Talk:Don't ask, don't tell/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Policy has been repealed today

{{edit semi-protected}} The start of this article needs a slight amendment because Barack Obama signed a law today (22-Dec) repealing the don't ask, don't tell policy. 94.169.126.14 (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose change The policy was not repealed today, the law signed states that it will be repealed once the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the President, and the Secretary of Defense certify that repeal will not hurt the military, and even then a 60 day waiting period follows until the section is struck from the books. The current formulation is sufficient. Hekerui (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I clarified in the lead, there have been quite a few edits about that, which suggests that it needs to be spelled out. Hekerui (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone change "U.S. President Barack Obama signs a law repealing the don't ask, don't tell policy, which prohibits openly homosexual people from serving in the U.S. military." to U.S. President Barack Obama signs a law repealing the don't ask, don't tell policy, which prohibited openly homosexual people from serving in the U.S. military." on the front page? This would be clearer grammatically. XieYuhuan (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's still in effect. Read the last line of the intro. 60.228.95.151 (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's yet to be repealed. Read the law. He signed a law in effect that could eventually repeal it but at the moment does not. I know it's a hard concept but if you actually read the law that you are talking about it couldn't be any clearer. Changing it now to show there is a repeal would show a low capacity for intelligence on the part of wiki editors which already comes into question.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement about repeal is confusing. The article begins by saying that DADT is a law that prohibits discrimination. So repeal sounds like it means that discrimination will now be allowed! That is incorrect. Eclecticos (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the law was originally envisioned as a way to prevent the military from discriminating against GLBT soldiers. Prior to DADT, even an accusation of same-sex activity could ruin a soldier's career & possibly lead to discharge. DADT was considered a way to prevent this kind of discrimination... but it wasn't very effective at it. So, the article isn't wrong, but it might be a touch confusing as it's currently worded. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding alternate views

Do views such as those expressed here get room in this article? The article is very long and looks good from a birdseye view, and is a credit to those who have worked on it, but i'm just wondering if we are including alternate perspectives such as these? The link above is written by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Specialist Casey A. Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004. Timeshift (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems less a serious discussion about DADT, and more using the excuse of DADT to discuss the military in general (a WP:COATRACK usage, if you will). As such, if it has a place in Wikipedia as a whole, it probably isn't here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice redirect but you didn't fully answer the question Nat. This is one such article just given as an example but the main question posed is should alternative views be posed in this article? It's very likely one could find various sources that are against repeal that don't coat rack this article and further more would leave this article as it stands bias with out them.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much point in evaluating every possible hypothetical that might exist. Timeshift brought up an article which was a genuine thing to address. If you have some broader response for that editor, perhaps you should make it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of hypotheticals. Neither was he. He gave you one example. Not the best example perhaps but non the less it seems that an example was given simply to show that there were other points of view. He's question was simply should other points of views be posted. You redirected. I question myself if you answered in that manner so that the subject would be dropped and everyone would assume that it would be a bad idea to display an alternative POV.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. Nat answered that the example given was not appropriate. Views which are merely coatracks for other subjects should not be included, no, which Nat accurately pointed out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RECENT?

I question whether all this detail is really necessary. While I support the repeal of DADT (since the Pentagon and the members of the military itself have stated that it isn't needed and that it's repeal will not affect the fighting readiness of our military.) and I'm happy to shake the hand of any soldier of any age, race, sex, or sexual orientation and say "Thank You", I can't help but notice that this article is nearly twice the size of the article on Prohibition in the United States. That too was a controversial policy that was in place for years and caused the rise of gang and criminal activity across the country. All I ask is people really read this article from a historical perspective and judge for themselves is all this needed for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanNovack (talk • contribs)

You might want to be more specific as to what needs to be changed. Size isn't a measure of quality. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please be more specific. I assume you're referring to the repeal section for which there is now a split-off article, so that section should be considered a summary. Some of the one-liners need to be worded into paragraphs. Any minor details should probably be worked into the repeal article instead. But I wouldn't consider the entire article to be suffering from recentism.- Ruodyssey (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of discharges

should be take from the source "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:" The Law and Military Policy on Same-Sex Behavior of the Congressional Research Servic, and begin in 1980. David (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that the years back to 1980 aren't DADT-based (which doesn't mean they aren't of interest, but they aren't inherently part of this article), and that the CRS figures aren't as detailed. They do not match up one-to-one with the SLDN numbers, but for some years it looks as though the difference is that they didn't include the Coast Guard (which is understandable, as the Coast Guard, unlike the other branches, is not primarily under the Department of Defense, which is the source of most of this report's statistics). --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro

I reverted this series of changes. The article isn't on the entire federal law, it's on this one particular policy. This has no other common name besides "Don't ask, don't tell", so it needs to be clear exactly what we're talking about.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Noting that this is just a conventional name, and not the official name of the policy, is necessary for the lead.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? It seems to be OR.

There doesn't seem to be an official name, and everyone refers to it as 'don't ask don't tell'. As you note above, the article is clearly largely or even completely about the policy, not the term.

I don't mind that being mentioned elsewhere (if you can reference it), but doing it in the first sentence is inappropriate, and it's just sheer bad writing due to the length of the first sentence.Rememberway (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Mentioning that it has no specific name can be done in the sentence where we invoke the specific law location; it does not need to be in the first sentence, which is convoluted even without that. Given that the DADT name is used within the military as well as with all discussions of the policy beyond the military, it is a reflection of the language to say that that is the policy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

DADT is indeed just the conventional name for the policy. Here's what Britannica says about it: "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT): byname for the official U.S. policy regarding the service of homosexuals in the military."[1] The first sentence is too wordy, but it's because we go into too much detail about what the policy does in the first sentence. That could easily be done in a later sentence.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nat, your edit just added even more words to the lead, and confuses the issue. The federal law and the policy are not interchangeable units. The policy was effected because of the law, which has multiple aspects. I suggest we do something like this with the lead:

"Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the official United States policy on homosexuals serving in the military. The policy prohibits military personnel from harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. The policy is mandated by federal law xx.

Cúchullain ^t/c 17:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about the name for a policy, it is about the policy. DADT is that policy. We don't start out every article saying "Taj Mahal is the name of a building" "Bill Clinton is the name of the person who was President" and so forth. Whether or not it is the non-existent official term for the policy, it is what the policy is called, within and without the military. If you want to break up the first sentence, fine, but putting into the first sentence that it is a term is unneeded and inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Cuchullain really does tend to start articles like that, and no I don't really understand why either. I'm surprised his user page doesn't start with "User:Cuchullain is a term for a Wikipedia user called Bill...", but it probably will in a minute.Rememberway (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to avoid getting onto what other editors "tend to do", Wolfkeeper.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible compromise: The official United States military policy on homosexual servicemembers, known as "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT), bars service by the openly homosexual or bisexual persons while prohibiting discrimination and harrassment against closeted servicemembers. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a rare exception to common practice. The article is about the policy, but "Don't ask don't tell" is just the conventional term for the policy. If no less than Britannica sees fit to note that it's the "byname for the official U.S. policy", we don't need to sweat encyclopedia protocol on this minor point. At any rate please remove your addition claiming that the law itself doesn't have an official name; that's not the issue at hand.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I already tried something like that, and it doesn't really read very well. What you did is fine.Rememberway (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I think something like that could work. But with an introductory sentence like that, once it's repealed we're back to square one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Don't ask don't tell" is not "just the conventional term", it is the name of the policy, the only name in use for the policy; not all words for things need to be legally dictated. Anyway, I'm having trouble following the back-and-forth due to the edit conflict, but if you're saying that my suggestion starting with "The official United States..." would be back to square one in a repeal, I don't see that. Just about any sentence will require a tense change with repeal; with this, it would become "The former United States military policy on homosexual servicemembers known as "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) barred yadda-yadda. Repeal in 20-aught-11, yadda yadda." --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC), yadda-yadda

It is just the conventional term for the policy. That's why most of the sources on it put the name in quotes, or describe it along the lines of "the policy known as 'Don't ask don't tell'". The issue is for us to be in line with the sources. And in the edit conflict, yes I was indicating that I thought your proposal could work, but that it would have to be altered again once it's repealed (more so than the previous version would).--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

When everyone uses the same term for something, that's a name of that item. That's how language works (language is generally a set of "conventional terms" rather than dictated designations). "Don't ask, don't tell", with the quotes, is the name of it, and was how it was appearing in the lead of the article even when we removed the "term" phrasing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote marks weren't there until I added them yesterday. The phrase "the common term" had been there for years. Any improvement is welcome but it seems like we're bending over backwards to avoid the simplest solution.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why yes, we have been bending over backwards to accommodate you. Does "Don't ask, don't tell" mean something besides this policy that needs to be reflected? If someone looks up Don't ask, don't tell, do they really need to have explained to them first thing off that it's a "term"? It's the term used by major sources, used by the government, it's the language of choice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're the one who had the problem with the wording that has appeared here without quarrel for years. When most sources make clear it's just the common term, inlcuding the world's most respected encyclopedia, it's certainly not a problem for us to do so. Your suggestion is workable, but overwrought compared to the simpler solution of saying it's the common term for the policy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not the editor who originally deleted this phrasing. At the moment you're the one editor arguing for complicating the opening sentence so that it appears to be an introduction to an etymological article rather than one on a policy. Claims that it is the "simpler solution" fail the sniff test. I have no objection to a fuller discussion of the nomenclature within the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the date the policy was put in place appear in the summary?

The third sentence begins "The act..." but no act has been named. Law? Statutes? Policy? It? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if someone knows and can add an update to this line under "Court Cases"

"On January 28, 2011, the Court denied the Justice Department's request. The DoJ now has until February 25 to file briefs as to why the lower court decision should be overturned."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.229.122 (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 

Repeal and impletation

In my opinion, two things need to be done:

1. Repeal needs its own section
2. Implementation of repeal needs to be updated. Most of the information in it is months old. What happened to Duncan Hunter's bill...did it die in committee? What? Has the Chairman not submitted his readiness report yet? If so, do we have a better handle on when he will?

I say this more as an editor of other articles who read this to get insight rather than someone who knows a great deal Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion

In September 2010, US District Court Judge Virginia Phillips ruled DADT Unconstitutional. In October 2010, Judge Phillips barred the Government from enforcing DADT (from kicking soldiers out based on DADT). The Government appealed both decisions to the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit scheduled oral arguments as to the Constitutionality of DADT for sometime in 2011. However, the 9th Circuit did place an injunction (a hold) on Judge Phillips' barment of enforcement of DADT until oral arguments were heard. This was largely due to minimalize confusion as to the status of DADT. In July 2011, the Obama Administration filed a brief in US Federal Court in a DOMA case, refusing to support the law (DOMA) arguing that sexual orientation is a protected classification entitled to higher levels of Judicial Review under the US Constitution. Because of that brief, the Log Cabin GOP filed a request to the 9th Circuit that it lift its injunction on the ban of enforcement of DADT as placed by Judge Phillips. The Court also scheduled oral arguments for the actual Constitutionality of the law during the week of August 29th, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 05:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 69.23.63.58

I assume this anonymous user is the one whose edits were twice reversed yesterday, so I'll comment.

Much of what you added was already in the entry under the heading "Court challenges" and more carefully written.

The summary of the article is meant to be just a summary, not a repeat of the detail below.

You added a footnote at the top of the article, before the text even started, which is very odd.

Your edit said that Phillips' order is in place pending oral argument. Actually it is in place until she or some other court modifies it. What the Ninth Circuit did on July 6 was lift its stay and allow oral argument to proceed. Above you say "The Court also scheduled oral arguments for...the week of August 29th", which is correct. Pending isn't.

This is news to me: "Because of that brief [by the DOJ in Golinski on July 1], the Log Cabin GOP filed a request to the 9th Circuit that it lift its injunction on the ban of enforcement of DADT as placed by Judge Phillips." I haven't seen anyone else say LCR filed anything citing the DOJ Golinski brief. I'd be interested in seeing a citation.

Cheers.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Bmclaughlin9 Yes, it's me. - I have not problem moving some of my contribs. to the section below. -I'm not sure where I added a footnote before text started; I don't believe I did but I may have by accident. -I deleted "pending" -See this article in the Advocate: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/07/03/Justice_Dept_Strike_Down_DOMA/ -It's also in the full Court Opinion: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2011/07/06/20110606_Order.pdf "In addition, in the context of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, the United States has recently taken the position that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. See Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. C 3:10-00257-JSW (N.D. Cal.) (Doc. 145, July 1, 2011) (“gay and lesbian individuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination”); Letter from Attorney General to Speaker of House of Representatives (Feb. 23, 2011) (“there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities”)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.63.58 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

1. I added the July 6th opinion's use of Golinski to the entry for Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America yesterday. There's no dispute about the fact the DOJ filed a brief in Golinski on July and that the July 6 opinion cited that DOJ brief.

You said above "Because of that brief [by the DOJ in Golinski on July 1], the Log Cabin GOP filed a request..." But the Log Cabin Repubs did not file anything with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals between July 1 and July 6. Or do you think they did? That's statement you haven't backed up.

2. Should we say here in the DADT article that the July 6 order referenced Golinski and the current state of the repeal of DADT? I think we should leave that level of detail to Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And now, anonymous, you have twice changed the format of an "accessdate" because you are not stopping to read what others have edited. You see a date and make a change. An accessdate is not the same as a date in the text. And formats in citations should be consistent. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

unit cohesion - assistance requested

I've just now addressed a somewhat problematic edit[2] in unit cohesion, but I'm not an expert in the subject of unit cohesion, much less in the (indisputably notable) debate over the erosion of unit cohesion supposedly suffered by allowing gay people to serve, closeted or not. unit cohesion should undoubtedly have a nice NPOV section summary about that debate. Perhaps someone here can contribute a paragraph or two with due weight? Yakushima (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama section

The section talking about Obama and his views/actions related to this topic does not seem to me to be written in NPOV. I'm a pro LGBT non American and it just seems to be very hardcore pro LGBT people bashing on Obama, especially the last paragraph, which basically implies he dodged the conversation deliberately 80.229.225.236 (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Presidential opinion

In the opinion section, only Obama's presidential opinion is told about but he was not the only person to serve under the policy nor was he the one to institute it so why is his opinion the only one told about, presidentially speaking? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 22:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Army Training Graphic

The caption says that this is the U.S. Army training guide. I may be wrong, but that seems like it came from Preventive Maintenance Monthly, not exactly a "training guide" on DADT. If the cartoon did indeed come form a real DD or DA Pam/Reg/TM etc., please mention in the caption which one, if not let it be known it comes from a periodical. I'm afraid this make the Army look quite ridiculous without proper clarification, since it appears as if it trains its soldiers using 50's-era propaganda manuals on one of the most controversial aspects of 21st Century military policy. Other than that, I like the image, nothing wrong with it in itself.

I've added the title of the publication; no, it wasn't PS (magazine), the topic is all wrong for that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess the Army is in fact quite ridiculous. I stand corrected.

Impact

The article lacks a section that would describe the actual impact of the policy on the military, i.e. not just talking points and poll results, but really the lives of affected service personnel (many of whom were discharged and had to reimburse their training costs) and members of their families. The Impact section should also include events borne out of actions of individual servicepeople who were forced to endure (at times disproportional) discriminiation — something that the policy implicitly engendered. -Mardus (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed

In a 2010 debate between Aaron Belkin and Elaine Donnelly recently made available on YouTube, she says that she was disappointed that GW Bush didn't undo DADT when he took office in 2001, which he might easily have done. Can anyone find a proper citation for this, on the part of Donnelly or any of her allies? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation missing

"A July 6, 2011 ruling from a federal appeals court barred further enforcement of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members." The citation linked to this statement directs to a 404 error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.87.70.131 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"Gay" versus "homosexual" when reporting on polls

Without expressing any opinion on the "gay" versus "homosexual" debate in general, it seems obvious to me that when we report on a poll we should use the terms used in the poll. If the poll question was "Do you favour allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military", we should not report it as "x% of people supported allowing homosexuals to serve in the military", and vice versa. - htonl (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to address your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Style_guideline_of_gay_vs_homosexual CTF83! 10:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that general discussion, but this is about one specific usage in one specific article. If noone objects in, say, the next day, I'm going to make a protected edit request for the change. - htonl (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the exact question asked was "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?" I think the article should use the terminology used in the poll, to avoid any inaccuracies caused by using words that the polled individuals did not respond to. I think this is true for any poll where the exact question being asked is important to how the results are seen, since changing the wording may have changed how people responded, and I don't see why this poll would be any different. - SudoGhost 11:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Should anyone care, it has been shown that in conducting surveys about civil rights for LGBT people, it has been shown that the use of homosexual in place of gay, lesbian, and bisexual influences respondents to react unfavorably towards those rights. That is, just the term homosexual caused enough of a negative reaction towards LGBT people as to skew results. It's a loaded term and should be sparingly if at all. The legacy of its use should not be perpetuated without extreme care.

The study of mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations has been complicated by the debate on the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder during the 1960s and early 1970s. That debate posited a gay-affirmative perspective, which sought to declassify homosexuality, against a conservative perspective, which sought to retain the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder (Bayer, 1981). Although the debate on classification ended in 1973 with the removal of homosexuality from the second edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 1973), its heritage has lasted. This heritage has tainted discussion on mental health of lesbians and gay men by associating—even equating—claims that LGB people have higher prevalences of mental disorders than heterosexual people with the historical antigay stance and the stigmatization of LGB persons (Bailey, 1999).

Insomesia (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It would probably help if you explained where you got that quote from. - SudoGhost 00:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence, Meyer, Ilan H., Psychological Bulletin (American Psychological Association), Vol 129(5), Sep 2003, 674-697. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674. Insomesia (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think context is important there, it says that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness, I don't see it saying anything about the word itself nor any correlation between the word homosexuality and negative reaction that would otherwise be avoided if alternative terminology were to be used. - SudoGhost 01:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear though, I'm not saying that for the purposes of this exact situation the word "homosexual" should be used, because that's not what the poll asked. What I am trying to say is that for the article in general, since the military specifically uses the term homosexual, that term should not be avoided when describing the military's position on the subject. - SudoGhost 01:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not play too many games here. No one disputes that the term can be employed, sparingly, when quoting the military documents. The dozens of other uses need to reflect modern understandings. If Buddhism was classified as a mental illness I think you would understand the relevance. The scientific community followed religious popular opinion and got this one wrong, and it took decades to unravel that knot. The literature and legacy of the word's usage as evidently utilized by the most learned minds of the time is undeniable. It is a loaded, biased term with a incredibly negative history similar to Negro which has also gone out of general use. That the religious right is the main purveyor of the terms use should be self-evident of who and how the term is employed. I'm sure those who really believed the Earth is flat defended that teaching until pulled kicking and screaming into the next century. Insomesia (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't say "let's not play too many games here" and then compare "homosexual" to "negro". Maybe in the future they will be anywhere near the same, but right now that's an absurd comparison. You won't find any modern reliable sources describing anyone as a negro, but there are many sources (especially in a formal and scientific context), among them the very ones you've been quoting and linking, that use the term homosexual to describe people, as either a noun or as a verb. It's hardly "playing games" to ask you to provide sources for your claims, such as the claim that "...use of homosexual...influences respondents to react unfavorably towards those rights." Where did you get this information? Wikipedia requires verification, not claims that information should be self-evident. - SudoGhost 01:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a talk page with article content. Some people don't mind being called negro still but the term usage is now deprecated generally. Homosexuality remains a studied field butt he term the call gay people homosexualists, the homosexuals, homosexual and bisexual men, etc are generally deprecated of these uses. Just the fact that many find the term offensive should be enough for you to accept the offense, whether intended or not, is real. And the religious right intends to cause offense and sway public opinion in civil rights for LGBT people. I find your defense of this offensive usage puzzling. Insomesia (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Because you're making claims and then refusing to provide any shred of evidence to back them up. By avoiding providing the source, it gives the appearance that you made that information up, and that's all I can assume at this point. That "many find the term offensive" is not sufficient, because everyone finds something offensive. If every percieved offense was reason to remove something on Wikipedia, most content would be removed and that's not how Wikipedia works (To quote that policy, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.) If you're going to claim that term is offensive and isn't used in modern sources, don't be puzzled when someone asks for proof of this, especially when the very sources you're providing contradict your claims. - SudoGhost 02:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You asked for the source and i, of course, provided it. I guess you now want some back-up to my assertion that using the term itself in surveys is seen as biased. Well, that was among the concerns of the survey about DADT commissioned by the Pentagon. That it used the term at all and that it used it interchangeably with lesbian and gay. Your bad faith assumptions aside are you now denying that many find the term offensive? Do you need proof of that as well, or really is there any use in discussing this if you failed to see which side of history you're arguing? Here's the Pentagon survey report that alarmed many as tainting the DADT issue.DADT survey wording draws fire from some gays. Insomesia (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

...you've got to be kidding me. Please tell me you've overlooked something, because I asked you three times where you got the claim that "it has been shown that in conducting surveys about civil rights for LGBT people, it has been shown that the use of homosexual in place of gay, lesbian, and bisexual influences respondents to react unfavorably towards those rights". You have provided nothing to back up this claim. Now you're also accusing me of bad faith for the simple fact that I'm not taking your claims at face value? I'm not on a "side of history", I'm asking you to verify what you're saying. If you're trying to "make history" on Wikipedia, then you are missing the point, and that seems to be where the issue is coming from. - SudoGhost 02:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I did just read the source you just linked in your last comment, and assuming that a "he said" attributed opinion is sufficient to back up a claim like that (it isn't), all that seems to verify is that the word homosexual does in fact belong on the article, since it is part of the issue, as your opinion source pointed out. You've not really convinced me that the word homosexual should be avoided, because Chapter 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice specifically uses this word to the exclusion of any other term. Chapter 15 itself was offensive, so the fact that it uses a word that may be offensive to a group of individuals isn't a reason to change what is used in the article, since the article is about the military issue. - SudoGhost 02:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be misreading or i could be misstating. I never meant to imply that the term could never be used, just that it should be minimized as it is generally offensive to those to which it refers, therefore it's use is generally deprecated. Of course in presenting a good article its use may be needed. Presently it's used 47 times in the articles including 8 times in the lead paragraphs. That's bad writing to start with and a preponderance of its usage against style guidelines. Perhaps your point is well taken that we should spell out more clearly when to avoid offensive terms so the issue is lessened in the future. Insomesia (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Here's another source that makes the same points I may not be very clear on, Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered – notions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay." The Associ­ated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual" (see AP, New York Times & Washington Post Style). (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation style guideline, GLAAD's Media Reference Guide: A Recource for Journalists, Updated May 2010)

• And another, homosexual: As a noun, a person who is attracted to members of the same sex. As an adjective, of or relating to sexual and affectional attraction to a member of the same sex. Use only in medical contexts or in reference to sexual activity.( National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association stylebook supplement on lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender terminology). Insomesia (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The general discussion should be taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual. This section is specifically for the wording given to the poll results. - htonl (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected edit request

In the "Public opinion" section, in the second paragraph, change "favored permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military" to "favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military", to reflect the exact wording used in the poll being described. While the discussion above is vigorous, as far as I can tell everyone agrees with this particular change. - htonl (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)