![]() | Military 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A 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 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on July 2008. Further details are available here. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm just going to post some references that I am looking at.--
Dam59 (
talk)
20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
If you have problems with images or graphs or just need some, send me a message. Wandalstouring ( talk) 08:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Good start. Beware overlinking, tho. And remember the "context" guideline. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The following section header is confusing:
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)
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)
What else can be done to globalize this? Dam59 ( talk) 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
<--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)
Where to begin...
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
Some points:
For your consideration. Gene Serling my crystal ball 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have failed this article based on a few serious issues for your consideration.
-- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I will also add the following:
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)
How did it ever get a rating of C?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
This article should mention the well known studies of Samuel A. Stouffer. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | Military 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A 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 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on July 2008. Further details are available here. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm just going to post some references that I am looking at.--
Dam59 (
talk)
20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
If you have problems with images or graphs or just need some, send me a message. Wandalstouring ( talk) 08:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Good start. Beware overlinking, tho. And remember the "context" guideline. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The following section header is confusing:
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)
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)
What else can be done to globalize this? Dam59 ( talk) 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
<--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)
Where to begin...
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
Some points:
For your consideration. Gene Serling my crystal ball 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have failed this article based on a few serious issues for your consideration.
-- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I will also add the following:
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)
How did it ever get a rating of C?-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
This article should mention the well known studies of Samuel A. Stouffer. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)