U.S. in article titles

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

The relationship between Macarthur and Australia is actually quite fascinating to me, although I don't for one minute pretend to be an expert in this area. There's a great deal of feeling here that our troops were sidelined by Macarthur, and effectively lost their lives in sideshow operations such as Bougainville and Borneo (mopping up far behind the real front in the Pacific theatre) because Macarthur didn't want to share the glory of defeating Japan.

I could probably come up with an extended stub.

Before the US troops moved north and east, they were also involved in combined operations in New Guinea (turned up late to the Battle of Kokoda because the map gave no idea of what the terrain was really like, and also took part in the operations on the north coast that eventually pushed the Japanese off the island).

Trouble is, though, that the whole thing opens up a genuine can of worms. There are the various aspects of hundreds of thousands of US troops being based in Brisbane, and even open fighting between US and Australian troops in that city (the "Battle of Brisbane"). There are the combined operations, the units that fought in them, the individual battles ...

But it's all stuff I'm interested in and teach, so I'm willing to at least chip in at a basic level. When I have some time! 

For me, there are interesting things, but I've never gone as deeply as I've liked.  What MacArthur did to Blamey, and how the government accepted it, is shocking. A number of U.S. analysts suggest MacArthur had found some magic formula for giving the Japanese just enough maneuvering room such that they would move back into the jungles, and let the jungle take them. 

I don't know if it's a universal nursery rhyme, but one always comes to mind with respect to MacArthur: the little girl/with a curl/right in the middle of her forehead/when she was good/she was very very good/but when she was bad/she was horrid.

Since I've spent a number of years working for Canadian companies, I know Canadian history best of the Commonwealth. One of the interesting asides, affecting both Australia and Canada, is I consider Monash and Currie the best young - and perhaps young is superfluous - of Big Mistake I. I'm drawing a blank on their British Army patron, but a more senior general did a lot of good by promoting them as fast as possible. While I know detail on WWII fairly well, there are individual parts of WWI that I find interesting: the whole Dardanelles campaign but especially Gallipoli is one area. There are lessons to be learned about the failures, respectively, of German imagination at Second Ypres and British at Cambrai -- I always think of the Battle of the Crater in the American civil war, and how the three situations are alike -- enormous holes in the enemy line and no one competent to push a exploitation force into them. Gallipoli, at least with Hamilton and Stopford on one side, are a textbook example of how not to conduct an amphibious operation--not that anyone really had a good idea until the twenties or thirties. Ever run across the American Marine man of mystery, Earl Ellis, who, in the twenties, essentially mapped out the WWII strategy against the Japanese, and then probably drank himself to death.

There's something especially moving about Gallipoli. I can't hear either "And the band played Waltzing Matilda", or Kemal Ataturk's dedication to the dead of both sides, without some tears in my eyes.

[David H. Barrett]

Gallipoli is a classic case of all kinds of military mismanagement - misunderstood terrain, underestimating the enemy, poor strategy, a commander-in-chief too frightened of Kitchener to act independently and too kindly to pull rank on the buffoons below ...

Have to run, but will return to this later.

[RJensen]

thanks to Hayford Peirce for the kind words.
I have not exactly vanished--I have been silenced by Larry.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Gallipoli is a classic case of all kinds of military mismanagement - misunderstood terrain, underestimating the enemy, poor strategy, a commander-in-chief too frightened of Kitchener to act independently and too kindly to pull rank on the buffoons below ...

Have to run, but will return to this later.

You do give me a thought. On my shelves are a surprising number of books about military error; in more modern militaries, there are, by various names, Centers for Lessons Learned. I feel as if there either should be one or more articles about the theory of military decisionmaking, and the factors that contributed to bad decisions. Alternatively, I'd like to see sections less of "criticism" and more of "lessons learned" -- although I could give you a long list of battles from which lessons should have been learned at were not (e.g., Battle of the Crater during the Petersburg Campaign of the American Civil War, and, in WWI, the thread of lack of imagination continues through Second Ypres and Cambrai).

[Larry Sanger]

thanks to Hayford Peirce for the kind words.
I have not exactly vanished--I have been silenced by Larry.

I have not "silenced" you, Richard.  You have ever right to speak publicly about your case, but I ask that you do so accurately.  If you prefer, we can release the facts of your case, so that there is no doubt.

The actual action that was taken, was taken by me with the full awareness and implicit (and in several cases explicit) approval of the Executive Committee and the Constabulary.  As you know (or should know), you remain free to contribute to the wiki and to discuss matters here, as long as you do so within the requirements of CZ:Professionalism, which of course all of us are bound to follow.  Indeed, I believe you must know that you are still free to work and discuss, because you actually did so for a day or two after the above-mentioned action was taken.

All that notwithstanding, I agree with Hayford, and as I have said many times before myself: Richard Jensen has been an incredibly prolific, useful, and high-quality contributor to CZ.

[David H. Barrett]

Gallipoli is a classic case of all kinds of military mismanagement - misunderstood terrain, underestimating the enemy, poor strategy, a commander-in-chief too frightened of Kitchener to act independently and too kindly to pull rank on the buffoons below ...

Have to run, but will return to this later.

You do give me a thought. On my shelves are a surprising number of books about military error; in more modern militaries, there are, by various names, Centers for Lessons Learned. I feel as if there either should be one or more articles about the theory of military decisionmaking, and the factors that contributed to bad decisions. Alternatively, I'd like to see sections less of "criticism" and more of "lessons learned" -- although I could give you a long list of battles from which lessons should have been learned at were not (e.g., Battle of the Crater during the Petersburg Campaign of the American Civil War, and, in WWI, the thread of lack of imagination continues through Second Ypres and Cambrai).

What a can of worms! Still, it would be a great article.

And it could cover a lot of ground. Barbara Tuchman's book The March of Folly: Troy to Vietnam goes way back to that shadowy zone that is Greek history. Then there's the Soviet excursion into Afghanistan, and (arguably) even right up to the present and the situation with Iraq. Even US contemplation of "dealing with" Iran militarily could be looked at through the lens of past experience, and whether or not, in the light of that experience, it would be a terribly good idea.

From an Australian point of view, some of our most "celebrated" battles are defeats, Gallipoli being a classic. And then there are some that are only coming into prominence now (Fromelles being a great example - more than 5,000 men dead within 24 hours on the Western Front, in what was effectively a pointless diversionary attack). Kokoda was a fighting withdrawal - effectively a retreat - but I don't think it falls into this category. Indeed, I have a book on battles that are exemplars of their type, and Kokoda is considered one of them. (Interestingly, I think that Macarthur's ultimately fruitless initial defence of the Philippines is in that one too.)

Anyway, I like the idea. So when are you going to write it? 

[Denis Cavanagh]

I would like to pay tribute to Richard Jensen here. Obviously things have happened that I haven't been aware of, but I have found the man to be genius and easy worded at the same time. Some of the horrible things said about our hardest working writer here are intolerable and are part of the witch hunt of a brilliant man unafraid to speak his mind.

Frankly I'm amazed, disgusted and downhearted all at the same time. The fact that some of the expletives mentioned by other users on this site have not been removed in relation to Richard Jensen is a complete and utter disgrace. Its a disgrace that no-one here will readily be able to forget - the recreation of the infamous witchunt-one-of-the-reasons-why-everyone-complains-about-wikipedia phenomonons.

The worst thing is, it is the people who do the least work (Actually writing articles) who are doing the most witchunting. Citizendium's stock has dropped dramatically in the wake of this incident.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

From an Australian point of view, some of our most "celebrated" battles are defeats, Gallipoli being a classic.

Interesting way to put it; you remind me of a couple of works that you may know. There is a book by Ivan Morris, The Nobility of Failure, which I bought in Tokyo, and, although it seems to have been written in English, was extremely expensive when I last tried to get another copy in the U.S. It gave me a great deal of perspective on historic Japanese military thinking. My spoken Japanese, if I am lucky, will let me order dinner, but I hope I've studied enough to be able to grasp the Japanese cultural context for some words that don't translate well, such as makoto, usually put into English as "sincerity", but it goes much deeper into aspects of commitment, of purity of effort even in a course of action with which one disagrees.

There is a movie, "The Highest Honor", which I have on tape, and can bring myself to watch every 5-10 years; I find it too moving to watch more frequently. I understand it was produced by a joint Australian-Japanese film company, and is generally historical, about an Australian behind-the-lines raiding unit that was eventually captured by the Japanese. The circumstances were reflected in the title; both sides immensely respected the other, and tried to act towards them in an honorable manner as defined by their own society. Those very different concepts, however, made it as classic a tragedy as anything from the Greeks.

I'm going to throw out a hypothesis here: there are American defeats that are celebrated, but all that come to mind were in the category of tactical defeats that had a long-term positive strategic effect. That's nuanced for popular entertainment here, but I'm trying to think of counterexamples. Popular depictions of the Battle of the Alamo are strikingly wrong (I spent a year in a military elementary school a few miles away, and if we studied one thing thoroughly, it was that battle). If the Mexicans had bypassed the Alamo, they might have been able to defeat the scattered Texas forces, rather than letting them consolidate and win at the Battle of San Jacinto. "Custer's Last Stand", however, is widely regarded as the act of a glory-hunting fool who threw away the lives of his unit.

And then there are some that are only coming into prominence now (Fromelles being a great example - more than 5,000 men dead within 24 hours on the Western Front, in what was effectively a pointless diversionary attack). Kokoda was a fighting withdrawal - effectively a retreat - but I don't think it falls into this category. Indeed, I have a book on battles that are exemplars of their type, and Kokoda is considered one of them. (Interestingly, I think that Macarthur's ultimately fruitless initial defence of the Philippines is in that one too.)

Anyway, I like the idea. So when are you going to write it? 

As far as MacArthur, I seem to remember William Manchester, probably his finest biographer, saying that when he finished his work, his feelings about MacArthur were still mixed. There were times he was as much a fool as Custer, and other times brilliant.

At the moment, I'm engrossed in one series of articles on an Internet technology that I need to review for some possible consulting, but I'm also trying to express some truly revolutionary ideas in command and control -- frustrated because the answer to some of the points where it doesn't come together could equally be that it's incomplete, or the technique is subtle and classified.

Seriously, as far as writing about lessons learned and not learned, I'm still not sure how to construct that in a CZ-appropriate way. For example, whatever thinks of the motivation for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there were both expert opinions given at the time, and, in a parallel, in the very detailed planning, available online, about the post-WWII occupation of Germany, that the force expected to occupy Iraq was vastly too small to have much chance of success. At my most charitable, I see policymakers becoming very confused between the truly smaller forces needed for conventional combat, and the very different requirements of a situation that was not high-intensity warfare. 

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I would like to pay tribute to Richard Jensen here. Obviously things have happened that I haven't been aware of, but I have found the man to be genius and easy worded at the same time. Some of the horrible things said about our hardest working writer here are intolerable and are part of the witch hunt of a brilliant man unafraid to speak his mind.

Frankly I'm amazed, disgusted and downhearted all at the same time. The fact that some of the expletives mentioned by other users on this site have not been removed in relation to Richard Jensen is a complete and utter disgrace. Its a disgrace that no-one here will readily be able to forget - the recreation of the infamous witchunt-one-of-the-reasons-why-everyone-complains-about-wikipedia phenomonons.

The worst thing is, it is the people who do the least work (Actually writing articles) who are doing the most witchunting. Citizendium's stock has dropped dramatically in the wake of this incident.

There is, and never has been, any witch-hunting on CZ. Richard Jensen has made an important contribution to CZ and everyone here is aware of that. There are other aspects, concerning professional behaviour and personal relations, which occasioned problems with quite a few other authors and editors. That is all that can really be said. For sheer number (and depth) of new articles, Howard Berkowitz is easily compensating for the non-activity currently chosen by Richard. However, the roles of editors and authors are more or less separate on CZ, and it is appropriate for editorial policy to be determined mainly by editors.

The "expletives" you refer to on this topic were made by someone new to CZ, who admittedly broke the rules of professional behaviour. On my part, I felt unable to chastise as he clearly felt very strongly about the same disagreements as many of us have had with Richard.

[Larry Sanger]

I would like to pay tribute to Richard Jensen here. Obviously things have happened that I haven't been aware of, but I have found the man to be genius and easy worded at the same time. Some of the horrible things said about our hardest working writer here are intolerable and are part of the witch hunt of a brilliant man unafraid to speak his mind.

Frankly I'm amazed, disgusted and downhearted all at the same time. The fact that some of the expletives mentioned by other users on this site have not been removed in relation to Richard Jensen is a complete and utter disgrace. Its a disgrace that no-one here will readily be able to forget - the recreation of the infamous witchunt-one-of-the-reasons-why-everyone-complains-about-wikipedia phenomonons.

The worst thing is, it is the people who do the least work (Actually writing articles) who are doing the most witchunting. Citizendium's stock has dropped dramatically in the wake of this incident.

There is, and never has been, any witch-hunting on CZ. Richard Jensen has made an important contribution to CZ and everyone here is aware of that. There are other aspects, concerning professional behaviour and personal relations, which occasioned problems with quite a few other authors and editors. That is all that can really be said. For sheer number (and depth) of new articles, Howard Berkowitz is easily compensating for the non-activity currently chosen by Richard. However, the roles of editors and authors are more or less separate on CZ, and it is appropriate for editorial policy to be determined mainly by editors.

The "expletives" you refer to on this topic were made by someone new to CZ, who admittedly broke the rules of professional behaviour. On my part, I felt unable to chastise as he clearly felt very strongly about the same disagreements as many of us have had with Richard.

I can only reiterate what I said above about the clear value of his excellent work on the wiki.  As to the other issues, I'm afraid I am going to have to contradict you, Denis, when you say that Richard is the victim of a "witch hunt."  Without permission from Richard I'm afraid all I can say is that due process was more than served, and he retains the right to contribute both on the wiki and here in these forums.  If Richard wishes further facts about his situation to be known, that is his right under our Statement of Fundamental Policies.  But it is also his right that those facts be kept silent, if he does not want them to be known.

If there are any expletives that bother either Richard or you, Denis, please call them to the attention of the constables.  They are charged with reverting them, as you know.  They can't be responsible for reading and reviewing everything that is posted to these forums, however.  It's very easy to point out problematic posts on the forums.  Look for the "Report to Moderator" link in the lower right.

[Larry Sanger]

I've removed a comment by Denis Cavanagh that, by specifically characterizing other Citizens, violates CZ:Professionalism.  It also would tend to cause others to react with hostility and make negative characterizations of Citizens (i.e., it's flame bait).  That also violates CZ:Professionalism.

Denis, you place me (and others who care about all this) between a rock and a hard place.  On the one hand, you say all sorts of important, impassioned things about community governance.  On the other hand, you say all sorts of things about a particular individual and his qualities.  The first is worthwhile but the second, if not actually against our rules, tempts others to malign the individual and thereby break the rules.  Unless Richard Jensen calls for a debate about his moral qualities, we have no right to try to start one.

Again, as to the offensive comment you found above, Denis, please believe me that I haven't read this whole forum because I'm very busy.  If you have a particular item to complain about, please do so explicitly using that button.  It won't take more than a few seconds.

[Aleta Curry]

Aw, look, fellas (especially Den )--Richard's brilliance and his whatever-the-noun-for-'prolific'-is aren't really questioned, are they?

Bottom line as I see it is that everyone has to behave professionally at all times, or be called on it.

[John Stephenson]

Richard is now editing on Conservapedia.

http://www.conservapedia.com/User:RJJensen

This comes as a complete surprise to me, 'not'. But seriously, it's a shame we've seen the end of a long run of content generation from a very active editor, even though some of his activities on the wiki were controversial at times. Our history workgroup will be poorer without him.

[Denis Cavanagh]

Please don't try and make him out to be comparable with the average user on Conservapedia. He is rational in his opinions and not prone to emotional manipulation like some of the members over there. Richard writes for fun and is entitled to do so at whatever website he wants to, free of behind his back slander.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Please don't try and make him out to be comparable with the average user on Conservapedia. He is rational in his opinions and not prone to emotional manipulation like some of the members over there. Richard writes for fun and is entitled to do so at whatever website he wants to, free of behind his back slander.

I agree with both your points, and, while I certainly had my disagreements with him on content and style, do regret we didn't work well together -- and that might be as much due to me as to him.

What I would hope to do, however, without getting into personalities, is to learn as much as possible about how best to encourage collaboration when you have people who are knowledgeable, opinionated, and reasonably prolific.  At the moment, for example, I'm working on some articles on Internet Protocol version 6, which certainly doesn't involve Richard.

I managed to recruit one colleague with limited time, who got out a few stubs. I expanded significantly, learning a lot in the process -- it's a very fast-moving field.  He made some changes, thankful that I had given him raw text where he tweaked the material. When he sent me some explanations in private mail, I encouraged him to put the reason for changes on the article talk pages; our mutual cynicism about People In The Industry We Have Known could stay private.

In writing at this fairly detailed level, I was trying to look at it from the perspective of someone new to the material, and realized there were several fundamental assumptions and definitions that were not at all intuitive. Those are now at least stub articles, which led to other stubs, and then some articles I can't quite describe in a single word -- maybe an annotated catalog of issues (see, for example, "locality of networks"). That latter article is proving to be very organizing for my own thoughts; perhaps it should be a userpage, but eventually, I think it will make an article.

Enough details. Could we ever develop a culture at CZ where people may clash, but at least can share how they perceived the clash, perhaps to another editor in the relevant discipline, so the knowledge, perhaps private, could be used in other cases?

Sadly, I can see places where Richard had more expertise than I, and vice versa. I would rather have treated these as collaborative opportunities rather than confrontations. I wish him well.