Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture)

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

Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)