Talk:Fraternization

message: OK, I will bite.  What factual accuracy is disputed?  There have been a ton of anonymous edits adding stuff that could be said to have agendas, but what in particular is this article flagged for?
--James52 02:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to tagging with [[Template:Disputed]] 

message: This article is a mess. I don't know if any of this stuff is necessarily untrue, but it almost completely lacks citations. I cleaned up a ton of terrible writing in the second half, but someone with a background in sociology really needs get in here and do the real work. Cssprain 03:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't really seen much progress with this article since I made this previous comment (everything still lacks citation), so I've added the template requesting attention from an expert (who will presumably have access to sources worth citing). Cssprain (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole paragraph about players and cheerleaders could probably go. It's completely speculative. 202.7.183.132 (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs citations and more work 

message: Disclosure of military secrets and favoritism are cited.  One huge reason to disallow fraternization is that too chummy a relationship between officers and enlisted is that officers may be less willing to send friends into battle.  The purpose of the military is to win battles for Authority back home.  That purpose is defeated when a situation develops that reduces the willingness to fight.--141.156.240.13 (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main reason (and most young latinamericans I know will agree) is that wars are fought among lower classes to protect the interests of the upper classes. If a farmer's son from the US was allowed to speak to a farmer's son from Iraq, he'd probably realize he has a lot more in common with him (the difficulty to stay alive, secure food, provide enough income to send kids to college, etc) than with the wealthy politicians who started the war in the first place. It's no secret that the soldier will not get a share of the profits made by the land he took by spilling his blood. It's reasonable to think that after the veil is lifted, the american soldier would be very unwilling to shoot terrorists while in urban areas for he'd realize that by killing one of "them" he'd be also killing many of farmer's sons; people like him. In fact, he'd probably realize that if his units stops attacking insurgents, insurgents are likely to focus on other units, therefore increasing his chances of survival. Of course, most english-speakers dismiss these ideas but do keep in mind that this explains why latinamerica is much less likely to go to war with "brothers" than other cultures. 186.156.33.116 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wars are fought by humans, who at certain point understand that both are same human beings, give up indoctrination and come to mutual understanding for stupidity of war. Of course, those who started the wars have completely different, opposing goals - hence when their "livestock" stops dying for their very personal case, their goals become endangered. The funniest moment is that English Wikipedia is on the side of warmongers and seems to condemn this behavior as well, while Russian one has picture of two soldiers of Austrian and Russian Empires - exchanging cigarettes. 78.34.195.81 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for prohibiting fraternization in the military 

message: I have recently published my theses about Fraternization (=adelphopoeia in Greek). In a few days I will try to contribute on this subject! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christosp (talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice from an expert 

message: I updated the article and removed the NPOV tag, please use  or  for sentences, then detail issues here. - RoyBoy 04:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed [[Template:POV-check|NPOV tag]] 

message: There reads: Professional and college-level sports teams in the U.S. have enacted anti-fraternization policies between athletes and cheerleaders.
Does it mean that a player's girlfriend cannot become a cheerleader? Or is it considered only for "upcoming" relationships? 82.141.72.104 (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about U.S. athlete–cheerleader policies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fraternization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141225031525/http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=363 to http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=363
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified