Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture)/Archive 5

message: *EDIT* Either this was fixed before my eyes or the US Subculture was missing from the main page extract
Someone needs to change this. Either remove the 'U.S.', or indicate that the article is (and when it starts to) refer specifically to U.S.American Mil'Brats. I'm unsure of the author(s)'(s) original intention(s) and have refrained from editing 69.157.49.159 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main page didn't mention US Subculture, although the article has had that moniker since around December.Balloonman 21:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "feel like outsiders to U.S. civilian culture"

message: The Military brat article currently has little utility on its own.  It seems to me like this article should move over to that spot, and then link to the List of Famous Military Brats at the bottom or something.  Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonemerson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other article was originally (after this one took a major US focus) deleted and made into a simple link.  It is in its current state because Military Brat is a term not unique to the US. I think that article, eventhough it is a stub, needs to be there.  (Although I am not opposed to deleting it either.)Balloonman 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I was suggesting that the current article Military brat be deleted and replaced with this one.  This is a really great article!!! Jonemerson 04:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Military brat]]?

message: I just noticed this caption, which doesn't seem to match the photo. What's it supposed to be?
--AW 07:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption? 

message: WOW!!! I honestly wasnt' expecting this to pass... I started a new job and I've been working 16-20 hours on it per day... it's been a killer... so I assumed this was going to go down in flames.  So to those who voted in favor of it or assisted on getting this up to specs, thanks. Balloonman 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: I was very pleased to find this "military brat" entry in Wikipedia. By the author's definition I myself am a "career Air Force brat", and a retired officer with a little "Army brat" of my own.
I must say first that the author has generally gotten it right. Nonetheless, I have serious problems with the "tone" set in the sections on Values and Patriotism ("militaristic songs", indeed!), Discipline (it was the rare family that lived in "Great Santini World"), and Military Classism (the description here sounds more like my mother's childhood days on Army posts in the 1930's - the military has changed since the 1960's).
I'm afraid that a reader unfamiliar with military life [especially one of the many people who already harbor prejudices about military people] would get the sense that "military brats" are raised to become a bunch of brain-washed, jingoistic, goose-stepping Klingons.
In all fairness I suppose I should find and read Ms. Wertsch's book (which appears to be the author's principal source) and figure out where in the world she is coming from. It was probably not the Air Force or Army that I grew up in.
SienkRJ 06:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is good, but a little biased 

message: The reference for this seems to be POV in itself.  I've often heard the term 'military brat' used as a derogatory designation, especially in the educational community.60.49.70.41 10:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  however, it is neither a subjective nor a judgmental term. 

message: Why is there no criticism / negative aspects of military brat culture in this article? For example, that large amounts of their supposed "patriotism" also includes jingoism (eg "Love my country or leave it"), and strongly pro-war means advocating violence towards supposed enemies (eg Abu-Gharib prisoner abuse) and highly intolerant of anti-war personalities (eg Dixie Chicks boycott).--PCPP 00:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because unlike each of the specific things you mention (Abu Gharib, Dixie Chicks controversy, etc), there's no reason for cultures as a whole to be "up for discussion" —there may be criticism of the use of a term, positively or negatively, but it's kind of nonsensical to be "for" or "against" a culture, at least in a NPOV setting. Can you imagine a "criticism" section in articles like, say, Nebraska, Italy, or Punk subculture? \sim Lenoxus " * " 03:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nod, and military brats are not the reason for Abu Ghraib or the dixie chicks.  This article is referencing the effects of growing up as a military brat.Balloonman 05:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is overly positive 

message: The actions described as "patriotism" sounds rather like nationalism and jingoism to me. I find it ridiculous that only American-related articles use the word "patriotism", while if such actions were attempted in other countries they would be described as "nationalism". --PCPP 00:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriotism vs Nationalism 

message: From lead: Many typically have a love for their country, and have been raised in a culture that emphasizes loyalty, honesty, discipline, and responsibility.. Either "Many have ..." or "They typically have...", but not both. 216.191.217.90 00:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody already made you change, thanks for the observation.Balloonman 05:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many typically ... 

message: The captions of most of these pictures are not describing the content of the image, but expanding on something in the article. For example, the caption of :Image:Operation Enduring Families luau.jpg reads "Brat, when used in this context, is seen as a term of endearment" but should read something like "A military brat plays a game at an Operation Enduring Families luau." --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this; the captions need reworking.  Tempshill 03:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with them being reworked... feel free to help out.Balloonman 06:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captions 

message: Too many pictures have the subtitle "military brats are often separated from their parent for long periods of time"  I counted 2 or 3, and I think we could be a bit more creative and descriptive.  RageGarden 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Furthermore, the "cute" pictures of toddlers playing with military equipment add nothing to the article. Too many people are using it as their own personal photo-sharing page. 69.250.43.106 02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with RageGarden's concern (I noted this above at #Captions, a note to 69.250.43.106: this is not being used a photo-sharing page. The photos were taken by the U.S. Government, and the children are not recognized by name in this article. If people were trying to get their kids online, they would upload them under a public domain license and name the kids. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are way too many pictures on this page. It's too distracting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.81.92.220 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed about 6 pictures...Balloonman 06:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Well I've had my share of dispensing criticisms, but I find it offensive to group a wide variety of people and say that they "find it difficult to establish long relationships" or whatever it said. By teh way, it doesn't matter if your a military brat to be well educated - I knew two military brats in my spanish class in college - one was quite intelligent and had great manners, the other needed some military discipline. This article needs a serious look over, people. By the way, is this the first time it got featured?Tourskin 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you click on the article milestones at the top of this page, you'll find all the answers to your questions.  It apparently got peer reviewed (really?).  I'm appalled at this article.  It falls below some of the worst crap I've read in Wikipedia.  I'm actually kind of shocked.  Orangemarlin 05:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: "Base Brat" is widely used in Canada. Funny how the entire article is written from an American POV and every section takes for granted it is about the US only. Can we not change that?68.146.200.201 03:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the title of this article. Raul654 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, 8.146.200.201, I believe, is that there is no article for the Canadian subculture. I do not know much about it though. But be bold and take a go at it yourself at Base brat (Canadian subculture). Cheers. ~ UBeR 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be a broad range of common experience here; many of the paragraphs in this article could be lifted wholesale and applied to the Canadian military brats I've known.  I'm sure there are significant differences, but it seems silly to have all this information specialized to one country when it is not necessary to do so. --Saforrest 06:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could find research on other country's brats, I'd be more than happy to include it.  I tried, instead all I found were 3 researchers who stated that non-US research on the subject is non-existant.  One of whom is a British writer.Balloonman 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking about this some more... and the problem with your proposal is that it would, IMHO, be delving into original research.  We as editors would be making judgment calls about what we believe are commonalities between military brats of different nations.  While I (now) consider myself fairly well read on the subject, I do not feel any where close to being qualified to determine what are the common experiences between US brats and every single other nations brats.  Will US brats have more in common with Canadian/English brats?  Probably.  But what about brats from communist countries?  Dictatorships?  Country's with mandatory military service? etc.  Without something solid, it becomes impossible to do as you suggest without introducing OR at that point.Balloonman 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that Canada/England and the rest of the world hasn't endeavored to research the effects of growing up in their military's.  The role of the Canadian military (and every other military) is different from the that of the US (and from each other.)  In some country's the role of the military is a police force, others a defensive force, others an offensive force.  Some countries the military personel may never see combat, others it is a way of life.  Some you move around, others you don't.  Some you live on a military base, others you don't.  There are too many different national differences to write one all encompassing article on the effects of growing up in the military---and as of right now, there simply isn't the research on non-US brats.  I've been told that in England, the military family may stay in one place while the serviceman moves around.  These differences can cause significant differences in the effects of growing up in their repsective military's.  Research into military brats is an American endeavor as cited in the article.Balloonman 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not true. I moved every time my father was posted. ---Adasta-</strong> 10:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are referencing the part about English military being more stable?  That's why I didn't include in the article.  It's something I've been told, but didn't verify.  The point, however, still remains.  The experiences between the different cultures would make a single all encompassing article virtually impossible.Balloonman 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But surely the differences within the U.S. can be as large or larger than some of the differences between U.S. military brats and those of other nations, no?  I would hazard to guess that a Cold-War era U.S. Army kid growing up on a U.S. military base in Germany has more in common with a Cold-War era Canadian Army kid growing up on a Canadian military base in Germany than either do with the child of a reservist in Iowa suddenly called out of civilian life to go join the Navy.  But it is the first and the third who are described in this article, not the second; the scope of the article seems artificially restricted to me. --Saforrest 06:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of points: 1) The article does talk about "Suddenly Military" families and how they do not understand/identify with the culture. 2) As for the Canadian brat living in Germany, yes they will have a lot in common with the US brat living in Germany.  See Third Culture Kids (an article needing a lot of work.)  3) There isn't research on Canadian Brats (see above) to write a comprehensive non OR article on the subject.Balloonman 06:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then don't make it comprehensive; leave it stubby, let the American sections vastly outweigh the other ones if need be.  I guess my point is that I don't think the availability of research should drive the article scope. --Saforrest 07:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If no research has been done in other countries then why does the article use sources from other countries. 87.194.96.149 13:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only non-US source is an article written by a researcher who speculated on what differences English Brats might have by comparing the British military to written US research.  The author laments, and laments would be the right word, that there is "no significant research" outside of the US.Balloonman 14:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The original approach was to try to make it more global (see the first FAC/military history peer review) and that idea was shot down.  The consensus was that the US section would so outweigh the others that we would be better off making an article that was explicitly US focused--where a fair amount of research has been done.Balloonman 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Americentric

message: Although this seems to be an article primarily on American subculture, the punctuation throughout the article appears to be predominately British English. (Overall, though, it seems to be inconsistent, which is a huge eye sore and a big no-no per the MoS, which doesn't reflect well on the FA.) I suggest using American punctuation for an American article. I'm willing to do this if people are fine with that. ~ UBeR 03:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the principle author, I'd love your help in this regard.Balloonman 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets get to work then. :-) ~ UBeR 05:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I got all of it. Guess it wasn't a big problem. Thanks. ~ UBeR 05:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "" thing is something I would never have looked at...didn't realize there was a difference.Balloonman 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that there is: I think having punctuation before closing quotes is just considered to be "good style" in both British and American English.  It's never made sense to me: as a good computer geek, I like my enclosing scopes properly nested, thankyouverymuch. --Saforrest 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I changed all of the punctuation to American style versus British style a LONG time ago, and was then informed that American style didn't jive with Wikipedia style and thus my edits were reverted.  So just because it's correct doesn't mean some yahoo won't come back and change it because it isn't what Wikipedia specified.  --ScreaminEagle 17:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Punctuation

message: this is really an article??? really??!?!?!?  i've found this whole thing to be a crock of shit.  seriously.  i've lived my entire life on military bases and i cant relate to anything in this article at all...except about moving around alot,  and thats a thing of the past.  wow...how dumb
oh heres another inaccuracy. most military bases dont seperate housign by ranks anymore, except of course for the top like 6 officers... but mostly its by family size.  and i dont know what theyre talking about with segregation and why theres so much crap in here about rank seperation.  kids dont know anything about rank nor do they care that their friends daddy is a base commander,  dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robkehr (talk • contribs) 21:00, April 29, 2007 
:I'm one who always appreciates well-written, accurate, and perceptive commentary.  Yours is not.  Orangemarlin 05:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, sign your name.  It's one of the basic forms of etiquette on Wikipedia.  Second, I agree this is a garbage article, but read above, some people actually laid out some reasoning for it.  Third, as an officer and a son of a high-ranking officer, you are patently wrong.  Lastly, my comment was hardly derogatory.  More pointed at the quality of your comments.  Orangemarlin 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ~ UBeR 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The military is changing and the long term effects of those changes aren't yet known.  You have one set of experiences, but your experience of having the same friends from 4th through 12th grade is atypical.  Most brats don't have that continuality---the research into brats shows that the average brat lives in 8 places and spends 7 years in foreign country's.  Now changes are being made, and that will definately impact the lives of brats in the future... but current research indicates that your experience isn't the norm.Balloonman 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Haven't seen any research on the subject at that level of detail. :( Balloonman 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: really

message: I thought we had a policy banning the use of images of real people for stereotypes. Surely this would apply to this article? User 56 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try reading some first. The article is not about the stereotype per se --Belg4mit 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Yaaayy!!!....Wait a minute, I hate this article, how is it an FA?--Occono 08:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats to all who worked on it. Completely unexpected turnaround. - SpLoT // 09:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: FA's are our best articles. They are not chosen based on whether people like them or hate them but instead they have to meet a high quality standard. Nil Einne 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hardly seems long for an FA to me. It's obviously a complex subject with a fair amount of research Nil Einne 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I read this article and suddenly thought, "Did I click over to CONSERVAPEDIA by mistake?"  As far as I can see there's almost NO information about "military brats" of other countrys.  Certainly other countries have soldiers and those soldier must have children - right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.213.57.50 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion above in article title section.  The reason this focuses on US Brats is because US brats are the only one's to have been studied.  (And this isn't me making that statement.  Grace Clifton a British writer laments that there is no significant literature on non-US brats.  Morton Ender, the main researcher in the field, wishes that other countries did research so that comparisons between US and non-US brats could be made.  Ann Cotrell, one of the authories on third culture kids, notes that research on Military Brat TCK is almost exclusively US.  Having seen the criticism before, it is an issue that I specifically looked for but instead found 3 sources that say the literature isn't there.  I should note that this is explained in the article as well.Balloonman 15:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As above, this article focuses on the USA only. As such I really don't think it should of become an FA or been put on the main page. 87.194.96.149 12:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles are routinely put on the main page that deal with only one nationality.  That would be like saying the "DIME" shouldn't have been on the front page because it is American currency.  Or that US Marines shouldn't be there because it doesn't discuss other country's marines.  This article doesn't purport to be a comprehensive article on ALL MILITARY BRATS around the country, it simply is reporting the research that has been done on US Brats.Balloonman 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA of the day! 

message: I've got to ask who wrote the racism section because I've got some serious issues with it. The military is in no way an anti-racist environment. Any society in which there are signifigant racial boundaries as exist in the military community has racism. I know it's there, It was one of the few constants in my life as an army brat during the 80s and 90s. The problem is that as with many communities dominated by White intellectuals who as a majority are not racist, the prefered method of dealing with racism it is to pretend it doesn't exist. I will endavor to find references to document this but certainly this section could be reworded to speak in fewer absolutes. CJ 12:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: Why does this sound very pro-United States? Since when is this a pro-American website, eh? Porkshireman 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any specific complaints or is this just a random unsupported attack? I see pro-American and anti-American things in this article; some parts (breadth of experience of military brats) are good, while others (authoritarian and patriarchal families) are bad. --Delirium 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral pro-US 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Military_brat_%28U.S._subculture%29
Thanks! Article text is abhorrent, sadly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Porkshireman (talk • contribs) 13:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The featured article review has been removed from WP:FAR; please read the instructions, and do not nominate it again until the time from main page has been fulfilled.  Thank you.  Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military brat (U.S. subculture).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review under way to de-certify propoganda 

message: Honestly, what has happened to the selection procedure?  I only got as far as the third sentence to come up against 'non-coms': no explanation offered of what this means, no link.  It's clearly a jargon term (for non-commissioned ie civilians?) commonly used by the military.  But hang on guys, this is supposed to be encyclopedic, understandable by all, not written by military brats for military brats.  Very poor. 86.138.42.55 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article???

message: There is clearly a sizable dispute over the neutrality of this article.  Neutrality does not mean "there is some critical content".  Neutrality means that the article, as a whole, does not favor one point of view over another.  This article is so clearly not neutral that it could almost be used as the poster child for how not to write a neutral article.  Kelly Martin (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You again have not provided any reasons at all why this is non-neutral, and the extensive feature-article process disagrees with you. Do you have any new complaints? --Delirium 13:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the tone of the article is not neutral. The language overall sounds positive or friendly towards American regime interests and thus is inappropriate for a globabl encyclopedia. Porkshireman 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just assert it does and expect to be believed; you'll have to provide more of an argument than that. --Saforrest 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that IAR is policy, is it not? Porkshireman 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. As a new account, all of whose edits have been on a single topic attempting to disrupt Wikipedia, and probable sockpuppet, you're walking on thin ice. --Delirium 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, if the concern is that a POV article is on the main page; 1) it's not the first time and won't be the last time that has happened, and 2) FAR won't remove it from the main page, so FAR is not the venue for resolving this issue.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Watch out, Porkshireman, or else the Wikipedia thought police will get you. When they call you a "sockpuppet", it may too late--"sock puppet" is to Wikipedia as "Illegal combatant" is to the US government. That is, if you ask them to show evidence, the ban will only get worse. :-) Indeed, one man's vigorous discussion is another's "disruption" and there's nothing you can do about it. Of course, on some Wikis, some of the best policy-related discussions arise from discussion of specific examples, and the admins realize that this tendency can sometimes lead to an article's Talk page getting cluttered during times when the article is a subject of wide focus, but... 69.250.43.106 07:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am surprised this article hasn't been improved by oversight. I don't think it blatantly violates neutrality -- it's not exactly out there selling the military brat lifestyle. Rather, it really seems to exhibit unbecoming defensiveness -- "being a military brat isn't as bad as you think -- no, really, don't go, I'll tell you why". It's unfortunate that this tone comes through because it really doesn't need to be there. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose I find it strange that Kelly Martin claims to be reading this article, because I simply don't see that (and I have no particular love for the military myself). In fact some of the sentences she removed (since reverted) supposedly as the "most egregious" offenders were downright negative towards "military brats", such as a claim that they tend to be more authoritarian and patriarchal. How is that a whitewash? --Delirium 08:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutrality 

message: The article is excellent and very informative on the US situation.  However, I am surprised by the assertion that brats are primarily US brats.
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/Canada/Government/Military/Families_and_Lifestyle/
The above web site features 12 links for Canadian military brats.
I think the phenomenon of military brats is common to most militaries of large countries and/or countries with active service overseas.  In Canada, typically a military brat can move across the country many times between kindergarten and grade 12.  During the Cold War Canada had a base in Germany at Lahr, and it functioned fairly similarly to US bases in that country.  One of the web links found in the reference above refers to Lahr brats.
Perhaps the author of the article might wish to note that the while the size of military brat population is probably largest in the USA, other countries also have brat populations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.197.178.2 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also taken aback by this article, which asserts that military brats are only American. This is, of course, not true. I am a Canadian air force brat, and I was called this throughout my life. I suggest that the article be changed to be more inclusive of other countries. Don't forget that since this is Wikipedia, there is no "author" to this article; anyone can change/edit it.--BC 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common folks, this very issue has been addressed at least a dozen times on this very page.  Please read other similar (or exact) questions and their responses before requesting the exact same explanation or complaint.  --ScreaminEagle 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, you're right; I should have read it all.--BC 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The article makes no claim that military brats are only American.  The first sentence in the second paragraph reads, "Although the term "military brat" is used in other English-speaking countries, only the United States has studied its military brats as an identifiable demographic."  The article has a US focus not to be exclusivist, but rather because that is where the research has been done.  Notice that for the US section we didn't cite things from Militarybrats.com, military brat online communities, or other networking brat websites.  Believe it or not, I did look at those websites while doing my research.  Unfortunately, for the most part, they aren't authoritative.  Most of them don't address Canadian Brats and the one's that do are "communities" or "Lists" or other social networking cites. Despite the allegations here, I tried to use only credible published sources and documented the hell out of the article to avoid these allegations.Balloonman 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Brats (Other Countries) 

message: One objection I have to the article is that is really seems to paint all or most brats with the same brush, in both a positive and negative light.
*Life on military bases instills patriotism within the brat.
::I could accept "within many brats", but using "the brat" here means "all brats".  Even if it's sourced, I don't believe a universal claim about the beliefs of a broad group of people.
::There is also the question of whether the ambiguous word "patriotism' is the best way to characterize the beliefs instilled.  Antiwar protesters believe they are patriots as well.
*The military family knows that the service person may be killed in the line of duty, but 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.
::"accept that risk": how do we know that all their families accept that risk?  This is another universal claim about a group of people that seems unwarranted.  Certainly in the Iraq conflict we've heard of family members who nurtured private doubts about the mission: what would it mean to "reject" the risk?  Abandoning the service person?  Going public with your doubts?
*While separation produces stress, it strengthens the military brat.
::I could accept "it fosters self-reliance in the military brat".  "Strengthens" is too much of a value judgment, and ill-defined.  In the sense of self-reliance I was certainly "strengthened" by my parents' divorce, but other senses I was weakened by it.
--Saforrest 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When dealing with a culture/population, there are attributes that are common within that population.  Not every brat will share all (or any) of those attributes.  But when the researchers start to see common themes over and over again, they start to document said themes.  Do I personally agree with everything in this article?  No.  Not at all, but it is a representation of what the research/experts say.  Also, I should mention that herein is where one of the challenges arise.  If you use many/most all the time, then the article looses all value because it's always "most/many."  One of the redactions of the article was criticized for doing just that.Balloonman 17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The allegation of OR implies that it is OR on the part of the editor(s) of the article.  The statement about separation fosters self-reliance is seen over and over again in the literature on the subject.  The citation for that statement is from the Deployment Center at Military.com.  I saw it elsewhere in the research that I did, but this was the most succinct location making the connection.Balloonman 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement (and that was merely one example out of many in the article) was not referenced. I doubt military.com is a critical source when it comes to selling the positive aspects of the culture, however if you were to insist on it the article should be written to reflect the source, eg "according to the military, the separation from parents that is common among military brats results in self-reliance skills", and so on for all the other examples. Sad mouse 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, to my view any unqualified statement about a military brat is a statement about all military brats, and I provided several examples.  If you don't want to read them that way, you're free not to, but I think my reading is a natural one and several others on this page seem to agree. --Saforrest 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal claims 

message: Kruseje 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My husband defines himself as a Navy brat and our child is described as one, too.  I think it depends on who you're talking to.  --ScreaminEagle 18:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The admiral that I cite from the US PACCOM discusses BRATs, but indicates that the Navy tends to use the term Junior more.  I've not heard it for Marines, but it wouldn't surprise me as they share a lot with the Navy.Balloonman 18:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just Google "marine brat" and "USMC" together, and you'll find blogs by people calling themselves Marine brats, web sites describing themselves as intended for Marine brats, YouTube videos by self-identified Marine brats, and companies selling clothing and articles emblazoned with "Marine brat."  Same holds for "navy brat" and "USN" together.   Another approach: search for "I [am/was] a [Marine/Navy] brat." Not to say these are the most common, but they're certainly out there in droves.  — OtherDave 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences Among the Services 

message: WOW!  Quite a heated debate barking back and forth here...I'm hesitant to get involved.  Although I don't agree that this article is a total piece of crap, I simply can't entertain that it's completely unbiased and non-POV just because it makes a bunch of citations.  It definitely needs a lot of work, particularly in tone and style.  The thing reads like a personal account of brat life, not the objective third-party description of military brat culture that it should be.
For instance, the sentence "Life on military bases instills patriotism within the brat." is stated as if it were an accepted fact and not simply a previously-made statement by Samuel Britten.  In fact, you misquote him.  The reference (http://www.tckworld.com/comparisons.html) is a chart that indicates (among other things) that Third-Culture Kids raised in the military exhibit a comparatively high level of patriotism/nationalism.  The chart also states that such sentiments can often drop upon reentry from such a setting.  The author even makes the disclaimer: "This chart is based on personal experience, anecdotal material, and discussions with many other TCKs. It is not the direct result of any single empirical study, but is only intended as a discussion guide...," a disclaimer this article fails to make anywhere.  It would be far more scholarly to not only indicate who's making this statement and THEN make your own commentary.  F.ex.: "On a site for Third-Culture Kids, Samuel Britten claims that those raised in the military have comparatively greater patriotic sentiments[28].  These sentiments are instilled by military life..."  This way no one's mixing their own statements with Britten's.
This got a lot longer than I expected it to be, and I apologize if I sound too critical; I realize this topic is the source of a  --great deal of emotional pride among many people.  This article is far from a lost cause, and with work it can be brought to an encyclopedia-worthy level. 149.125.206.169 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can find another citation for that.  I liked the chart, but didn't see the disclaimer.  But it is a common theme in the literature.Balloonman 18:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: While I have my own issues with this article I must disagree with you the retreat protocol. I work in a joint environment and everyone from every branch of service says that at every installation they have ever been at all vehicles must stop during retreat. I don't know whats going on at Ft. Belvoir, but the army is even more strict. On top of stopping their car they must "dismount" their vehicle and salute at attention during retreat. 143.158.254.228 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never noticed it at Ft. Belvoir, either.  It's possible Belvoir is the exception, possibly because of the many civilian entities (and more to come) housed there; perhaps the military doesn't expect the civilians to know or comply so they just let it slide? --ScreaminEagle 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The separate seating is explicitly in the past, as mentioned in the article.  As for Retreat, it is still official policy and expectation.  Now, if an exception exists, that doesn't negate what is expected---as  cited from the Army Officer's Guide: 75th Edition.Balloonman 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ft. Belvoir is an Army post, so I don't understand the "army is even more strict" comment.  I can't believe that everyone in every vehicle headed to Tulley Gate at 5 p.m. was a civilian, but with no reference to cite, suggesting otherwise seems pointless.  Balloonman: my point was about implications of language.  You talk about "expectations" but fail to note in the same place that the expectations are not always met.  I wouldn't call that bias, but it does seem as though you've got a case you want to make.  Take the feedback for what it's worth. — OtherDave 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am I vaguely remember Ft Belvoir (when I was young) not having Retreat like other bases---I remember it because we thought it was weird.Balloonman 23:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unscholarly tone/improper citations 

message: Why are there two photos with nearly identical captions (in spirit)? Oughtn't they be adjacent if they are related? Or one of them removed? --Belg4mit 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Thank you Balloonman for all your hard work and dedication to sourcing. I ask all those who find fault with this article to quote unbiased reliable published sources. We can use those for the article. WAS 4.250 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to echo the above comment. Good work Balloonman. Raul654 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, thank you for the hard work you've put into writing this article and defending it from detractors. Cla68 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith on the part of the people who have commented on this article. That is what talk pages are for, and sincere and constructive comments should not be labelled "detractors." AecisBrievenbus 11:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the sincere and constructive comments.  But the unconstructive assaults are a different story... and yes, if you read this page you will see people making ad hominem attacks and unconstructive comments.Balloonman 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the criticism of this article came mostly from people who clearly wanted to make the article (and/or the FA process) better, but there were a few who brought an unusual level of venom to the discussion, for reasons most of us can probably guess but should not. Hats off to Balloonman for keeping an even keel. —Kevin Myers 15:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That bit I agree with. The way Balloonman has dealt with the discussions on this talk page should serve as an example for many of us, myself included. AecisBrievenbus 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To make it clear, by "detractors" I meant non-constructive comments about the article.  Civil and constructive criticism, is, of course, welcome.  Below I see some good examples of civil and constructive comments and criticism. Cla68 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: THANK YOU Balloonman

message: Just wanted to compliment all contributors on their great work. It covers the topic in great depth and effectively exploits the convenient body of research available about this demographic. There are statements cited in this article that I never imagined were citable. The photos are also excellent and under good licenses and it's evident many were taken just to build this article. Also lots of great links to a diversity of topics. I'd like to see other articles, especially in sociology, get such an effective treatment. Keep up the good work! Dcoetzee 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you... but none of the pictures were taken for this article.  They all came from DOD/military websites.Balloonman 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great work 

message: I don't know if this is going to help since a lot of people seem to ignore what's already been discussed but for people criticising remember
*Specific examples are needed. Even if you feel the whole article is bad, unless you can at least mention some example sentences and explain why they're bad it's difficult for people who don't agree with you to know what you're talking about
*Wikipedia works by referencing. Saying that something doesn't agree with your experience is not a criticism that will be given much weight when your discussing something that's referenced
*I don't like is complete useless
*Keep it civil & focus on the problems with the article. If you spend half your time attacking editors no one is likely to listen to you even if you have a very good point in addition
Also for those people who seem convinced that this is patriotic American crap, I would have to disagree (not being an American and disliking patriotic American crap myself). As I've mentioned elsewhere, a lot of it is scary and it's definitely not something I would want for myself or anyone else. I'm not the only one who feels this way. This is of course all irrelevant anyay. The only issues are whether it is accurate, well written, reliably sourced etc Nil Einne 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for criticisms 

message: I've read the whole discussion above (quite a haul) and several people have already made the point I came to make. Too many terms have been used without explanation to a non-military person: surely the whole point of this article is to inform non-military people? Use of jargon, acronyms etc is not encyclopaedic - it excludes those not 'in the know'.  This article reads as someone said above, like it has been written by MBs for MBs.  
I also can't understand how it got through the FA process with such obvious and basic faults. No, I'm Spartacus 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its FAC discussion was a long way from being unanimously in support, though oddly the completely unexplained TDY abbreviation in the lead wasn't mentioned by anybody! Loganberry (Talk) 15:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That abbreviation was not in the lead at the time (old version). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nod, it is hard to stay on top of all of the changes (particularly since I wasn't able to watch the page during a move and job change.)Balloonman 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terms needing explanation to a layperson

message: Since this is getting to be so big (98 KB), I'm going to archive this discussion on May 4rd.  I'm announcing it now because I don't want to be accused of trying to hide criticism.  I will leave any threads that have a comment dated May 3rd or 4th active.Balloonman 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future Archiving

message: Two possibilities exist, to me:
# The term "military brat" is global but we lack good sources so far for the term's meaning/use in other countries. In which case, further research is required, but the article should be located at military brat. 
# The term "military brat" is not global, and "base brat" for example is used in non-US contexts. In which case, further articles need to be written and crosslinked, but this article should be located at military brat.
In either case, it seems to me that this article is at the wrong title (the disambiguation is not necessary). The current page at military brat is a content fork. -- nae'blis 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please Respond to this at the talk page for the military brat---not here.  That way we consolodate the discussionBalloonman 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article title 

message: One of the criticisms that people have leveled on this article centers around the research methodology.  So I thought I'd share a little bit of my methodology.
*1) I did not include anything in the article unless I saw it in at least two independent source.  (EG the theme is repeated elsewhere.)
*2) If the second source appeared to be using the first source, I didn't count it as independent.  This does not mean that the second author wasn't referring to the first, it simply means that if they were it wasn't obvious.
*3) I gave heavier weight to sociologist who had systematic studies performed, but I also gave Wertsch (who is creditted by many as the driving force behind brat research) a fair amount of weight as she is a highly regarded authority on the subject.
*4) One of the repeated criticisms of the article was that it wasn't global enough.  I spent hours researching that topic as I knew it would be a major sticking point.  I only gave up after finding 3 independent sources that said the same thing (2 american, 1 British) that there isn't anything outside of the US.
*5) One of the areas that I thought would be interesting centered around sexuality of military brats.  It's no secret that the US military (as an institution) is homophobic---how does this affect the typical brat?
*6) One of the criticisms of the article centered aroung "Suddenly Military" brats. This is perhaps the only area where I relied heavily primarily on one document... 
*7) One of the big criticisms of the article was a belief by those who aren't familiar with the term who hear "Brat" and think it's a negative.  Thus, the inclusion of the Linguistic Reclamation section of the article.
*8) Military Brats are the largest segment of Third Culture Kids, but a lot of the findings for TCKs talk about how the findings are true for TCKs but not for Brats.  For example, TCKs are often involved in Anti-war movements, but rarely will Military Brats take an active role in Anti-war protest.  TCK's often have a more global perspective, but brats usually have a more nationalistic perspective.  Thus, I did not use TCK research unless the TCK research (or other brat research) supported the validity of the finding for military brats.  This may mean that there are things that are common knowledge about TCKs, and probably true for brats, that are not included here.
*9) I included things that I don't agree with.  Personally, I have a problem with certain sections of the article, they don't ring true to my experiences.  But if the research says otherwise, I included it.Balloonman 15:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note about my methodology