Talk:Don't ask, don't tell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Outing and DADT

Does DADT prohibit fellow soldiers from outing a homosexual colleague? The article only tells of the "Don't Ask"-part as it relates to officers. Axel Löfving (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In actuality, the policy does not PREVENT colleagues from outing homosexuals colleagues. It only says its against policy. It would be a violation of the policy, yet the military does not discharge the "agressors" for violations-only the "victims". "Credible evidence" can be used if found through 'illegal' actions b/c this would not be a criminal matter- just a administrative matter.  :( I was personally discharged under the policy (by my own choice) and have been the victim of multiple issues of harrassment as such.

Dont Ask- Can not ask about sexual orientation (but responses CAN be used to discharge if a response is given). Dont Tell- A servicemember can not make statements of homosexual conduct or admission. They CAN make "gay-friendly" comments and participate in GAY PRIDE events (out of uniform and without signs saying "Im gay" or anything associating themsleves as active military). Dont Harass- Cant harass a servicemember b/c of "perceived sexual orientation". Dont Pursue- A command can not pursue an investigation w/o "credible evidence". A command also can not go looking for "credible evidence". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.25.115 (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

article is a general history of gays in military, not specifically about DADT

I've tagged this article with

as it is not focused on "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" but, rather, is a general history of gays in the US military.

Clearly a separate article on the latter topic is needed.

And DADT is important enough to warrant a separate article on its own.

Obviously, DADT would be part of a more general historical article on homosexuals in the military but this article is crying out for a complete splitting of the two topics.

PainMan (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The article has grown beyond the scope of DADT and should be split off to LGBT policy in the U.S. military. See Sexual orientation and military service. The only other country-specific example there is LGBT policy in the Canadian military. - Ruodyssey (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the page LGBT policy in the U.S. military. I'll keep migrating the History section, time permitting. - Ruodyssey (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved quite a bit but only the pre-1993 stuff that's definitely not about DADT. Many of the Responses sound to me more about gays in the U.S. military in general (as a result of the DADT policy) and may be better suited at the new article, but I'll leave it for now and let other editors pick them out if they like. - Ruodyssey (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Although other articles may exist on the topic of LGBT people serving in their military fileds this article written at an acceptable or good level should definitely include background on their serving in the past and how exposure was dealt/not dealt with. This is one of the first things that most decent articles or books on the subject cover - that LGBT folks have always been in the service and the issue has been handled unevenly at best. -- Banjeboi 06:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Other famous cases tend to have weighty backgrounds in their articles. It was never my intention to merge *all* of the History section, so I wish I could have found a better tag. Merge portion? Anyway, are you opposed to having the LGBTPintheUSM article at all? There's plenty of room for overlap. - Ruodyssey (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this article best serves our readers as focussed on DADT. The policy is well-known worldwide and many sources discuss only it so there's no reason it can't be built up. The other article exists now and a version of it is acceptable and likely needed to fit in with other articles on this subject. I think the other article should be a history of LGBT in US military service - not just policy. My hunch is that the policies can serve as a benchmark of sorts but I remember from other articles that, for instance, WWII had a huge impact on LGBT culture and a huge percentage of lesbian personnel. This is valuable context that is lost when the focus is solely on one aspect. As both articles develop it's likely that what content should be migrated or summarized thus improving both articles. -- Banjeboi 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what we're here for - improving both articles. I just wanted to help lay out a structure to facilitate expansion, since they're so closely tied. How about renaming the new page LGBT military history of the U.S.? I agree DADT should have an informative background section to catch readers up to speed on the issue before going into an exposition on DADT's enactment, debate, and case history. (It might be a good idea to include a "For further information..." link to the new page.) By all means, feel free to copy/move stuff back into DADT as you see fit. - Ruodyssey (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reintroduced some highlights in a new Background section with a {{further}} note. Ruodyssey (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing?

Can anyone tell me where the following comment at the opening of the third paragraph came from?

"Beyond the official regulations, gay people were often the target of various types of harassment by their fellow servicemen, designed to persuade them to resign from the military or turn themselves in to investigators."

It makes a strong statement, but I have no idea where that statement came from.Blue Marine (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I spoke to soon, I found where the origin of the quote. It comes from Conduct Unbecoming (ISBN 0312342640) a 1994 non-fiction book written by noted gay rights advocate Randy Shilts.

I came to the DADT article to do some research, but in it's current state, I don't see how this article could meet any standard beyond that of propaganda for a specific cause. Is anyone working on a re-write?

Blue Marine (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make specific suggestions for improvement rather then generalized vague disparaging remarks about the work of others. It helps keep the focus on improving the article which is what we're here for. -- Banjeboi 11:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

meaning of DADT

We need to edit the opening, because the problem is that DADT means two different things across relatively recent history. When it was originally used, it meant the policy of allowing closeted service members to serve; when Clinton was enacting DADT, that was the matter that was the matter of the immediate argument. However, now it means the policy of not allowing openly gay service members; when the headlines are about how Obama wants to end DADT, that's what they're looking to end. I recommend something to the effect of: Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from discovering or revealing closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants, while barring those that are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. The restrictions are mandated by [...] - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The policy doesnt restrict the military (or a member) from outing servicemembers. It only outlines guidelines for doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.25.115 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

John McCain

As John McCain is the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it is not unreasonable that some statement of his opinion be reflected in this article. However, reprinting a full three paragraphs from a single letter he wrote and giving that its own section is (aside from any question of copyright - I don't know if a Senator's letter to a constituent counts as being in the scope of a federal employee's work - or of source) out of proportion. I don't have time at the moment to figure out where his opinion might go; I'm deleting the new addition, and hope that the someone will look at the article carefully and see where, if anywhere, the insertion of a summary of McCain's opinion (with reference links to a longer discussion) may be appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Senate

• FoxNews

Senate Panel Votes to Lift Military Gay Ban. 92.252.109.171 (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

honorable discharge?

Which type of discharge do service members in violation of DADT receive? I believe I read somewhere that it is honorable but the article does not say. thanks -- Jieagles (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Usually - "more than 98% of all members discharged in Fiscal Year 1997 under the policy received honorable discharges. (Separation of enlisted members in their first 180 days of military service are generally uncharacterized.) Discharges under other than honorable conditions or courts-martial for consensual homosexual conduct are infrequent and have invariably involved aggravating circumstances or additional charges." [1] AV3000 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Better reference needed for this poll

A better reference is needed for this poll. This reference should point to an online version of where this poll came from. This reference only points to another Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#cite_ref-MTimes_poll_48-0
Native94080 (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I agree the sources cited only go back a few years. This certainly does not include the bible. I don't trust homos and I don't expect them to trust heteros... I expect them to do research, check crime statistics in traditionally homo neighborhoods.

General Comments about the entry

This article is very strong over all but suffers from a lack of organization. I would recommend a few principle changes to address these organizational problems and dramatically improve the content of the article. 1) Remove, as has been suggested by others, all content relating to the history of Gays and Lesbians in the military prior to 1993. Passages that mention Reagan era policies or Truman establishing the UCMJ only serve to clutter the entry. Have a significantly stripped down history section that simply relays that allows Gays and Lesbians to serve openly in the military was a 1992 campaign promise of then Governor Clinton. 2) Building off issue #1, the DADT policy has only been in place for 3 Administrations and there has been significant flux in each administrations way to deal with the issue. By grouping this article chronologically by administration the research narrative that is present in the article (i.e.-Since 1993 more nations have allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly, more Americans have supported and end to DADT, and there is evidence showing the military is far more receptive than it had been in the past) can better be brought to the forefront. This evidence can be seen throughout the entry but does not jump out as if it were ordered by Administration.

3) On an unrelated note, there are more accurate numbers on DADT discharge rates from a 2010 report compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which is the official research arm of the US Congress. Link is attached: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/727/ Harrisgwu (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The section you added has typos and jargon-y formulations. Hekerui (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

DODD Directive

First correction to Wiki article, sorry if doing this wrong.

The DODD directive linked to in the references is not DODD 1332.14, as alleged by the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.64.68 (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Obama - Truman contrast

There has been repeated insertions of "By way of contrast, Harry Truman eliminated racial segretion Order 9981 Full Text by executive order (9981, 1948), several years before the main civil rights movement and legislation in the 1960s." There is no source for the relevancy of this "contrast", and it is clearly editorial spin. One could just as easily say "By way of contrast, Harry Truman never even paid lip service to doing anything for gay servicemembers." --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed this again, the comparison is not in the source and not very fitting: Truman could act without an act of Congress, Obama must wait for Congress to act (there is criticisim that he doesn't do much to support liftig the ban but that's not what was discussed in the paragraph). Hekerui (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe that the situation is different for Obama than it was for Truman? You appear to be confused about the nature of the US Constitution, the role of the Commander In Chief, and the extent of the advise and consent powers of the Senate. If anything it should have been harder for Truman. Race segregation affected many more individuals and the country was not as far along on it in 1948 as it is on homosexual rights at the end of the 2000s. As usual however, I don't engage in streit with wiki editors. Also "spin" is a term indicating a perspective, an obvious one in this case since the parallels are self evident. You may be confused by the fact that unlike Truman, who acted in his capacity as CIC, Obama has chosen to lump this with a lot of other legislative sausage which is why it's being debated in the Senate, together with a lot of other crap bundled into a single large piece being extruded by that body. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we understand the spin you're trying to put on it. That you consider it "obvious" does not make it appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That and why you consider a compare and contrast, highly appropriate for wiki, "spin" is no less obvious. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"self evident" doesn't cut it for Wikipedia. And please refrain charging editors with confusion when a rationale was offered. It's also not consistent with "I don't engage in streit with wiki editors". "Streit" is capitalized btw Hekerui (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

danke 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to 72.228.177.92: yes it is in the president's power to command the military, but it is not within the president's power to govern or regulate the military. Those powers are given by the constitution to congress. (Article 2, Section8) The Commander-in-Chief of the Military is still subject to regulation. Sterrettc (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be Article 1, Section 8 "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" Jeisenberg (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a distinction that is missing above. Congress makes the Rules. The president carries out the government and regulation of the armed forces in accordance with the rules that Congress enacts. To illustrate, much of the Army is run "by the ARs". This refers to Army Regulation such-and-such, which are set forth by "Order of the Secretary of the Army" in accordance with authority given the Secretary by Congress. As the discussion first started, do we know if segregation in the military was established because of laws which Congress enacted? In the present situation, DADT exists because Congress enacted the Rules in accordance with Article 1, section 8.--S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding to misstatement in the edit log. I put the reference to the Truman Library, not the originator of the thread. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Notes

In recent events, DADT has been characterized almost as if it is an anti-gay policy of discrimination, when in fact when it was implemented in 1993 it was regarded as a gay rights victory. The article merely discusses the concept as a "compromise." I think its important to note that DADT was regarded as a victory when it came about. After it was implemented, there were concerns raised that there were still serious loopholes, but it was still regarded as a much better situation than what existed before. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of what we say in a WP article, we should base such statements on their representation in reliable sources. My recollection, which is worth nothing as a matter of encyclopedic editing, is that there were people who felt it was a compromise at that time. But I got no skin in which way the article goes save that it needs to be backed by WP:RS. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if one wanted the military to support fully out and open gay status then they could regard DADT as a "compromise", but reasonable people at the time thought it was a plain and simple victory for gays to have their private lives protected to a large degree. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty reliable sources about how Clinton passed this as a compromise because the issue of open service that he had promised became problematic politically. There are also enough reliably sourced reports of how this policy let to violations of privacy, so I oppose adding this as a matter of fact statement to the article without reliable sources and a rationale as to why one should give weight to that. Hekerui (talk)

With all due respect, phrases like "reasonable people" smack of POV. I think it is quite easy to show that some facets of the public felt it was a dissapointment, some thought it was a fair compromise, some thought it was a victory, and some thought it was a travesty. And I think that can be put forward without making value judgments about the "reasonableness" of the people or perceptions involved. To do otherwise, or only represent one viewpoint is POV. In general terms, I'd argue that having a better situation than existed previously for the gay community does not equate to being everything desired, and that the prepronderance of opinion in that community was one of seeing it as a compromise or seeing it as a less than wholly fulfilled promise from Clinton. Just as I'm sure there were those in other groups who saw it in other terms. Jbower47 (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Table of historical homosexual discharges

The table listing the number of homosexual discharges by year should be updated. The sources listed are ridiculous. The following documents are superior sources and allow the reader to compare pre-DADT discharges numbers with post-DADT.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/141611.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf

http://archive.gao.gov/d33t10/146980.pdf

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/128829.pdf

Thoughts? 0cmc0 (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Supporting Images

REMOVE LGBT IMAGE (IMAGES CONATINING LINK LOCATED ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE DADT ARTICLE PAGE). This requests specifically addresses the fact that an LGBT image that has been placed on the DADT page. This article itself is related to the DADT policy and the chronology and effects of said policy. The LGBT is a registered Public Action Committee, which advocates for one side of this issue. The DADT policy has both opponents and proponents. Therefore, it is inappropriate for there to be an LGBT advertisement in the area of the page that is traditionally used for an appropriate and related graphic. By its location, The LGBT ad biases the DADT article. The DADT needs to be voluntarily removed because it violates Wikipedia bias standards. Additionally, the persons placing the ad should voluntarily remove their request for protection; based in part; on the fact that their request to protect the article is predicated on their belief that the site has been subjected to "vandalism". In fact, none of the changes in the log could reasonably viewed as vandalism. In short, the placement of the LGBT image as well as the request for “protection” is disingenuous. Please remove the logo and unprotect the DADT article so as to allow correct, relevant, and non-biased information to be contributed to the DADT article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penny4URThoughts (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. LGBT is not an organization, but rather a term used to refer to people and issues related to sexual orientation. I am sure that this term is used by some organizations and may even be in the name of those organizations, but that does not mean that they own the term or that the term is necessarily referring to those organizations. This article certainly does address issues that affect Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered persons, and thus the box linking this article to other article that also address such issues is appropriate. Sterrettc (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree as well. The {{LGBT rights}} template is a navbox used for linking to related articles and is in no way an advertisement for any group. Though the page has been vandalized from time to time, it is not currently protected or a pending protection. Ruodyssey (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I Agree that the article is within the scope of LGBT right issues; it is linked from LGBT rights by country or territory. The standard is to place such portal templates at the top of the article. I suppose if it made that much difference, it could be moved lower, but the template should appear. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I Agree that the template should be removed completely. This is a No-Brainer

First: To address Sterrettc's argument above: The argument that LGBT is not an "organization" is clearly disingenuous. The premise of the argument to have the LGBT template removed is that the placement of that portal clearly violates neutrality of the article. It is clearly one faction whose intent was to have the policy lifted, and frankly, has nothing directly to do with the content of the article. There is no wiggle room for your position. Second: To address Ruoyyssey's position: Linking it to this article is indeed an advertisement for the LGBT position. Again, try to get past your bias and look at the concept for what it is. For example; if a group that supported the ban, such as the United States Pastor Council (USPC) were to have their logo (image) with links to similar website located where the LGBT image ois located; I have no doubt that countless people who support the abolition on the DADT policy would be screaming to have the USPC image removed. Additionally, your reference to the occasional "vandalism" suffered by the logo, demonstrates your need to simply skirt the primary issue. Images, web pages, and logos are vandalized every day on this website and well as numerous others. In fact, when someone emoved the website from the page and opted for a blank area for this DADT article, it was deemed as "vandalism". That is not vandalism, and your efforts to equate it as such is yet another effort to draw attention away from the fact that the LGBT logo, with it's links has no place within this article. WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT PRESENTING FACTS IN AN UNBIASED FORMAT AS POSSIBLE. IT IS SIMPLY WRONG THAT THE LGBT LOGO REMAINS AS PART OF THIS ARTICLE.

It does not violate neutrality to say that DADT is an LGBT rights issue, and that makes the template appropriate. If you have a problem with what the content of the template is, then the appropriate place to raise that is at the template's discussion page. DADT is specifically a policy for dealing with LGBT individuals; it is not about USPC, no matter whether they have a stand on it; however it would not be inappropriate to have some template on the US military issues in this article, even if it had a logo. Use of thematic logos is common in Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. the Nat Gertler logic; it would be acceptable to have a image/box representing a group of heterosexuals who strongly oppose lifting the DADT policy because; as your logic and words: "DADT is specifically a policy dealing with [heterosexual] individuals". If anything, far more non-LGBT supporters are directly affected by the recent DADT ruling.

I am sorry, however, the your argument and those posted in this section simply hold no water. I wish their was a more neutral party that was available to review our respective positions on this matter. it is ad that political correctness will win the day, at the cost of your integrity. I respectfully submit that there are literally dozens of more appropriate images that could be placed there. If you, as a senior contributor fail to see the logic of that argument, one is left to assume your bias with regard to this matter. That is sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.42.42.234 (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

May I recommend that you read the article? If you do, you will find that it is specifically about US military policy toward the handling of LGB servicemembers and those suspected of being same. It is that they are the target of the policy, rather than that they have a view on the policy, that leads to the template's inclusion. Were it an article about a policy specifically targeted at heterosexual servicemembers, and if there is a template on hetero issues with an image in it, then that template would be appropriate here. There is nothing in the inclusion of this template that would prevent other images from being included in the article; if you have ones that are useful to this article, then please bring them in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not an image. It is the {{LGBT rights}} template and a navigational aid similar to {{LGBT sidebar}} intended for those looking for related articles grouped together by the same template. If you find an appropriate image to add at the top, by all means add it.

Secondly, the vandalism I was referring to was vandalism of the page, the evidence for which is readily available in the revision history. I was not referring to vandalism of the template. Since then, I've learned that Penny4URThoughts has blanked the template four times in an attempt to remove it from this article, which others called vandalism. I will give Penny some slack since (s)he's a new user, though they should really be more careful and discuss edits that are reverted, especially since that was certainly not the correct forum or method to make the change Penny seeks.

The argument here is that simply having the template on the page adds bias to the article because the template "violates [the] neutrality of the article" and/or is "an advertisement for the LGBT position". I think Sterrettc explained best how the abbreviation LGBT is not any organization itself but is instead "a term used to refer to people and issues related to sexual orientation." LGBT people hold a myriad of opinions on DADT as do heterosexuals, of course -- it's a controversial topic, and there is no one "LGBT position" on the matter. So, I'm not convinced that the template is an advertisement for any one position; in fact, I don't find it to be an advertisement for anything except links to related LGBT articles. If you feel the links therein to be unbalanced or POV-pushing, please take that up on the template's talk page.

Most importantly, if you wish to *convince* the opposition here, please explicitly state how the template biases the article or why the template is inappropriate instead of calling it a "no-brainer" or "simply wrong" or telling another editor to "try to get past your bias." Please assume good faith in that we're all trying to improve the article through discussion and consensus. In that spirit, I yield to you another argument for removing the template: The DADT article is itself not listed on the template, and DADT is specific to the U.S. whereas the template links to articles about LGBT rights issues around the globe. - Ruodyssey (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to remind everybody that there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY. That being said, placing this article in a portal that geared towards the rights of a minority group is contradictory. Because no right even exists. --Windycityfan23 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Hekerui (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edits to consolidate content

I'm planning to consolidate the Barack Obama sections on the page. His thoughts on the policy are included three times (Proposed Repeal, Barack Obama and In the Obama Administration). I plan to get rid of the final section (will make sure it's all included in the Barack Obama section) and make sure the Proposed Repeal section is truly about the proposed repeal and not just Obama. I'll likely make the changes tomorrow, so let me know ASAP if you object.

In addition, does anyone have a problem with the Comprehensive Review Working Group information being moved under Scholars? It really needs to come before the Palm Center's statement.

Owesetar (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Destinero (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

International Perspective?

This section does not belong in DADT. It implies that other countries, etc. are commenting on the US policy, but we do not have WP:RS to that effect. Comment or improvements welcome. Otherwise, delete.--S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to me it looks quite on topic, and no I do not believe it implies that. What it does imply is that the US is "weird" in its law. Now, that it isn't neutral, there is a case to make. I just corrected Russia's inclusion of countries that allow gays to serve in the military - Russia does not. Neither does Serbia. But aside from those two, there are very few countries that have homosexuality as legal yet do not allow them to serve in the military. In any case, I fail to see why it should be removed (I'm not a person who commonly edits this page, but still...). --Yalens (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, this article discusses DADT as a feature of the overall topic Sexual orientation and the United States military. (Indeed, DADT should be merged with 'SO & the US military' article.) And 'SO & the US military' is a subpart of the 'SO & military service article'. In this article, is this "International perspective" section showing us what comments have been made regarding the specific DADT policy? Are international organizations, governments, NGOs etc. making comments on the US military policy? If so, those comments should be listed with RS supporting them. As it stands, the section makes mention of policies in those other countries -- and those policies are already covered in the Sexual orientation and military service article. --S. Rich (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not yet repealed

In the rush to edit this article during this historic time, please take care not to get ahead of actual events. The policy is not yet repealed. Obama has not yet signed the repeal into law, and even then the repeal doesn't take effect for months, and may have some terms of implementation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons the article is semi-protected for a time. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

While on the subject, I think it would be more sensible to merge the subsections under "Repeal" One paragraph is not really enough for a section. Also, the main section needs to be wikified. Now its just a timeline.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is not written under NPOV. I understand some users will have some mean things to say about me for pointing that out, but it is definitely written from a "pro repeal" perspective. The neutrality tag should be up until it is fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.112.250 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific than that - what is unbalanced, unstated, or presenting an opinionated view? We cannot address a concern or even fully understand it when presented that vaguely. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dishonesty over costs of retaining DADT?

This Wikipedia article seems to have lapsed into Politically Correct unprofessionalism regarding the financial costs of retaining DADT. It only provides the costs of enlisting and training straight (or closeted gay) replacements for discharged homosexuals, as if repealing DADT won't cost a dime. But repealing DADT will have its own costs, such as the prison terms of those soldiers who attack openly gay soldiers, the lawsuits whenever a gay soldier feels that he discriminated against for a promotion due to his sexuality or incurred emotional distress from fellow soldiers opposed to gay behavior, lawsuits for the right to hold Gay Pride Parades within military installations, etc., etc. There is also a nasty distraction from military concerns whenever these issues get on the news--just one discrimination lawsuit can fully occupy the media for months at a time. Right now, with DADT in place, there's no $100 million lawsuits against the U.S. military due to an openly gay soldier failing to get a promotion. Juries are going to find in favor of the plaintiffs in many if not most of these cases, and this will cost the U.S. military (i.e., the taxpayer) considerably over time.

Another concern, that in order to prevent these $100 million lawsuits and murders such as what sadly occurred to Allen R. Schindler in 1992, the military is going to have to do a lot of tolerance and sensitivity training, that (there being only 24 hours in the day), is going to come out of combat training, pilot/helicopter training, and the like. Soldiers are going to be less skilled in combat due to all this tolerance training, and as a result you'll have more military deaths, more loss of equipment (planes and helicopters crashing, etc.), all of which will have a very high price tag. There's also a heavy morale issue, as soldiers are being taken out of combat training and into tolerance training to accommodate the feel-good whims of civilians, as the contract between soldier ("I'll risk my life if you give me the best training possible to keep fatalities to a minimum.") and civilian public ("Yes, for risking your life in combat we'll make sure you get the full training you need.") becomes broken. Breaking that contract *does* carry a price that would eventually be quantifiable in dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.67.239 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source of real research for assigning such costs that is anywhere near as respected as the CBO, feel free to put it forward. However, this all appears to be your speculation, and grounded in dubious assumptions that seem grounded in a lack of knowledge of and respect for the U.S. military. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I respect the soldiers enough to at least listen to the majority who are opposed to lifting DADT, which is certainly a lot more than the DADT opponents will do. I will certainly add something if I can find it, but the costs to bring in gay soldiers are not exactly politically correct, so it may be difficult to find. We're not just removing DADT, but replacing it with "a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation"--i.e., lawsuit time when someone is harassed based on sexual orientation or failure to be promoted. Does not the military ever incur lawsuits due to racial or gender discrimination, which indeed result in taxpayer cost? Then why wouldn't they receive them on sexual orientation as a result of lifting DADT? If the "respected" CBO is to be believed, there will be no (as in ZERO) lawsuits based on sexual orientation harrassment or failure to promote a gay soldier, and no crimes against gay soldiers for which imprisonment of the criminal would be needed, and further no expenditures on additional tolerance training needed, and no reduction of combat training to accommodate same (resulting in higher costs due to lost lives and equipment). The CBO is not being believable here, it's just being politically correct, a problem that ends up infecting this Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.67.239 (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Your speculation and presumptions are not a source for the article.Again, if you have actual information, rather than made-up claims about the CBO, please put it up; other than that, you should take your theories to a more appropriate forum. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually our error, it was the GAO, not the CBO, according to the article. And I stand mistaken--the GAO was strictly evaluating the replacement/retraining savings from keeping the gay servicemen and no other financial factors that would be involved in repealing DADT--there's far more variables involved with that. So the sentence in the Wikipedia article: "In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office released estimates on the cost of the policy." is *not* true, it was just focusing on one element of it (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf). Furthermore, many of those tossed out would *still* have been tossed out if DADT is repealed because they were tossed out for engaging in sodomy (still illegal in the military) or other sexual misconduct.

This document http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/12%20December/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130%28secure-hires%29.pdf Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (Nov. 2010) gives a much better comprehensive estimate of repealing DADT: Even taking into account the replacement/retraining savings of openly gay soldiers that would otherwise be separated by DADT, the DOD still estimated an annual extra cost of $30-$40 million due to HR restructuring costs, additional privacy needs, and tolerance courses (page 150). However, they write (p. 151): "[Costs] would also rise if recruitment and retention issues become evident; however, at this time, the Working Group expects recruiting and retention expenses related to repeal to be negligible." That conclusion seems off though, because question #81 of their survey (on page 250) of military personnel showed that 23.7% of soldiers would at least think of leaving the military earlier if DADT was repealed (including 38.1% of the Marine Corps), and half of those 23.7% said they *would* leave the military earlier--so you could have tremendous recruitment, replacement and retraining costs due to all those straight soldiers leaving. This would greatly hike up the Working Group's $30-$40 million estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.67.239 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The "costs" you list as associated with repeal of DADT are almost completely (80%) not from the repeal, but from some realignment of benefits that the Working Group was recommmending accompany the repeal, changing some non-member-designated benefits to member-designated ones ("the Working Group estimated the annual cost of

changing these benefits to a member-designated system for all Service members, regardless of sexual orientation, to be $40-$50 million. These benefits costs constituted approximately 80% of the total estimated annual cost of $50-$60 million. The Working Group estimated approximately $20 million in cost savings, for a total net annual cost estimate of $30–$40 million.") Without those, there is still a net savings. But if you think they're conclusions are off, do you really think we should include them? --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We can certainly discuss the various estimates in appropriate context, and should do so because they're from official government bodies. If we describe them correctly then we avoid giving the false impression that Wikipedia endorses them as incontestable fact. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)