Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous fictional military brats
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No Consensus ZsinjTalk 04:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of famous fictional military brats[edit]
- List of famous fictional military brats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article is simply unacceptable original research — not to mention the bad kind that is indiscriminate (When I think about Homer Simpson, Joey Gladstone, or Dr. House, I do not think about their parents' involvement in the military). —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak Keep -most of these are wrong, too.
- A military brat (also known as a "brat", "base brat", "army brat", "navy brat/junior", "marine brat/junior", or "air force brat") is an American colloquial term for a person whose parent or parents served full-time in the armed forces during the person's childhood.
I can see several of these which simply don't meet these.--Haemo 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I've conceded Homer Simpson and Hank Hill... and I have questions about the characters from Supernatural... but if most are wrong, please point them out?Balloonman 03:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep your examples are Hank Hill and Homer Simpson's dads were both in the military and the "history" of said characters does change quite frequently---particularly Homer's. Dr House has talked several times about his father being a Marine Fighter Pilot.Balloonman 21:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't address the WP:NOR concerns. Naconkantari 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOR: "to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." The fact that Dr House is a military brat is out there, it is part of his character's official history. The fact that Homer/Hank's paraents were in the military is fact and published. The fact that Sean Boswell is a military brat is part of the story. The fact that Jill Taylor is a military brat is a published fact and part of her history. The fact that Lee Adama's father is Colonel Adama is part of his history. These are established published facts---not speculation/fabrication.Balloonman 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reliable independent sources for this? Naconkantari 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are obtainable. Plus, the one's above are fairly obvious if you are familiar with the shows in question. Sean Boswell went to Japan to join his air force father and they talk about how he has gotten in trouble every place they lived. Lee Adama is Colonel Adama's son. Homer's dad is often portrayed in WWII and at least once (with his hippy wife and Homer) in military uniform. Hank's dad is portrayed in the military (I don't watch the series so I don't know if his military service predated Hank or not, but on a ficational list I'd use a lower standard for a cartoon character whose history is subject to change.) For Gregory House, take a look at the article---people who maintain that article have done a good job at citing references to his father's military career. As for Jill Taylor, Home Improvement it was often a point of discussion from the series---the Wikipedia article talks about her families strong military background. I cannot support OR, but I will agree that it probably needs to be cited better.Balloonman 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not see what's wrong with that? A military brat is not someone whose father was in the military. It's someone whose father (or mother) was in the military for a substantial portion of their childhood. Hank Hill and Homer Simpson were both born well after WWII, when their fathers served. The obvious disagreement here shows just how bad this list is - because you have no reliable sources to back up any of the facts here, this is what happens. This just shows why this list should be deleted. --Haemo 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hank Hill and Homer are two that I will readily concede may OR MAY NOT fit the category. But they are cartoon characters, whose histories are constantly being revised/changed. So remove them, I've personally questioned their inclusion here, but haven't worried about it because it is a fictional series AND their histories constantly change. But the others are straight from the series. Home Improvements (See the episode "The Colonel") is as reliable as you get. House same story (Daddy's boy). Margaret Houlihan---same story (virtually every episode.) Wesley Crusher---ditto (virtually every episode). Lee Adama---ditto (virtually every episode). Sean Bosley---Ditto (the movie). So the criticism is citations, not OR. That is solved with an {{unreferenced}} tag. Lois Lane---Ditto (general Same Lane.) Doug Masters---Ditto pivital part of plot. Brian Moreland ---pivital part of plot. Betty Ross---General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross. Jack Reacher --- series is built around his being a brat. The others that I know are all so blatant that it's not even funny. Each one of them their parents being in the military is a concrete aspect of their character. Again, it is anything but OR.Balloonman 04:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point here - that was merely an example about the problem with the article. A lack of reliable sources means that items should be deleted - there should be no "may or may not" judgment calls required of the editors of an encyclopedia when it comes to inclusion on a list. --Haemo 05:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I have no problem with deleting Homer/Hank---they may or may not be brats. The others (that I know) are. What is more reliable for Jill Taylor than the TV series itself? One either is or isn't a military brat---one either grew up in a military household or didn't.Balloonman 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some can be linked from their own page - but you can't just say "Watch the series". That's not even remotely a reliable source, and is probably original research. --Haemo 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we make it a criteria that a specific episode has to be mentioned... on the ones like MASH that shouldn't be a problem. Easy enough.Balloonman 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I went through the list and provided references for each.Balloonman 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I'm not happy with most of the references, but it's no longer deletable. I'll argue for Weak Keep now. I'm sure someone else can improve these now. --Haemo 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In all honesty, I'm not all that happy with the references either. In a perfect world, I'd like to cite the first occurance of their being identified as a child of a military person. But somebody would have to watch every episode. Thus, I ended up finding episodes that centered around the military parent (Eg "Daddy's Boy" or the MASH episode when Houlihan's father visits) or the character when something significant happened related to the military (Eg AC Slater's "Aloha Slater" and his father is reassigned to Hawaii.)Balloonman 22:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I'm not happy with most of the references, but it's no longer deletable. I'll argue for Weak Keep now. I'm sure someone else can improve these now. --Haemo 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we make it a criteria that a specific episode has to be mentioned... on the ones like MASH that shouldn't be a problem. Easy enough.Balloonman 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I went through the list and provided references for each.Balloonman 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some can be linked from their own page - but you can't just say "Watch the series". That's not even remotely a reliable source, and is probably original research. --Haemo 23:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I have no problem with deleting Homer/Hank---they may or may not be brats. The others (that I know) are. What is more reliable for Jill Taylor than the TV series itself? One either is or isn't a military brat---one either grew up in a military household or didn't.Balloonman 13:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point here - that was merely an example about the problem with the article. A lack of reliable sources means that items should be deleted - there should be no "may or may not" judgment calls required of the editors of an encyclopedia when it comes to inclusion on a list. --Haemo 05:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hank Hill and Homer are two that I will readily concede may OR MAY NOT fit the category. But they are cartoon characters, whose histories are constantly being revised/changed. So remove them, I've personally questioned their inclusion here, but haven't worried about it because it is a fictional series AND their histories constantly change. But the others are straight from the series. Home Improvements (See the episode "The Colonel") is as reliable as you get. House same story (Daddy's boy). Margaret Houlihan---same story (virtually every episode.) Wesley Crusher---ditto (virtually every episode). Lee Adama---ditto (virtually every episode). Sean Bosley---Ditto (the movie). So the criticism is citations, not OR. That is solved with an {{unreferenced}} tag. Lois Lane---Ditto (general Same Lane.) Doug Masters---Ditto pivital part of plot. Brian Moreland ---pivital part of plot. Betty Ross---General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross. Jack Reacher --- series is built around his being a brat. The others that I know are all so blatant that it's not even funny. Each one of them their parents being in the military is a concrete aspect of their character. Again, it is anything but OR.Balloonman 04:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not see what's wrong with that? A military brat is not someone whose father was in the military. It's someone whose father (or mother) was in the military for a substantial portion of their childhood. Hank Hill and Homer Simpson were both born well after WWII, when their fathers served. The obvious disagreement here shows just how bad this list is - because you have no reliable sources to back up any of the facts here, this is what happens. This just shows why this list should be deleted. --Haemo 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are obtainable. Plus, the one's above are fairly obvious if you are familiar with the shows in question. Sean Boswell went to Japan to join his air force father and they talk about how he has gotten in trouble every place they lived. Lee Adama is Colonel Adama's son. Homer's dad is often portrayed in WWII and at least once (with his hippy wife and Homer) in military uniform. Hank's dad is portrayed in the military (I don't watch the series so I don't know if his military service predated Hank or not, but on a ficational list I'd use a lower standard for a cartoon character whose history is subject to change.) For Gregory House, take a look at the article---people who maintain that article have done a good job at citing references to his father's military career. As for Jill Taylor, Home Improvement it was often a point of discussion from the series---the Wikipedia article talks about her families strong military background. I cannot support OR, but I will agree that it probably needs to be cited better.Balloonman 22:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reliable independent sources for this? Naconkantari 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOR: "to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." The fact that Dr House is a military brat is out there, it is part of his character's official history. The fact that Homer/Hank's paraents were in the military is fact and published. The fact that Sean Boswell is a military brat is part of the story. The fact that Jill Taylor is a military brat is a published fact and part of her history. The fact that Lee Adama's father is Colonel Adama is part of his history. These are established published facts---not speculation/fabrication.Balloonman 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Naconkantari 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Naconkantari is taking a wikibreak and per his talk page doesn't wish to be bothered. But based on his comment above, where he asks if we can provide citations, I'd like to think he'd accept my statement about it being unreferenced rather than OR.Balloonman 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I'm not seeing the inherent original research here. Either the character's parents can be established as being in the military or they can't. If they can't, they can be removed from the list. Whether or not you think of it is your own business, but I do know that the episode of Full House which had Joey's father appear did focus on his being in the military. That said, I'm not sure this belongs on its own, or that the title is appropriate. However, I don't see the nomination reasons as valid. At most, they'd be a reason to remove some entries. FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and if you really want a source [1] might be the place to start. FrozenPurpleCube 01:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Never mind whether this is WP:NOR or not - this list violates WP:NOT loosely associated topics. Grouping fictional characters together on the basis of something that one of their fictional parents did is a loose association. Croxley 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a significant problem with your response. This is not a loosely associated topic nor is it based on something that one of their fictional parents did. It is based upon an identified studied segment of our population. We are not talking about a category such as "People whose parents climbed Mount Kilamanjaro" or even "People whose parents worked for the Big Four Accounting Firms." Subjects where the actions of the parents have no meaningful impact on the character. We are talking about people who grew up in a specific culture/community. A culture/community that does play a significant role in that characters development. In fiction the negative attributes of growing up in the military are typically highlighted. Gregory House has issues with his father that stem from his father's military persona. The Meecham children likewise are shaped and defined by their Marine Fighter Pilot father. Sean Bosley's character is given the back story of being a military brat thus the justification for his behavior problems and to his being shipped off to Japan. AC Slater is the new student nobody likes at first because he just moved to the neighborhood and doesn't fit in. Margaret Hoolihan is overly patriotic. I can go on, but these characters are written with their experiences of growing up in the military community--and those experiences are used as plot development tools. These effects are more pronounced and studied than say List of left-handed people. Because of the sociological nature and impact they are more meaningful than say List of guest stars on Friends.Balloonman 13:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, original research, as well as indiscriminate information. >Radiant< 11:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it would help if you explained the original research you're seeing in this article, as opposed to it simply lacking sources at this time? FrozenPurpleCube 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 20:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I don't see any original research. There is a clearly delineated body of evidence that can be referenced—namely, the original TV show/novel/play/etc.—and so I see no opportunity for original research. Just because certain examples don't belong, or just because many examples are unreferenced, doesn't mean that the list can't become well-referenced and accurate. Tesseran 20:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With the current inclusion criteria the article would grow into a monumental lists that would serve no purpose. OR or not, it would still be a collection of information without encyclopedic use. Pax:Vobiscum 20:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So monumental lists would be criteria for deleting? Then what about List of contemporary artists, List of Major League Baseball players, List of actors, List of books by title,Lists of writers and all of the various permutations of the above---many of those lists are so large that they are broken into other lists. So monumental list can't be justification for deleting. Then there is the aspect of "encyclopedic use." List of fictional universes, List of people by name, List of left-handed people, and plenty more. I don't see the value in those lists---others do. The point is, just because you don't see the value of said list doesn't mean that others don't. I've already pointed out how this list is not a subjective list that can be easily documented based upon a rational definition. It is a population that has been studied for over 20 years by sociologist as a unique identifiable communityBalloonman 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My reason given was two-fold, first it would be too large to handle and secondly it would be of no encyclopedic use. Please give an example of a time when anyone would have a use for a list like this. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Although I am aware that the policy doesn't specifically mention this type of article the basic idea still applies, "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Several of the articles you have linked to should also be deleted. Pax:Vobiscum 07:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several scenarios that I can come up with that somebody would be interested in this. But rather than point out reasonable scenarios where one would be interested, take a look at the link Mister Manticore provided. This study reports a systematic content analysis of forty-six films between 1935 and 2002 that spotlight children, adolescents, teenagers, and adults from military-service-related families [...] The results highlight a struggle in the negotiation between self-conceptions and self-images of children from military families where a reinforced stereotype of "military brat" is constructed in American cinema. Military Brat: Film representations of children from military families by Morton Ender. Thus, the subject has already been used by a Sociologist as a topic of research... whose to say that somebody else isn't interested in doing additional research into the depictions of military brats in popular culture? Also, note the key words that are used "film • military children • teenagers • military family • self-concept." People interested in those subjects might be interested in this subject as well.Balloonman 15:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My reason given was two-fold, first it would be too large to handle and secondly it would be of no encyclopedic use. Please give an example of a time when anyone would have a use for a list like this. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Although I am aware that the policy doesn't specifically mention this type of article the basic idea still applies, "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Several of the articles you have linked to should also be deleted. Pax:Vobiscum 07:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So monumental lists would be criteria for deleting? Then what about List of contemporary artists, List of Major League Baseball players, List of actors, List of books by title,Lists of writers and all of the various permutations of the above---many of those lists are so large that they are broken into other lists. So monumental list can't be justification for deleting. Then there is the aspect of "encyclopedic use." List of fictional universes, List of people by name, List of left-handed people, and plenty more. I don't see the value in those lists---others do. The point is, just because you don't see the value of said list doesn't mean that others don't. I've already pointed out how this list is not a subjective list that can be easily documented based upon a rational definition. It is a population that has been studied for over 20 years by sociologist as a unique identifiable communityBalloonman 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've gone through and researched all of the fictional brats listed here... a few I couldn't confirm so I hid them. Two I deleted because they were fictionalizations of real people. And a few were deleted as they read "The children from the movie "The B.R.A.T. Pack" or something equally vague. But everyone that is currently showing now has a verifiable source.Balloonman 06:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is original research. Specifically, it is an original synthesis of published information in the form (Fictional character + parent in the military = military brat). Unless the term 'military brat' is specifically mentioned in the series or in interviews with the creators, we have no business declaring that, say, AC Slater is a military brat.--Nydas(Talk) 09:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasoning is flawed. By definition a person whose parent is in the military is a military brat. The series does not have to use the term "Military brat" to make it a fact. It would be like saying, "You can't have a list of African American characters unless the character is specifically identified as African American." One either is or isn't a military brat by definition so there is no original research in this.Balloonman 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that fictional characters can be declared 'by definition' to be military brats is an idiosyncratic opinion almost certainly confined to a tiny number of people. I sincerely doubt that there are multiple, reliable sources for such a view.--Nydas(Talk) 15:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, your statement is Original Research. You are contending that people who define Military Brat to be the child of a military person is "an idiosyncatic opinion almost certainly confined to a tiny number of people." Please cite your sources. I could go through and cite scores of politicians, journalist, sociologist, dictionary entry's, military brat registry's (Militarybrat.com has over 77,000 registered brats!), etc that use that definition (as I did with the main article [Military brat (U.S. subculture)] but nobody has shown a single source (credible or even non-credible) where children of military personel object to the term brat or more importantly say that it is not used to describe children of military personel. Second, it doesn't matter if the person is fictional or real, the definition applies arbitrarily. One either is or isn't a military brat. Check out various dictionaries (both print and online) and you'll see that definition (you may have to look up just Brat though.)Balloonman 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your own article calls it a subculture - not a universal truth about which there can be no dispute. I don't need to cite sources, since I'm not the one making strong claims about the classification of fictional characters. If these characters were created with military brat-ness in mind, (and if the term is so popular) then it should be a trivial matter to find proper sources which use the term. And of course it matters whether the person is real or fictional. Real people are born, they live, they die, they think, they have their own opinions about themselves. Fictional people aren't born, don't age, don't die, get rewrites done to their backstory, get updated for a new generation and so on. What happens if a fictional character gets a rewrite which changes their parent's job from military to civilian?--Nydas(Talk) 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Character's histories are constantly being re-written---particularly in the comic book industry. In that case, you have different incarnations of a character. Betty Ross for example has been both an Army Brat and an Air Force Brat depending on which series you read. Bruce Wayne is now a billionaire. Sandman has been a petting villian to one of the Endless. A re-written history doesn't negate the previous history's existence. As for Military Brat being a military brat is an a priori truth---if your parents are in the military then you are a military brat. You grow up in that culture whether you choose it or not---your parents chose it for you. Sociologist who study the subject don't differentiate between some non-existant line that you are trying to create. If a parent is in the service, then they are included as part of the population... period. Again, in the main article I've cited Admirals, Generals, Senators, Sociologist, Dictionaries, etc that point out that a military brat is the child of military person. Meriam Webster defines brat as "2 : the child of a career military person <army brats>; also : the child of a person whose career is in a specified and typically unusual field <Hollywood brats> "[2]. The American Heritage Dictionary defines Army Brat as "NOUN: The child of a member, typically a career office or enlisted person, of the U.S. Army."[3], the free dictionary "2. A child of a career military person." [4]. So again, I am going to ask you to cite something other than your opinion on this subject.Balloonman 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're still shoehorning real-life concepts onto fictional characters and settings. It doesn't matter what has been said about real-life military brats, 'growing up in a military culture' etc doesn't apply to fictional characters. None of them 'grew up', period. They were invented one day by an author or scriptwriter who may or may not have had military bratness in mind when they made the character.--Nydas(Talk) 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt, and more often than not they are going to simply be charactures of various stereotypes (ala Margaret Houlihan and Sean Bosley). Believability and credibleness is not the criteria. In fact wikipedia guidelines state that when using primary sources (the movie/tv series) to make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. The criteria isn't how closely does this character fit to expectations, but rather "Does this fictional character have a back story that they are military brat?" If so, how are they portrayed? What are the stereotypes that are being propegated about brats? How does this portrayal affect the brats self identity? These are not relavant for the list, but may be something people are interested in. (See quote from Morton Ender above.) List of fictitious Jews, List of Catholic comic book characters, List of fictional Republicans, List of fictional Democrats, List of fictional priests---each one of these fits your concern they aren't really Republicans/Catholic/Jewish/prists/Democrats, they are fictional characters. Some will be very shallow and unbelievable others will be overly stereotyped. How Republican is the fictional Republican? Is the fictional priest a child molestor? Is the Democrat really closet Republican, but written for political purposes? What agenda might the author/writer had in giving the character the backstory? Did the author even think about it? It doesn't matter.Balloonman 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:INTERESTING. These questions are no doubt fascinating to you, but that is no reason for a Wikipedia article. Some of those articles should certainly be deleted. And I still think that your belief that fictional characters can be objectively categorised as military brats based on their backstory is the idiosyncratic opinion of a very few people. Who has verifiably said that 'all fictional characters with parent in the military = military brats'? No-one. Should we have a list of historical military brats, with Ghengis Khan and Leonidas I on it?--Nydas(Talk) 14:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt, and more often than not they are going to simply be charactures of various stereotypes (ala Margaret Houlihan and Sean Bosley). Believability and credibleness is not the criteria. In fact wikipedia guidelines state that when using primary sources (the movie/tv series) to make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. The criteria isn't how closely does this character fit to expectations, but rather "Does this fictional character have a back story that they are military brat?" If so, how are they portrayed? What are the stereotypes that are being propegated about brats? How does this portrayal affect the brats self identity? These are not relavant for the list, but may be something people are interested in. (See quote from Morton Ender above.) List of fictitious Jews, List of Catholic comic book characters, List of fictional Republicans, List of fictional Democrats, List of fictional priests---each one of these fits your concern they aren't really Republicans/Catholic/Jewish/prists/Democrats, they are fictional characters. Some will be very shallow and unbelievable others will be overly stereotyped. How Republican is the fictional Republican? Is the fictional priest a child molestor? Is the Democrat really closet Republican, but written for political purposes? What agenda might the author/writer had in giving the character the backstory? Did the author even think about it? It doesn't matter.Balloonman 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're still shoehorning real-life concepts onto fictional characters and settings. It doesn't matter what has been said about real-life military brats, 'growing up in a military culture' etc doesn't apply to fictional characters. None of them 'grew up', period. They were invented one day by an author or scriptwriter who may or may not have had military bratness in mind when they made the character.--Nydas(Talk) 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Character's histories are constantly being re-written---particularly in the comic book industry. In that case, you have different incarnations of a character. Betty Ross for example has been both an Army Brat and an Air Force Brat depending on which series you read. Bruce Wayne is now a billionaire. Sandman has been a petting villian to one of the Endless. A re-written history doesn't negate the previous history's existence. As for Military Brat being a military brat is an a priori truth---if your parents are in the military then you are a military brat. You grow up in that culture whether you choose it or not---your parents chose it for you. Sociologist who study the subject don't differentiate between some non-existant line that you are trying to create. If a parent is in the service, then they are included as part of the population... period. Again, in the main article I've cited Admirals, Generals, Senators, Sociologist, Dictionaries, etc that point out that a military brat is the child of military person. Meriam Webster defines brat as "2 : the child of a career military person <army brats>; also : the child of a person whose career is in a specified and typically unusual field <Hollywood brats> "[2]. The American Heritage Dictionary defines Army Brat as "NOUN: The child of a member, typically a career office or enlisted person, of the U.S. Army."[3], the free dictionary "2. A child of a career military person." [4]. So again, I am going to ask you to cite something other than your opinion on this subject.Balloonman 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your own article calls it a subculture - not a universal truth about which there can be no dispute. I don't need to cite sources, since I'm not the one making strong claims about the classification of fictional characters. If these characters were created with military brat-ness in mind, (and if the term is so popular) then it should be a trivial matter to find proper sources which use the term. And of course it matters whether the person is real or fictional. Real people are born, they live, they die, they think, they have their own opinions about themselves. Fictional people aren't born, don't age, don't die, get rewrites done to their backstory, get updated for a new generation and so on. What happens if a fictional character gets a rewrite which changes their parent's job from military to civilian?--Nydas(Talk) 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, your statement is Original Research. You are contending that people who define Military Brat to be the child of a military person is "an idiosyncatic opinion almost certainly confined to a tiny number of people." Please cite your sources. I could go through and cite scores of politicians, journalist, sociologist, dictionary entry's, military brat registry's (Militarybrat.com has over 77,000 registered brats!), etc that use that definition (as I did with the main article [Military brat (U.S. subculture)] but nobody has shown a single source (credible or even non-credible) where children of military personel object to the term brat or more importantly say that it is not used to describe children of military personel. Second, it doesn't matter if the person is fictional or real, the definition applies arbitrarily. One either is or isn't a military brat. Check out various dictionaries (both print and online) and you'll see that definition (you may have to look up just Brat though.)Balloonman 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that fictional characters can be declared 'by definition' to be military brats is an idiosyncratic opinion almost certainly confined to a tiny number of people. I sincerely doubt that there are multiple, reliable sources for such a view.--Nydas(Talk) 15:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasoning is flawed. By definition a person whose parent is in the military is a military brat. The series does not have to use the term "Military brat" to make it a fact. It would be like saying, "You can't have a list of African American characters unless the character is specifically identified as African American." One either is or isn't a military brat by definition so there is no original research in this.Balloonman 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep(or merge into Military_brat_(U.S._subculture) though I prefer articles 1-2 screens long)) [Newbie here; please excuse any faux pas.] The concept of a list of military brats (persons, historical and/or fictional, during whose childhoods their parents served in the military) seems to meet the criterion of "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources [which] is, of course, strongly encouraged." Perhaps not all incarnations of a character meet the criterion for inclusion (e.g. some of the Sarah Crewe/Little Princess movies), but that can be noted with appropriate citations. Requiring the use of the term "military brat" retroactively makes as much sense as saying that Mark Twain's character of Jim in Huckleberry Finn wasn't African American, because the term wasn't used in the book. BTW shouldn't the article title format be just "Fictional Military Brats?" "Notability" being a criterion for inclusion and all that.KVWS 18:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I so hate the other-crap-exists argument Bulldog123 13:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.