight, as it clearly demonstrates that the assertion in the lede is questionable.  Although there may be a claim that some UK residents self identify themselves as brats, the demographic’s name is not the same.  It also demonstrates that there is a cultural comparison to be made with several aspects of the text in this article - particularly the “School life” section.  There is also scope for making more comparisons in the whole “Modern brats” section.  I believe these comparisons would be necessary to meet criterion 1b.


 * As ALR suggests above, the focus of this article needs to be decided. At the moment it appears to be focussed on the sociological aspects rather than the term itself.  But the sociological aspects are studied in different countries, so that should be incorporated.  If it focuses on the name then it needs to be more detailed on the history etc…  So either way it currently fails comprehensiveness.


 * 1c. Well researched
 * I’m concerned that the article places too much emphasis on research papers and not enough on other reliable sources. For instance, a search of the footnotes reveals only one link to the popular press (in this case USA today - it is perhaps interesting that this article does not make use of the term Military brat at all, but extensively describes the demographic).  If this is a common phrase in the US, then I would expect to see evidence of it’s use.
 * Perhaps something on the popularisation of the term by films etc… would help as well. The Great Santini was nominated for 2 Oscars after all.


 * 2a. A Lead
 * As mentioned, elements in the lead aren’t in the main body and vica versa. In fact the current lead could be used as an intro section, and a new lead written.


 * 2b. Appropriate Structure
 * As I’ve explained I feel it’s too much like a research paper. Added to which, headings like “reunited and reaching out” are hardly encyclopaedic.


 * Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. Above raised concerns, FA criteria concerns, and Referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist per my and other editors above concerns and the lack of progress with rectifying them. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.