Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture)

message: Or if we want to exclude wi...spouses, then dependent children of U.S. Military.  The term "brat" is a sometimes used expression, both warmly and with an edge.  But it is slang and not even really that ubiquitious.   
I would get all Great Santini on you and just move the article, but the article has the term used throughout so that needs to be fixed also.  So the whole thing needs some fixing.
Nothing wrong with an article on this subculture...but you are confounding things by dragging the slang term in and overusing it.  Like saying flyboy instead of aviator.
P.s.  I agree that the article should stay focused on the U.S.  Globalizing would be silly.  It is a U.S. subculture.  TCO (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree wp:commonname applies in a broad sense here.  Brat is the term used and is widely recognised.  In the same way that globalising a specifically American term is silly, so is using the term "military dependent".  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not even the more common term.  Realio trulio.  This Wiki article is beating you over the head with it and pushing it as some faux word, but it is not the more commonly used term within the military, families, etc.  69.255.27.249 (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then by all means provide suitable references and sources that confirm "brat" to be misleading - but at the moment both inline sources and external links support the term "brat".  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: [ec] That is one realio trulio anecdote; here is another: I was an Army brat, as were my siblings. It was very much part of our colloquial vernacular identity in real life. In formal officialdom (e.g. when it was time to get shots before going overseas, or when getting carded before shopping at the PX) we were military dependents. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh.  I think the "brat" thing is a bit too cute by far.  Dependent is both more official and more understandable (and in my experience) more common.  Plus...groundpounders aren't the whole military.69.255.27.249 (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The term might not be as popular as it once was, but the term is very strongly used by brats prior to the politically correct era which says we shouldn't call kids brats.  Do a quick search on the Brats v CHAMPS debacle.  A group of ladies who were working with young military dependents was raked over the coal for discarding the term Brat.  Now they might have been onto something regarding what kids are called today, but among adult brats, being a brat is part of our identity.  Do a quick search looking up brats v champs and you can see a big dust up that occurred over the name among the brat community.74.124.47.10 (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the title to "dependent" not "brat" 

message: Incidents such as the Darmstadt American rock-throwing incident are certainly rare, and yet there seems to be no section on the page where acting-out, misbehavior, Juvenile delinquency are discussed. Surely it must be a category on base?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Darmstadt American rock-throwing incident (juvenile delinquency)

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The article as it stands now portrays military classism without much reflection on the negative sides, which are plenty. Actually, this classism is a huge issue for military brats. --137.132.22.254 (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point - it is somewhat skewed (not necessariy biased - which implies an intent to only show one side of a viewpoint), so all you have to do is find reliable sources and add them in.  The article isn't locked in any way, so as long as the contributions are neutral, I'll support them.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No negative sides for the military classism