User talk:Kraljsamsvijeta/sandbox

Hi Scott! I just had a look at the introduction. We had a discussion with the wikipedia ambassador, and he advised us not to create a new article, so our contribution and your introduction will actually be the one of the entire article "Sexual orientation in the military". For this reason, I think the introduction you proposed should be transformed into one that introduce both the "list" part of the article, and a more substantial "academic" reflection around the subject (which is not really there for the moment: Why do we care about this issue? what justifies that we write an article on this? What have been said or done to answer these questions?). Anyway, it will be easier for you to do that once we will have submitted our contribution. Indeed, the ambassador clearly said that what is the introduction should not be new information, it should just condense elements that are visible in the rest of the article.Vincentunpack (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentunpack gave me good advice on adding a references section. Just add the code at the bottom of your page in your sandbox that you see from Wikipedia. Hennings.iheid (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction, is it really that the entire rest of the world thinks LGBT people are unfit for service? Could there not be some countries that just claim LGBT people don't exist and thus can't serve in the military? I think it's a big claim to make. Hennings.iheid (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hennings that you should mention that many countries don't formally ban LGBT people from serving and the reasons for that. Perhaps you could also bring the "Military Effectiveness and Unit Cohesion" argument to the beginning of the section on arguments for banning LGBT people. It is one of the most cited examples to support a ban - and perhaps expand a bit more on it. Eastemc —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]