Wikipedia

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

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

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

Military brat (U.S. subculture) edit

I nominated this article for FAC about 2 months ago, it would have possibily been approved then, but SandyGeorgia made some excellent criticisms and I decided to withdraw the FAC to make those edits. The article has been considerably reworked and reviewed by numerous people. It has achieved "A" status per the Military History Peer Review process. I believe this article is ready for FA and needs to be FA because so many people do not understand the term "Military brat" or the degree to which the effects of being a military brat affects people.Balloonman 08:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. As I said in its peer-review with my poor English it is a "unique" article!--Yannismarou 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is lengthy, so just comments on the first parts for now.
  • Should the first sentence say "served full-time in the armed forces" or "served full-time in the American armed forces". Small, but important. The latter seems accurate; the former seems a post-hoc label that Americans will apply elsewhere. At a glance, I see no real non-US descriptions. If so, consider moving this over top the Military brat redirect; the current title seems to suggest a bunch of military brat groups, when this is more or less it.
Military brat is used in both England and Canada (and I've been told, but can't document Australia.) I think it is more accurate the way it is without the word "America" in there.Balloonman 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Violates criterion 4 (focus) in early parts:
    • The first paragraph of Linguistic reclamation. It's irrelevant to this article whether gays and Mormons have reclaimed once pejorative labels. Reduce to a single sentence, IMO.
Excellent comment... I didn't really like the list either. I've moved it to a footnote.Balloonman 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The American Heritage Dictionary defines culture as 'the predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.'" You don't need to unpack a word as broad as culture on a page this specific.
I've edited it some, hopefully this works a little better. I included it because some people have questioned whether or not it is really a culture or a demographic.Balloonman 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to read more closely before describing the POV fully, but I had this uneasy feeling of "just so" when reading. For instance: "In his book The Great Santini, Patrick Conroy describes a military family with an abusive, totalitarian father. The character, Bull Meecham, is the epitome of the worst stereotypes of the military father. His traits, however, ring true with military brats, who reported either having a father like Bull Meecham, or knowing one." It really rings true for all of them? Isn't that just so. I'm not saying this is inaccurate—it just doesn't feel right.
Yeah, I have to agree... I liked it because it does create the proper image of the stereotypical military father and I do believe that most brats do know somebody like Bull Meecham... but it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedic article... I've just been reluctant to get rid of it because I liked the imagery... just needed the right kick in the pants to do so... consider it removed.Balloonman 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose quality seems fine on a first look. I'll try to comment more tomorrow. Marskell 21:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must add, having partially created a loophole with an edit myself, that the article should differentiate class difference and military rank. It treats them as interchangeable, when they are nothing of the sort. Marskell 21:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the section title to "Military Classism." There is a difference in 'class' based upon military rank... but I'm not sure if that title works... I thought about "Rankism" but that wouldn't capture the differences in Academy/non-Academy and Combat/non-Combat differences...Balloonman 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject The sentence in the second paragraph beginning with "Despite being used in other English speaking countries, only military brats in the United States have been studied as an identifiable demographic;[3] a demographic shaped, in part, by frequent..." is poorly written. The introductory phrase "Despite being used in other English speaking countries" must be followed by a noun phrase that resolves the tension and tells the reader exactly what is being used in other English speaking countries. Also, the phrase "only military brats in the United States have been studied as an identifiable demographic;" is certainly not true. But: these are only grammar defects that can be easily corrected, I realize; in no way am I disparaging all the diligent research and reflection that have undoubtedly contributed to this very fine article.GrouchyDan 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, based upon everything that I've been able to find, it is true that only US brats have been studied as a demographic---it's one of the things that is mentioned in the literature on the subject. A British researcher, Grace Clifton, was asked to compile information on British military brats and declared that "no significant literature" on the subject has been done outside of the U.S. She then used the research in the US and speculated on whether or not the findings in the US would hold true for British brats. (I found another source wherein Morton Ender did the same thing with Canadian brats---but they are speculative analysis as compared to legit studies.) Morton Ender (the big name in brat studies) likewise laments there has been no research on brats in other countries to compare the the effects with. Ann Cottrell, a big name in Third Culture Kids research, warns while there have been international studies comparing third culture kids from around the world, that Military Brats are an anomaly because TCK's who are military brats are almost exclusively from the USA---and thus throw a lot of TCK studies off. As for the poor grammar, I'm not sure I understand the problem. "Despite being used in other English speaking countries" is followed by "only military brats in the US have been studied...." The tension is that other countries don't study the effects of growing up in the military eventhough they use the same terminology. I'm not sure of what you mean by, "tells the reader exactly what is being used in other English speaking countries." They use the same term, they just don't study what effects it has.Balloonman 05:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Balloonman. What I mean is this: many social groups throughout history have been studied as discrete demographics. Thus, the phrase "only military brats in the United States have been studied as an identifiable demographic", taken by itself, is false. If it were true, then I could write this: "Single mothers in Honduras have not been studied as an identifiable demographic; five-year-old children in Iceland have not been studied as an identifiable demographic; in fact, no conceivable social group except for military brats in the United States has been studied as an identifiable demographic." The phrase does NOT mean, as written, that "Of all military brats in the world, only those in the United States have been studied as an identifiable demographic," although that is possibly the meaning that the phrase's author wanted to communicate.

Also, what I meant by "Despite being used in other English speaking countries" and tension is this: "Despite being used in other English speaking countries" is an introductory phrase meant to modify something immediately following it. For example, properly-structured sentences beginning with that phrase might take these forms: "Despite being used in other English speaking countries, the word "petrol" is most often associated with speakers in Great Britain." "Despite being used in other English speaking countries, Lincoln's Rheumatism Cure is unabashedly labeled using American spellings." "Despite being used in other English speaking countries, the phrase "military brats" is most often associated with children of Irish service members." In other words, the introductory phrase "Despite being used in other English speaking countries," must be followed by a noun or noun phrase that, as I wrote, resolves the tension in the reader's mind by identifying exactly what is being used in other English speaking countries. "Only military brats in the United States" is not such a noun phrase.

Part of the reason for errors like these is that the writer knows what he wanted to communicate in a given passage, and he may therefore mentally supply missing or ambiguous information during his proof-reading of the phrase; the reader, however, should not be expected to do so.

Finally, this comment. I usually edit articles in situations like this to repair grammar and structure. I refrained from editing the article in question, however, for lack of knowledge concerning the relevant social studies.

My apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. The article is very good, by the way. Aside: the singer Emmylou Harris comes to my mind as an example of a military brat (her father, a Marine Corps pilot, was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for a while). GrouchyDan 21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ok, your criticism makes much more sense now. I still don't understand the grammar problem (grammar ain't my thing.) So I asked somebody else who I know to be better with grammar to take a look at it, and she agreed with you... something about a danglind participle or such, I still don't understand it, but according to her it is fixed now. I also fixed your concern about the group being studied. Let me know if it addresses your concern... the U.S. is the only country where the effects of growing up in their military has been systematically studied. Other countries haven't made that investment. I'm hoping that with your liking the article to fix it so that you can support it ;-) Added emmylou to List of famous military brats thanks.Balloonman 22:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support this is fine, needed article and deserves to be FA. The quibbling above should not stop it therefrom. Sumoeagle179 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't see any quibbling... I just see some solid comments/recommendations that make the article better---but thanks for the support.Balloonman 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I really like this article, actually. Quite well done for a seemingly tough to source subject. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support.Balloonman 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As in its first FAC round. I'm a big fan of this article, and I learned a great deal from it. MLilburne 09:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is that a Wikipedia link I see in ref #67? I hope it's my imagination.--Rmky87 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oooops, that was a cut-n-paste error. At Sandy's recommendation I was getting rid of a HUGE reference list by mentioning sources used only once in the endnotes in the end notes. The source for Quigly (sp) was cut and pasted, but apparently, I pasted a wikisource by mistake. It's been fixed.Balloonman 19:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't like the subsection "Where are you from?". A section's name should explain its context, and this isn't very understandable. Maybe you should remove it and place the contained paragraphs below the main section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will change back to "High mobility."---Actually, made some fairly significant changes to that section... I think it is a lot tighter and better now. Thanks for the feedback.Balloonman 05:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Prose needs work:
  • when used in this manner can be used without fear of insulting others - messy.
Removed, decided it was redundant with what preceded it.Balloonman 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This group is shaped by frequent moves, authoritarian family dynamics, strong patriarchal authority, the frequent absence of a parent, the threat of parental loss in war, and the militarization of the family unit - would be nicer to group the terms involving "frequent" together.
Moved and reworded.Balloonman 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...military culture is unique due to the tightly knit communities that perceive these traits as normal. Military culture,[5] which is not chosen by the the child,[6] impacts, but does not control, who children of military personnel are as adults - very hard to follow, sudden switch from families to culture.
Reworded.Balloonman
  • As adults, military brats - the exact same phrase is used at the beginning of a sentence later on in the paragraph (except the second time, "military" is inexplicably capitalised).
Ooops, I meant to get rid of the second "as adults" and simply start the sentence with "Military brats." I felt that it was implicit in the sentence that it was refering to them as adults. Thanks for catching that.Balloonman 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can also struggle to develop and maintain deep lasting relationship - "also" is redundant.
corrected.Balloonman 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • religious, racial, sexual, etc - abbreviations of Latin terms should be avoided, per manual of style.
removedBalloonman 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Military brats compose the largest groups of TCKs,[13] but are almost exclusively from the U.S. - "but" isn't being used to contradict or contrast, so shouldn't be used.
Actually it is, because TCK is explicitly a global term. Changed it to: "Globally military brats compromise about 30% of all TCKs, but they are almost exclusively from the U.S."Balloonman 07:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't until the 1980s, that systematic research began on military brats. - seems to be making an implicit comment on it taking a long time to begin; can't it just be "systematic research began on military brats in the 1980s" or something similar?

That's just reading through the first quarter of the article, so suggests that it needs work throughout. Trebor 15:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed... actually, if I was making any kind of unconscious statement, it would have been "the research prior to the 1980's is dubious in nature."Balloonman 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I looked through a bit more the article and made a few tweaks. The prose is consistently not up to standard, so I'm still opposing for the time being. Things I was unsure about:
  • Military culture has reclaimed the term to make it their own. "There’s a standard term for the military child: 'Brat.'" - where is this quotation from? It doesn't seem to be attributed.
Actually, it was part of the full quote "There’s a standard term for the military child: 'Brat.' While it sounds pejorative, it’s actually a term of great affection." I moved the speaker to the start rather than between the two sentences.Balloonman 08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...it becomes a term of endearment.[sic]" - what's the [sic] for?
Removed, when I first read it, it read wierd... but now it is ok.Balloonman 08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • sociologist Morton Ender reported, - reported is in words to avoid as it sounds too authoritative. Just use "wrote" or "said" (I don't know which he did otherwise I'd correct it).
Ok made that changeBalloonman 09:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a sense of vagueness in everything written here. I know you're trying to avoid generalising but the vagueness makes the article seem weak. For instance, The stereotypical military family might have... isn't saying much. We aren't talking about all military families, we're talking about a stereotypical one. And even this hypothetical stereotypical one doesn't definitely have something, it only might have. This is repeated elsewhere: it's full of mays and mights and often and is likely. It makes the article seem unsure of itself, even though there are plenty of references.
Now I have to smile, you can't win can ya ;-) One of the criticisms of the article previously was that it was too strong in making declarations now it's too weak ;-) EDIT: went through and edited many of those often/may/mights... I decided that as with any study of a culture, you are indicating trends not absolutes. Any specific individual in a community may or may not hold or have a specific attribute.Balloonman 08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will carry on looking through over the next few days. Trebor 12:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. I hope that you can support it after making these changes, but even if you don't your involvement will improve the article.Balloonman 08:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New comments, up to anti-racism:

  • and concluded that 93% patients came from military families where overly authoritarian. - has this been cut off? It leaves the sentence hanging somewhat.
  • military brats will invariably name the one to which their parent belonged. - I dislike "invariably", you'll hate me for saying this but it's too assertive.
  • Military members are often separated for their children. - caption for picture, not sure what it means. Trebor 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • SupportMinor objectI'll change this when fixed...why do some web refs say "Acessed on" and not have a wikilinked full date and others as "Retrieved on" but do have a wikilinked full date? You should be consistent. Suggest wikilinking the full dates per WP:DATE. if you use cite web templates and enter "yyyy=mm=dd" in the accessdate parameter, it will auto format them for you and link them.Rlevse 11:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I've caught them all.Balloonman 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, needs some work.
  • I'm suspicious of the claim that this term is used in other English-speaking countries; I have never heard of it. Is it actually used on a widespread basis or just the occasional journal?
Do a websearch on "Canadian Brats" and you'll pull up quite a few hits for Canadian Military brat groups. Here are just a few of the Canadian brat cites: [1][2][3][4][5] Military Brats of Singapore is a group I didn't know about. In my research I found several references to "British Regiment Attached Travellers" for British brats---although a British reviewer in the first military history peer review indicated that the term is used in England primarily in regards to Army brats, not their Navy/Air Force. If you do a websearch for British and "army brat" you will have quite a few hits---a quick search and I couldn't find a british brat group, but I did find quite a few blogs/unofficial sources. But it is a term that I've seen in the literature referencing the children of military personell. In all honesty, I can state with 100% certainity that it is widely used in Canada... and I've had strong indications (including several published sources) that it is used in England, but I'm not sure how widely used it is there.Balloonman 07:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "Military brat" + "British Army" only returns around 178 unique hits. Since this term is used in Canada, doesn't that invalidate the 'U.S. subculture' part of the title? This has probably been gone over before, but why isn't this article at Military brat?--Nydas(Talk) 08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try using "Army brat", a synonymn with military brat, instead and you'll see plenty of hits. As for the US focus---yes it has been discussed quite a bit. The best summary occured at the Original Military History Peer Review where a German and Brit weighed in on the subject. Essentially it boils down to this, U.S. military culture is vastly different from British/Canadian military experience. Trends and issues identified among US brats may not be true elsewhere, but we don't know this because brats have not been studied elsewhere. What is known/studied about military brats is true about U.S. brats---not Canadian/British brats. It would be virtually impossible to write a comprehensive article on ALL military brats (even if the research was available which it isn't.)Balloonman 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Military culture, which is not chosen by the the child, impacts, but does not control, who children of military personnel are as adults. - terribly clunky sentence, made worse by the citations lodged within it. Break it up if possible.
Excellent criticism... reworded and I think it works a lot better now.Balloonman 06:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for an entire paragraph explaining what linguistic reclamation is. That is covered by the relevant article.
When I first wrote the sentence I hadn't found the relevant article (which isn't one of Wikipedia's finest.) So I wrote the paragraph to explain it, but you are correct, since there is an article, I've reduced it to one sentence.Balloonman 06:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is because children in military communities grow up in a very different culture than non-military families; the culture being the knowledge, experience, values, ideas, attitudes, skills, tastes, and techniques that are associated with the military. This sentence is too long and strikes me as redundant. The two 'military culture' paragraphs could be slimmed down to just one.
Done.Balloonman 06:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The captions for the images are not very good. Ideally they should link into the points within the article, rather than being bland statements like "Waiting for return of father from Iraq". I'd drop the individual's names from the captions, they're not really encyclopedic.
Done... I've worked on the captions... but would appreciate more specific guidance in how to improve them.Balloonman 06:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better. I'm not an expert on this, but I think that avoiding terms like 'sacrifice' would be preferable. Also try to keep captions down to one sentence, for example: The internet has enabled soldiers to connect with their families while deployed. Such as when a child is born. Only one sentence is needed here, and 'Internet' should be capitalised.--Nydas(Talk) 08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find the original source to link it... the word sacrafice was the term used to describe the event in the original text...155.201.35.53 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My memory of the article was wrong, it wasn't sacrafice, but commemorate. Will reword section.Balloonman 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many external links that just link to different parts of the same site. One link per site is enough, any more looks like spam.--Nydas(Talk) 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therein is where the challenge arises. If I get rid of them, then somebody will invariably tag a section as "uncited." I went through and got rid of as many as I felt comfortable getting rid of.Balloonman 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External links don't need to act as sources, so that wouldn't be a problem. One of the sites sells children's books; external link guidelines suggests avoiding these and using ISBN links instead.--Nydas(Talk) 08:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, completely misread your critique... I read it as complaining that there were too many citations to the same sources, not the external links that you mentioned. Will take care of your criticisms later on... but I agree with the children's book cite... it is something that I am not sold on having here.155.201.35.53 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, that was me, I thought I was logged in when I responded. I don't know how I misread your original critique, but I've gone through the external links and edited them significantly. I agree and got rid of quite a few of them... it's an area I haven't focused on and some have been added where I simply said, "ok, what harm does it do." But you are right, they needed to goBalloonman 05:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, I withdraw my objection, but there are still a few things that could be looked at.
  • All the pictures in the article are recent; are there any of brats from the 70s and 80s?
  • The 'Post-Cold War Era brats' section has a clunky title and the 'Alcohol and Abuse' section doesn't fit well within it, being about the 80s and 90s.
Renamed and moved.70.252.183.179 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear whether the first part of the article is about Cold War military brats or military brats generally.
The article is on brats in general, but the experience of current brats is different than those pre-1990's.70.252.183.179 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Reunited and reaching out' section has a POV name, and some of the info within it seems forced. 'A recent study' - what's the name of the study? Do all brats "feel a sense of euphoria when they discover that other brats share the same feelings and emotions"? I think this section should be renamed 'Military brats in adulthood' and reworked into a more measured description; too often it implies that all former military brats feel this way, which seems very unlikely.--Nydas(Talk) 09:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This goes back to my laughing above. If I acknowledge that this is for "many" or even "most" it is criticized. If I get rid of them, it is criticized. Can't win. But I reworded it some.70.252.183.179 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't understand this caption at all: Operation Enduring Freedom was a commemoration for marines since 9/11. First, the "marines since 9/11" at the end doesn't seem to make any grammatical sense. Second, can Operation Enduring Freedom really be called a "commemoration" of anything? And what did it have to do with a kid splashing in a pool? Andrew Levine 10:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded.70.252.183.179
  • Oppose:
    • The puzzling caption I mention just above.
    • Lots of weird generalizations, like in the intro, "They struggle to develop and maintain deep lasting relationships, feeling like outsiders to U.S. civilian culture", which is worded as applying broadly to MBs, when the footnote says that less than half of them express such a sentiment. Nothing is given to compare these figures to; what percentage of US youths overall feel themselves "not central to any group"? These recur throughout the article.
Again, Trebor didn't like it when it was worded to acknowledge that it isn't universal. Can't win---any study of any group will show trends and themes. These trends/themes WILL NOT apply to everybody within a culture/subgroup. Even as tightly defined as a culture/group can be, it will never be applicable to everybody who belongs to the group. I switched it back to the way it was because I didn't like the "stronger" language.70.252.183.179 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, though this isn't an objection per se, I corrected one glaring factual error in the article (Ben Nelson is a Senator, not a Representative) even though I'm not too familiar with the subject. This combined with the "Operation Enduring Freedom" goof suggests that there may be more errors that someone else who knows more about the military might be able to address. I highly recommend that someone besides Ballonman who has a good familiarity with the topic of military families and the activities they engage in look over the article. Andrew Levine 00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has come a long way since Baloonman took it up and whilst there are a few grammatical niggles I'm not going to pick up on them as most are transatlantic stylistic issues. Share Andrew Levines concern about the caption on the swimming pool image, it's clearly not OEF, although it may be related to a commemorative event of some kind. Needs resolved. The image on the opposite side at the same level also repeats community which strikes me as clumsy (potentially a USian style thing though).ALR 19:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I thinkig like Andrew Levine.--Absar 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been extremely busy at work this past week... will try to respond/fix issues this weekend.Balloonman 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Stinks of POV like almost no other article I've read. I'd like to be nice, but I'll be honest: it reads like a piece of soppy propaganda and lacks substance. All the crap like "The return of a parent from deployment is often a cause of celebration and anticipation." and "Deployment can be a time of heartbreak and tears." needs to be cut; not for me to change my vote, but because the article needs to be neutral and serious. michael talk 02:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are captions to picture describing the picture. Not part of the heart of the article.70.252.183.179 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Military_brat_(U.S._subculture)/archive2&oldid=1086103239"