Jump to content

Talk:Dan Choi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

coming out

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Daniel Choi didn't come out on the Rachel Maddow show. Can't one only come out once? He came out before in the Advocate. When the Army didn't discharge him, he went public to force their hand. The article needs to be corrected.

 Not done Please cite a reliable source. Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the Advocate article is dated 3/17/09, and MSN has the show airing 3/20/09.Ruodyssey (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they can both be included as they would have coincided. Do we have the link to the Advocate article? -- Banjeboi 15:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Advocate article [1] is referenced. Can anyone find a reliable source discussing his reasoning for going on TV after the Advocate article? Also, just to clarify, I interpret coming out as the act of disclosure which LBGT members often do repeatedly for different people/groups, not just once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruodyssey (talk • contribs) 03:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious: return to "active duty"

[edit]
 Done The quote, Choi was called back into active duty in February 2010, a reversal of the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell guidlines. Is incorrect and has been corrected by media sources. That is INCORRECT information.. site source of corrected article is: [1] DearJiminy (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a bit to figure out what the poster was talking about but finally tracked down the issue and corrected it. C. Williams (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This NY Times article explains the situation a little more clearly. Ruodyssey (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/dadt-repeal-activist-lt-d_n_455366.html

(very) minor edit

[edit]

Could someone please hyphenate "Korean-American" in "Choi is the son of a Korean American Baptist minister."? "American Baptist" is the name of a denomination, so without the hyphen, it's not clear whether he's a Baptist who's Korean-American or an American Baptist who's Korean. (He's a Southern Baptist actually. www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/15793/dan-choi-i-am-still-gay ) 69.232.226.192 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Sure. AV3000 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's been discharged?

[edit]

I think he was discharged? The headline above his web page says so...
http://www.ltdanchoi.com/
Native94080 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biography on his web site explains that he had a DADT hearing but was never actually discharged. AV3000 (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to DODINST 1320.13 (officer promotions manual) the normal promotion date for a 1st LT to Captain is at the 48 month mark (4 years), yet 1st LT Choi was separated from the army at 5 years at the lower rank (West Point 2003....should have been a CPT by 2008). Was he demoted, or did he simply get "passed over" for promotion to Captain?

If this is fact the case, his separation in June 2008 could have been due to non-selection for promotion, not for being Gay. A check of the Army's register of Officers from 2008 should be able to confirm this.76.23.145.193 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In wartime, promotions are sped up. The promotion track from O-1 to O-3 was reduced from 48 months to 40 months, which means Choi should have made O-3 (captain) in late 2006. More than 95% of O-1s make O-3 now, and there is no evidence that being gay ever came up before Choi himself made it an issue in the spring of 2009. Therefore, his move from active duty to the NY National Guard is inadequately covered in the article. In civilian terms, he quit the regular Army in 2008; he did so as an O-2 (first lt.), almost two years after he should have been promoted to O-3.
The reason for his lack of promotion cannot be deduced, but should be mentioned in the article. Also, in the article about him in the Village Voice in late October (headline: "Bad Lieutenant"), he was described as being on a 50% disability pension for a lung disease. The pension was said to be $700 a month. He was also described as having no fixed address, i.e., homeless. This should also be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.136.188 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts from article misunderstood

[edit]

Footnote 8 references an article in The Guardian:UK. It misquotes, stating :since don't ask don't tell's inception" While the article actually says "The Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns make onerous demands on manpower, and relations remain tense with Iran and North Korea. But the army has discharged 59 gay Arabic linguists and nine gay Farsi linguists in the last five years, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defence Network. Britain, Israel and dozens of other countries allow gay personnel to serve openly."

68 in five years (59+9) is a much larger rate than 68 in the past 16 years...

Ohioblade (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good fact-check. Any additional official or NGO sources to support this? --Lexein (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 69.73.12.143, 24 July 2010

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} I do not believ Mr choi was an Infantry Officer. His west point graduation photo has him wearing military intelligence officer branch insignia. Here's a copy of his graduation photo... http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/02/tustins-lt-dan-choi-back-on-active-duty/

To confirm I am not an anonymous source I am

MAJ (Ret) Will Rodriguez (Phone number redacted. --Chris (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please correct his Army branch affiliation.

Thanks!

69.73.12.143 (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The photo is a good reason to vet the claim, but not enough evidence to change it. Per Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY, we'll need a verifiable source (.mil, .gov, major media, book) for Choi's branch affiliation. It would be great if you could provide such a URL.
This article states his unit as "First Battalion, 69th Infantry Regiment, in Fort Indiantown Gap, PA". First Maddow interview transcript in which Choi states "this is an infantry unit." Second Maddow interview transcript in which Choi agrees when asked if he is an infantry platoon leader.
A civilian not knowledgeable in inter-branch dynamics might naively conclude from this that Choi was an Infantry Officer. On the other hand, translators would certainly seem to make sense in Intelligence. We state what we can find in a reliable source - can you help?
Addendum: I zoomed in on the photo in your source, and checked Military_Intelligence_Corps_(United_States_Army) and United_States_Army_branch_insignia and that insignia appears to be for the National Guard Bureau, not Military Intelligence Corps. I will wait 24 hours for your reply before closing this.
--Lexein (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for the above reasons. --Lexein (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Over 24 hours, so please use a further {{editsemiprotected}} if necc. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked his AKO account and his basic branch is infantry. I can't link to it because it requires a password, but he is there. Basic Info Full Name: 1LT Daniel W. Choi Service: Army Army Basic Branch: IN Organization: 1-69th IN BN Account Type: National Guard 128.187.97.3 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! --Lexein (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The original commenter is incorrect. The MI insignia is not found on Choi's graduation photo. Choi commissioned as a lieutenant of Infantry, and all photographs of his uniform show him wearing the Infantry insignia and blue cord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.18 (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Dan Choi gave a very thoughtful interview to Amy Goodman on the Democracy Now! newscast today. I would like a link to the interview to be added in the External Links section.

The link is here: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/4/i_have_no_regret_to_anybody

141.212.130.136 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done As an external link, it seems fine. Let's not overload that section. Interestingly, the actuality documents Choi challenging Harry Reid at a conference to ensure that DADT is discontinued. This would go in "Activism" about Choi challenging several government officials in this manner, but as a single event with a single source, not yet - see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTEMP. --Lexein (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judge

[edit]

I have no idea if I am using this correctly but the name of the judge on the "Daniel Choi" page is spelled wrong. Virinia Phillis is not the name of the judge, it is Virginia Phillips and that judge actually does have a Wikipedia page. Again, I don't know if this is the proper way to report it but I wanted to bring it up. If not I apologize, the mistake is in the section below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Choi#Court_Ruling.2C_Enlistment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brsox2445 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - well spotted, and well reported. --Lexein (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong info

[edit]

The article states that Daniel Choi re-enlisted in the Army on 19 Oct 2010 this is the day he went to the recruiting station it takes more than a day to enlist in the Army there are police background checks that have to be made (he was arrested in front of the white house)a ton of paperwork to be done packets to be built there are a lot of factors I am an Army recruiter and the fastest I have ever seen someone join the Army is 3 days from first meeting to first enlistment!

Barney7307 (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY Salon wrote both "Choi reenlists" AND "went down to Times Square to reenlist. His request is being processed." These are both reasonably interpreted as beginning the process, not necessarily completing it. --Lexein (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, "re-enlistement" is the wrong word since Lt Choi served as an officer, not an enlisted person. Hence to "re" enlist implies a previous service an an enlisted person. The section should be changed to read "re-join" or "re-entry." This term will work regardless of whether he tried to re-join in a commissioned (officer) capacity, or as an enlisted person (which the army may or may not allow--regualtions may not permit a person who previously served as an officer to later serve as an enlisted person). The term "enlisted" is used colloquially to refer to both officers and enlisted, but technically only applies to the latter.138.29.152.221 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY Thanks. "Rejoin" is certainly acceptable, and I found a source (Slate) for the technical term "reaccession". Any other .mil, .gov, or book sources would be helpful. Most sources are still using the colloquial form "reenlist", so I've kept it in the section heading. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've been told that an officer cannot re-enlist, but you've decided to ignore that fact. I hope you will realize just why Wikipedia is so widely distrusted, and in fact banned from citation by most academic institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.162.146 (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've been told that we cite sources. Where there are genuine disagreements, we cite that. Where a technical term is at odds with a colloquialism, we open it to discussion. You've been told that other .gov and .mil sources are welcome. --Lexein (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've been told a fact, which is that an officer cannot re-enlist. Yet it stays in the article. Wikipedia is rife with this sort of thing, large and small. That's why you're considered so unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.136.188 (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your (anonymous) dispute is not with me. I'm willing to believe you, but there's a consensus-reached and strongly agreed-upon policy about using Reliable Sources, and that truth as known by an individual person isn't enough by itself. The word "enlist" was used by many, many news sources. "Reaccession" was used by Slate, but even that was disputed by another editor. Please help by making an effort to provide a .gov, .mil or other source which could help resolve this dispute, and improve the article for both civilian readers and military experts. Your assertion of Wikipedia's unreliability has been definitively disputed here and elsewhere. If you want to improve Wikipedia's reliability, the way is clear - please contribute reliable sources. --Lexein (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on both sides. 'Re-enlist' is the incorrect term, as is 'Reassertion' by definition. However, upon providing links to the correct term "reinstatement" at dictionary.com, my edit was reverted with User:Lexein's summary, "Reliable source discusses Choi and the official term. Dictionary does not replace a RS. But a .gov or .mil source might." It's understandable that a .gov or .mil site is highly reputable, but that's not to say say an op/ed .com site is more reliable than a non-user edited dictionary (also a .com). The fact is, "reassertion" is the incorrect term and wikipedia does not require a .gov or .mil to prove it. As a result, I've provided links to reliable sources (The Colorado Springs Gazette newspaper & Accessline newspaper) reflecting the correct term, 'reinstatement.' Bullmoosebell (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to bold the whole paragraph - it reads as shouting - see WP:CIVIL. The word "reassertion" was never used, only "reaccession"(citing Slate). Although I prefer "reinstatement", dictionaries do not define or describe official policy for the U.S. military, but military and government sources do, which would trump media sources here. Please don't do battle in the article by misappropriating text quoted from and attributed to one source, to promote another source which simply doesn't support the modified claim. In the original text, the Slate article about Choi used "technically" which, in an editorially fact-checked article, carries some weight as "official":
(officially termed "reaccession"("Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Come Back?". Slate.com. December 19, 2010.)
As edited, the following usage is WP:SYNTH, because none of the cited sources specifically ties Choi to "reinstatement", or use "technical" or "official" to describe the term (as does the Slate article).
(officially phrased "reinstatement")(Dictionary.com)(Colorado Springs The Gazette 13 December 2010)(Accessline 15 December 2010)
Remember, the moment military people objected to the term "re-enlist", I asked for sources about Choi which don't use that term, and found only one, the Slate article. We still don't have any official documentation. It would be nice to remove all use of "re-enlist", but most media sources reporting Choi's application at the time state "re-enlist"! I still say please help by finding a .mil or .gov source, and de-escalate the edit warring. Slate's use of "reaccession" has not been proved wrong, nor have the media's use of the word "re-enlist", because no canonical .gov or .mil source has yet been found (I've looked, but I'm not in the military, so I'm not even sure where to look). Luckily, as lawsuits progress, the media does use "reinstatement" - but the articles specifically about Choi released at the time of his application do not. --Lexein (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since discussion has stopped for 7 days, per above, removed WP:SYNTH. --Lexein (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lt. Choi's Failure to Make Captain

[edit]

Has any media source reported on this? Why/how did he not make Captain before he went to the national guard. In graduated West Point in 2003. Promotion to O3 is automatic unless there is a serious performance or ethnical issue. He should have made Captain in 48 months at the most. It appears that he was a non-select for promotion in 06, 07, and 08. Has any media outlet ever reported on why he was still a O2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 03:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2014

[edit]

Please remove reference #2 ("Dan Choi, soldier & activist (LGBT History Month)") as it links to bentalaska.com which is now a compromised adult-related site, please see the very last image (at the very bottom of the site) as it links to blacktating.com (an adult site). It is no longer being used as Alaska's LGBT blog. Thank you. 180.190.237.221 (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've added the archived version. --Auric talk 11:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dan Choi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dan Choi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dan Choi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Choi&oldid=1257437637"