Talk:Military sociology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMilitary sociology was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 25, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 2, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 31, 2008.
Current status: Former good article nominee


Created Page, Started Rough Intro.[edit]

I've found a source for this topic and the author seems to think there is no agreed upon central issues in military Sociology. If you've found sources that say otherwise please add to/change what I wrote. Alf68 (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the instructor said that we were not allowed to reference other Wiki articles as a source so I removed the reference in the intro. If you have a non-wiki source, please add that instead. Alf68 (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Started the References Section[edit]

I'm not sure exactly what format to use when giving references so I used the MLA format for electronic sources. Alf68 (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


So others know I'm using http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/01/ as my source for my MLA formatting. Alf68 (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm just going to post some references that I am looking at.--Dam59 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Taylor-Martino, L. The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex and a New Social Autism. Journal of Political and Military Sociology2008. Vol.36, No.1, 37-52

2) Levy, Yagil. Controlling the Invisible: The Deficient Political Control of the Modern Military. Center for Studies of Social Change 1995.

3) Robinson, William I. 1996. Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wikipedia also has citation templates which automatically format material (not sure what format it actually outputs though, I know it's not MLA); you can use {{cite web}} for web sites, obviously, {{cite journal}} for magazines or scholarly articles, {{cite news}} for news articles (with or without a URL), and {{cite book}} for (you guess it) books. There's also a nifty online automated tool for this kind of thing where you just copy and paste the code. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also looks like one of your fn got dropped out somehow. Don't forget to use <ref></ref>. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 18:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved "Military Sociology" to "military sociology"[edit]

I couldn't understand why the course wiki didn't link to this page until the instructor told me that articles shouldn't have capitalized names. Others looking at the class wiki should now be able to see that this article exists. The process seemed pretty simple, but if botched something please let me know. Alf68 (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All seems well. Good job moving the article. Wikipedia is sensitive to capitalization; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) for details.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd get caught & moved anyhow, & a redirect will bring people here. Just to be sure people can find it, tho, let me see if all the variations are covered. (It's something you should look out for when creating a new page, & it's EZ to fix.) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the automatic capitalization of the first word goes to the redirect regardless. This is an intriguing idea. The Prokonsul says everybody involved is a noob, so let me offer what technical help I can, if it's needed. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:13 & 22:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS[edit]

Your intro is a bit too "journalish" for WP. Have a look at some bio or tech articles & examine the diff. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're still treating the intro like an essay, not a wiki. Have a look here. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 15:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That lead is getting worse, not better. And the headings are outside the MOS on capitalization. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to look for learning about good lead (introduction) is Wikipedia:Lead section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still bad. And needs serious attention to copyediting. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead's still awful (for WP; if it was an essay...) & still in need of copyediting. And short of links out. Also, the sources & footnotes look like somebody forgot they aren't one section. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:06 & 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. Somebody's forgetting this is a wiki, tho... Not that you're alone; I've seen piped links that are bad for it. (Look carefully, you'll see what's wrong.) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

images[edit]

If you have problems with images or graphs or just need some, send me a message. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective[edit]

On a regular page, this would earn a {{globalize}} tag; it's way too U.S.-centric. Also, notice after "don't ask, don't tell", more homosexuals were dismissed than before it became policy. And the U.S. military is actively discouraging enlistment of patriotic people for moral reasons with no basis, on the same arguments used to reject or discriminate against blacks in the '50s & women in the '70s & '80s. Not to mention other military organizations, such as the Netherlands (IIRC; or was it Denmark?) have no problem with gay soldiers ("so long as he's not dancing in a dress", one trooper put it, on "60 Minutes", no less). And Canada & Australia (IIRC), naming just 2, don't keep women out of combat ships. AFUS seems to have an attitude, it's OK for women to get killed (in transport & AA units, for instance), but not to shoot back. Makes you wonder what the Russians & Israelis think, doesn't it? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Good start. Beware overlinking, tho. And remember the "context" guideline. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is overlinking? As in too many internal links? Alf68 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You can read more about it at Wikipedia:Overlinking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perennial warning; some people will link everything. So far, it looks like too few, rather than too many (& that's a perennial complaint, too!) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7 stages?[edit]

The following section header is confusing:

7 stages of experience stress for military families before, during and after deployment

I count only 4 stages in this section. Also in terms of style, it is preferred to spell out a number at the beginning of a sentence or section name, e.g. Seven stages .... I would also recommend a phrase like ... stages of stress experienced by .... CosineKitty (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at this again, I see that if you count all the things separated by the word and, there are indeed 7 things listed. But this is confusing. If it is not practical to break up these 7 stages into independent subsections, I suggest just removing the number from the section header altogether, e.g.:
Stages of stress experienced by military families before, during and after deployment
CosineKitty (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also found it a bit confusing at first because more than one stage is listed together. Changed the heading to limit the amount of confusion other readers might have. Also, I don't see a source for the information/assertions contained under the title. Can whoever added it include a reference? Alf68 (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can see who edit what with the history tab (see Help:Page history for how-to). In this particular case, I found the diff for you: [1]. It appears she has added a reference, but not formatted it appropriately. I suggest you contact JoAnn, see seems not to have edited the page since her contribution on the 19th.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still too U.S. centric?[edit]

This article is very focused on the United States, and it also mainly only focuses on the Army. The Military also includes Navy, Marines and Air Force. All parts of Military Sociology need to focus on all these branches because different aspects effect these differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjc106 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What else can be done to globalize this?Dam59 (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to ask User:Buckshot06 directly (he is the one who has added the globalize tag). He may not check this page as often as his own talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can start by looking at the experience in Israel & Switzerland, for a start, & contrast Japan. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An observation about globalisation. Europe is not a federal entity, so any discussion of the individual militaries of the various states, and the economic impact of those, really needs to consider them at a more granular level. There is a distinct difference between the doctrine, ethos, capabilities and cultures of the various states. Compare the UK which is fairly technologically advanced and devolves significant authority to the lowest levels in the command chain, with say a former Soviet Bloc state such as Poland using a very hierarchical command structure and more Russian inspired technology.
Similarly the military economies vary, the UK has a very liberalised economy, where pretty much anyone can compete to provide military technology except in a very narrow range of materiels, compared to France, which has a highly nationalised military economy and a policy of buying French (similar to the US).
The current direction still appears to be focussed around the US position as the standard, I'd suggest that more effort should go into finding general cases, then illustrating, rather than trying to butcher the thinking to make it fit the US model as standard with everyone else being exceptions. US military culture and economic impact is a very special beast...
ALR (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possibly an endless task to write about every military. A possible approach could be to pick out the most important powers (Russia, China, France, Britain, US, and possibly India, Brazil, Pakistan, Germany, Israel) and add some well documented small powers as examples. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trick would seem to be finding what's common, illo with examples from various countries (& periods), if possible, rather than take possibly unrepresentative samples. SU/Rus, PRC, Britain, whatever, are of use for modern cases, but uninformative for Athens, Sparta, Persia, or Rome, or Mughal India, & entirely unhelpful for (say) Great Zimbabwe or Shaka's reign. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:10 & 03:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree with the principle, I have a feeling that there will be a dearth of sources for much in the historical context. Anything discussing the issues would be more likely to be coming from a historian, rather than a sociologist. There doesn't appear to be a great deal of contemporary material about anything except the US, and from what Baloonman found with resepct to the Military Brat article even that appears to be biased towards the US military of the vietnam and immediate post-vietnam era. The US military approach has matured a lot since then so it's not really applicable to the current operational context.
ALR (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--I make no claim to know. Nor am I qualified to judge what meets sociology standards. What I've seen, tho, dealing with recruitment or draft, service hardships, so on, should be available in some form. Just for instance, there are good descriptions of Sparta's system in existence (& I wish I could recall the sources, but a quick journal search should turn up something, even if your university library's as small as ours). I'm not suggesting an in-depth analysis by any means, just examples of how things were/are handled, with a comparison to now/U.S., & probably better description of U.S. (You'd be surprised what you can get away with saying, "so & so is somewhere in between." Maybe not here, tho...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not out of the question that I'm expecting more from undergraduates than is reasonable, but I'd expect more than just description ;) Mind you, my times at Uni were for useful subjects; Physics/ Maths, then communications engineering, then MBA along with some time teaching post-graduate military officers. Couple that lot with several military operational jobs at tactical and operational levels and it's not out of the question that sociology undergrads will get away with a bit more flexibility in terms of sourcing than I'd consider as acceptable with my background.
ALR (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stay grounded. Sociology is a rather recent phenomen, especially military sociology and ther isn't much published outside the US (From my time in the German air force, I know that officers had the task to study attitudes in the troops and give suggestions, but that wasn't for public use and I only discovered this by accident). Historians are using some of these models for their works, but these are all more or less based on the modern research or are just disputeable fiction.Wandalstouring (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My specialization is history, so I've got a diff POV. My thinking is, there's info around on conditions in (say) Sparta & what sociological effect(s) that's likely to have, & on what it's like in a modern society/military; compare/contrast.
Add to that, this isn't a research paper, it's more of a survey or introduction for the uninitiated (even if it reaches FA), so if it seems a bit thin on the ground for a specialist, for that purpose it might not necessarily be. As noted, in-depth coverage can always be daughtered out as new info (& fewer deadlines...) come available.
Just some suggestions for what to look for, besides. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 22:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have any issue with that, it just serves to illustrate that this is something that is likely to remain US centric and contemporary until the discipline matures. I'm familiar with that you describe in Germany, and we do similar things in the UK, but they're more attitude surveys than analysis of what that means in a societal context. Similarly the recruitment people have to inform their work with an understanding of the direction that the target markets are taking.
With that in mind it may be wise to make this explicitly US oriented. My issue is more around using the US example as standard and then seeking to extrapolate the general case from there. My experience of the US military as well as many others is that the US is so different from everyone else that it's not representative. I haven't done much with the Russians, but in all honesty the closest I saw to the US culture was the Ukraine.
ALR (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIA?[edit]

Where to begin...

" the world's moral standards are viewed as irrelevant" Really? Since soldiers are citizens first, I scarcely think "irrelevant" is the word. Most soldiers treat war as a necessary evil, & would rather not have one, given a choice, since they know the price better than the armchair strategists. They should; they pay it. They're in much the same situation as police, or do you think "the world's moral standards are viewed as irrelevant" there, too?
"specific rules and norms which may be contrary" Since the mission is to defend the country, & it's bound to mean the need to apply violence, I'd call that inevitable. Ditto police again. (Pendleton rightly described them as "soldiers of the same side".)
"This creates a mindset...in the military community that they have a moral obligation or crusade" Really? I'd say it creates a greater awareness of the hazards. And that moral obligation is placed by the nation, isn't it?
"A good example is how German commitment"? The Nazi example isn't exactly mainstream, so I doubt it's a good example of anything except what to avoid doing. And your connecting the military to the Holocaust is indefensible; that was the policy of the government, not the Wehrmacht. It only goes to show how warped German society at large was by 1939. And the Wehrmacht accepted the Nazi propaganda, which led to massacres on the Eastern front. So did the U.S. military accept the Japanese were subhuman, which also led to massacres. Cf Dower, War Without Mercy. Good example of what not to do, no? And does it sound familiar?
"The use of research and industry to develop new and more deadly chemical and biological weapons is an important facet" Really? Seems to me if the enemy is liable to have them, the sensible approach is to have defenses. The implicit counterpoint to the stated position is the one favored by pacifists before WW2, what today would be called "unilateral disarmament". As I recall, it didn't work so well in the '30s, & I see no reason to think it will work better against enemies who are willing to fly passenger airliners into buildings. (Of course, the approach of trying to kill, or capture & put on trial, every terrorist shows a staggering inability to grasp the problem, too.)
"The American model is based on the German standard" There seems to be a moral equivalence being drawn here that is both unjustified & repugnant. I'm no defender of the American military-industrial-academic-political complex (without Congress, none of it would work, & Congress drives a lot of the GIGO), nor of the recent American POV on detainees or torture, but this is a bit over the top.

Finally, do change the "MIA" header. I don't think the sequel is what you meant, but it's the second thing I thought of. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:01 & 05:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off topic, but we do have an article on the Wehrmacht war crimes that may be of interest. But it is not that Wehrmacht was particularly "evil"; it was just a military - albeit one in a service of a murderous regime. It is interesting to note such associations spread through the society: consider how German forces changed their names after IIWW, or the fate of the Iron Cross (and the current controversy over reinstating the reward in Germany). Or even better - just consider the fate of swastika... how many associate it only with Nazism? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was some discussion of an AUS war crimes or atrocities page, too; AFAIK, nothing came of it.
There's an issue of who's to blame when a military organization goes off the rails in play here. And there seems to be an obsession with symbols over substance, in FRG & U.S.; the Iron Cross & swastika, of themselves, aren't at fault for the purposes they were put to, any more than a mere word is. Rather, it's the underlying views that need examining & excising.
Which bears on military sociology, perhaps, because a national military is a product of the nation, per Germany, or the current USG. (Whether the current attitude is a problem will take a few decades' perspective...) Recall Truman's Executive Order 9981 & compare "Don't ask, don't tell". I find it instructive. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I'd expect there is a body of literature on those issues, and we should see this reflected in the article. It is crucial to note that science should not judge or value - should, in other words, be neutral; and our article should of course be no different.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"closed communities"? I still get the sense "military" is being equated with "fascist" or "Nazi" as if the 2 are necessarily equivalent. The suggestion is simplistic at best, & unsupportable at worst. A university is a kind of "closed community". So is a high school. So is a fraternity. Are they necessarily fascist? I mean, fascist as a product of being closed?
I'll agree, they're tightly regulated; recall the function of a military organization requires obedience, & absolutely demands awareness of certain pocedures, for the survival of the whole. It's a team sport writ very large, with the penalty for not knowing & following the rules being death for the entire team, & possible enslavement to a hostile ideology.
Also, how much has the approach changed since (for instance) the time of Sparta? Or Rome? The Romans granted citizenship to successful legionaries (who survived a tour of duty). Sparta relied on helots (pardon my Greek; I can't recall the proper plural. =]) How did their approach differ? Why? (Or am I getting out of scope?)
In addition (& this may also be out of scope for what the article wants), how do military organizations deal with technology & the changes in it? It's been said generals know how to fight the last war, not the next one. Some nations (the U.S. being the best example) rely heavily on tech to reduce casualties; the Soviets (as best-known example) & Chinese on manpower to achieve aims. What drives these choices? Why, for instance, did Royal Navy develop Dreadnought & consider submarines "damned un-English" (Jackie Fisher, I think)? Why did Japan believe she could successfully attack the U.S. in 1941? (Leave off why she thought she had to unless you want to get into Japanese interagency politics...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A professor of mine asked me recently: "why do revolutionaries sack generals but leave admirals in peace"? So many questions for military sociologists to answer... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many closed communities, as you have said, a university is indeed one and my intention was not to sound bias in this terminology. The point is that a military, as a closed community, tends to act is ways contrary to norms of the country. One such example is that they perform weapon tests on human beings sometimes with and sometimes without their consent, or informed consent. With regard to my German/Nazi remarks, the history speaks for itself, American scientists did emulate a german standard of science without moral conscience, leading to military weapons test being conducted on human subjects. Nazism as a closed community came up in the research, a lot. It seems to be a clear and startling consequence of the MIA. Perhaps only a good starting point, I agree, other examples would help.Dam59 (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bias on the basis of the term, but bias on the basis of implied causality where there is none, that troubles me. Nor am I convinced the parallel is as strong as you state, & again, there is implied (but unproven) causation.
I won't suggest AFUS or U.S. scientists are blameless, but "emulate a german standard of science without moral conscience" seems to equate weapons research with Mengele or Unit 731; that, at best, is a bit strong. I think that's more an issue of the psychology of science more broadly, the attitude "it's not up to me to decide" how research will be used. This view is increasingly coming into disrepute, & wasn't uncommon even in the '30s; Einstein opposed the Bomb, & he wasn't alone. (Opponents had no say in if the Bomb would actually be used against Japan, tho, despite the fiction to the contrary. See Alperovitz' Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.)
There's also a political component to weapons research (& use) that shouldn't be forgotten. Recall Mutual Assured Destruction. It started with "the bomber will always get through", & the consequent belief defense was impossible; when V-2s seemed unanswerable, Winston seriously considered using gas against Germany.
There's also technology to consider, per V-2s; if an enemy can't respond, there's a powerful temptation to first strike (as witness LeMay in the '50s). Research is essential to narrow or eliminate that window.
Also, wartime standards are rather different than peacetime. I won't defend DoD/AEC blind trials, but before condemning them outright, consider the era, the strong paranoia & fear of surprise attack, & the sense the nation was effectively still at war; it's not called Cold War for nothing.
If you doubt there was real fear, listen to the R&R of the early '50s: very upbeat melody, even to depressing lyrics, & a sense life was liable to be short. (I'll leave aside those ridiculous "Duck & cover" drills.) And paranoia? How many "alien invasion" or "alien attack" films were there? (Does this play into the military's thinking, or is it a product of it? Have I offered you enough to turn this into a book, yet? =]) This sort of thing followed WW1, too.
And "closed community"? I make no suggestion a military organization isn't. It's very "clubbish", if only for the fact of shared experience (basic training, for only one example). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:08, 03:10, & 03:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is a lot of information to be added, and enough to fill anthologies of textbooks. I feel better knowing that soon others can help me!!--Dam59 (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, we do have a tiny stub on closed community - I hope we all understand the same thing by this term (please note is not derogative).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There certainly is a lot of information to be added". Let me be very clear. I raise these as points of consideration, not demands. The consensus will decide what belongs/doesn't. Nor am I in a position to tell you what the criteria are for FA. All I'm getting at is, whenever you add, or before you add/delete, keep a perspective. It's liable not to be as simple as the source says, or you think (& I don't say that because you're new; have a glance at this & you'll get an idea what I mean)
You're taking on a broad topic. The hardest part might be deciding what to leave out. A global & historical perspective is essential; too much detail is fatal. And again, looking at this might be worthwhile. I come to that subject with what might be called expert knowledge, so I'm liable start with criticism a tyro will find arcane. Save yourself doing that here. There's always time to branch off daughter articles with more specialized info.... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

A request for peer review has been filed for this article, all editers are encouraged to check the page for suggested improvements for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and suggestions. I've noted it and now am slowly working on instating the suggestions. For starters I'm working any obvious spelling and grammar errors and. I'm also adding internal links, trying to change some of the phrases to sound more professional and to remove gender bias when appropriate (why is it that everyone in the military has a wife? Funny this word is used (spouse or partner would be more inclusive) when we have a subtitles about women and homosexuals in the military who may not have wives.)Alf68 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. I wouldn't make much of a coordinator if I could not even offer suggestions for improvement to an article within our scope. As it is you and your team mates caught a huge break, milhist is one of Wikipedia's best run projects, and we take care to properly maintain on our articles to the best of our ability. Were it not for this fact you would very likely still be waiting for input from other contributers for ways to improve this article. One other little thing that I forget to mention in my initial review: all instances of "you" and "yours" and the like should be removed, as articles here should endever to be in the third person whenever possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes definitely appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2120 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-peer review[edit]

(Can I say that?) It's gotten much better in the non-U.S. coverage (could still use work, tho), & (as a history student) I'm particularly pleased with the mention of Hannibal & his Ethiopians. Do compare Alexander III's approach to Darius', if you're interested in rulership psychology (I won't suggest it for inclusion here, as too OT).

I still see a lack of linking & inline citations, weak copyediting, & indifferently separated Notes/Refs sections. (Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I prefer them clearly different, even if it means duplicating, & even if MOS doesn't, for clarity's sake.) Very good progress so fast, IMHO. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 03:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing at time; a maronthon isn;t won in jump, its won in a series a steps. I do agree with you though. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just making everybody aware. On WP, you get used to having lots of hands involved, so making sure somebody sees it or knows about it can get it fixed, even if you can't. Take a look at this & Ilario Bandini's page history (& the talk page there) to see how it can work. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities in the military[edit]

I'm seeing a lot of praise, but not a lot of comment/criticism of the prohibitions on blacks & Japanese/Chinese-descent in AUS & Asians in Canadian Army in '20s-WW2. Also, I'd wonder if the treatment in the military was better, as stated; AFAIK, black AUS units were prohibited from combat (despite pleas) for the bulk of the war, & were (at times) denied credit for successes they did achieve (761t Tank Bn liberated several German towns, IIRC, but credit went to white units), decorations were scant or denied even when well-earned; also, I wonder if the 442 RCT (with a racist white CO) wasn't sent on hazardous duty with the feeling "they're only Japs". TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:14 & 08:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review[edit]

I tend to find the suggestions generated by this program mildly useful. I will post some more detailed suggestions once you guys have the article ready for the GAC nomination. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

No Ebert, no Roeper[edit]

Some points:

  1. "the military is becoming oriented to the principles of business" AFAIK (in AFUS, anyhow), this traces to , & some (many?) serving officers criticise it as "corporate" or "beancounter", for an over-reliance on statistics to judge outcomes (notoriously, bodycounts), & for over-emphasis on "management" as opposed to "leadership". Is that out of scope, here?
  2. "can be fairly categorized as a profession" I don't think that's new, contrary to the implication.
  3. "enlisted officer" That's military intelligence. I presume you mean NCO?
  4. "one-fifth of all enlisted 18-year-olds and one-third of all junior personnel in the United States Army are married" Why? (Not an idle question...)
  5. "pre-modern militaries were 1) somewhat weaker than the modern version due to a lack of state-funded resources but also" 3) because (from the 15-18hC, at least, & probably farther back) rulers were all part of the same "club", & a powerful army threatened neighboring rulers too much; wars were more "polite", because nobody really wanted to be deposed, just to settle differences. (Think of it as mass duelling. Or soccer hooliganism with guns.)
  6. A few small formatting or copyediting issues.
  7. The Nazi equivalence remains unaddressed.
  8. Recruitment needs work. How do military organizations attract recruits for a profession liable to be fatal? What kinds of standards apply? What kind of recruit tends to go to which service? (It's said the Air Forces get the smartest & most technically literate, then the Navy, & the Army/Marines get the rest. {"Run, Forest, run!"} It's also true, AFAIK, the Green Beanies/SeALs take the smart self-starters, who tend to be rebellious to authority; as a rule, the smarter you are, the less you accept other people putting limits on you.) I'd also suggest examining the presumption of "dying for one's country"; George C. Scott said it better at the start of "Patton": "Your job is not to die for your country. Your job is to make the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country." Or, to borrow from Pendleton, caring enough for your country, or your beliefs, to kill for it.

For your consideration. Gene Serling my crystal ball 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review[edit]

I have failed this article based on a few serious issues for your consideration.

  1. No images. This is required for an article to be rated as GA. Relevant GA class info: 6. a) / b)
  2. Not broad in its coverage. For this article to be of GA standards it must be broad, the template on the article shows that it isn't. Relevant GA class info: 3. a)
  3. Neutrality isn't present. This means that it must be fairly represented without bias. As it is mostly a US centric article it is not without bias. Relevant GA class info: 4.
  4. Stability is obviously not there. This is obvious if you look at the history. Relevant GA class info: 5.

-- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add the following:

This is exactly why I wrote that you need to aim for B-class status. Milhist b-class status will pretty much garentee that the article passes a GAR with little if any problems that require fixing. Of the five needed parameters for milhist B-class only one (structure) is currently checked, meaning that the referening and citation, coverage and accuracy, grammar, and supporting materials in this article need work. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To that, I'd add a point on footnote placement that's a continual beef with me. (No, I won't explain.) Look at them & see. It's pretty obvious. Also, while I applaud Alf68's adds, I do wonder how p#s got left out... And if using {{citebook}} was the best choice. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 09:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End of assignment: summary[edit]

I want to thank all editors who have contributed to this article, either by editing it or by reviewing it and offering help on this talk page. While the article has fallen short of the Good Article criteria, it has progressed from a red link on requested articles list to solid C or even B class. The latest version edited by the students was this one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues[edit]

  • This article in general and some of its sections deals primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide, or historical view of the subject.
  • This article or section reads like a review and may need a clean-up because it appears to be a cut and paste job.
  • This article is in need of reorganisation because it fails to cover many areas, but also lacks a logical structure.
  • This article may be too long, and some section to be split into subarticles
  • Rather than providing citations this article contains an excessive amount of external links masquerading as such, and they need to be incorporated or converted to inline citations.
  • This article requires authentication or verification by an expert

How did it ever get a rating of C?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split / move content to Armed forces ?[edit]

I've come to the article because it is listed for wikifying. The first thing I have noticed is that its purpose is unclear. If it is about the practice of Military sociology as opposed to Sociology of religion, Sociology of education etc., then it really ought to have something to say about methodology. But much of the article seems to be stating what sociologists have had to say about the military. (The United States military in particular, but it is likely that much of it could be generalised to other Western countries.) That is encyclopedic information, reliably sourced, and I suggest that it should be transferred to the article Armed forces. Only a couple of paragraphs would remain here, but they would be the basis for expansion into an article that really tried to tell the reader what Military sociology actually is. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting proposal. Some content certainly could be used to expand armed forces or military (I wonder if those two articles shouldn't be merged?). Still, I think copying content is better then moving it from here - I am not convinced that this article is in need of shortening (rather, it still needs expansion and reorganization).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the merger of Armed forces and Military should be discussed first, and then dependent on that I will copy some of this material over. I'll put a merge tag on Armed forces. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a right move. Once those two are merged, we can copy some content of this article there. I don't think, however, that anything from this article should be removed. Rather, I see a new section in the "military" article, linking to "military sociology" as to the main subarticle, entitled perhaps "sociology of the military life"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stouffer[edit]

This article should mention the well known studies of Samuel A. Stouffer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a Section on Military Families, Subsection on Subculture of Military Brats[edit]

Military families (including military brats) are an important part of military sociology (and life).

98.245.148.9 (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newly Expanded Article on "Military Brat" Subcultures (in 8 English-speaking nations) is Now Linked from This Article (addresses concerns about lack of International scope of the article)[edit]

However a mini-section on "military brat" subcultures in English speaking nations still needs to be added. These are distinct, military-dependent subcultures, so they qualify. And these subcultures are often hundreds of years old.

205.169.70.175 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Wikifying?[edit]

After a run through of the article, I think that there is virtually nothing else to wikify. Right now, I feel that the wikify tag is no longer necessary. It has all of the requirements for a good article. I just need other people to agree with me. WeirdnSmart0309 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_sociology&oldid=1214097590"