Talk:Charles Bean

Untitled

Two assertions here seem a bit POV and maybe not quite the right picture.

In the lead it states: "Bean wrote Volumes I to VI himself...". I believe he did have a staff, certainly at least for the first two volumes which were written at Tuggeranong Homestead in the ACT.[1]

Secondly, at the end of the article, it states: "this [Anzac to Amiens] was the only book to which he owned the copyright and received royalties." I assume before-hand he was a government employee. As such, of course, work that you do while receiving a salary belongs to your employer, and that includes copyright.

I am loathe to "Sofixit" without discussion as this is obviously a well and thoughtfully developed article. --A Y Arktos 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1). Looking at my copy of "The Story of Anzac Vol. I" the title page says "by C.E.W. Bean". I am aware he had a staff of assistants doing research and collating material and so forth but I was under the impression that the text was written by Bean, hence "Bean wrote...". Perhaps "Bean was the author of..." is more neutral.

2). From the AWM bio, "The only copyright he held was for ANZAC to Amiens, and it sold very slowly."

Geoff/Gsl 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A couple of addition by me. Firstly Bean writing the first six volumes. He did have a staff, a cartographer, a typist, and at least one or two researchers. Bean, however, essentially wrote the first six volumes in his own hand. We have manuscript copies, and having read the Army series (six volumes) three times in the last twenty years I can say the style is perfectly consistent (and quirky in Bean's way of doing things). The sections in the history which are translations from the German are verbatim, I believe the translater is acknowledged somewhere (I'll dig up the names of the entire team). The copyright issue is exactly as stated, Bean didn't have copyright over the official history as he was essentially contracted to do it for the Australian Government. Copyright still belongs to the Australian War Memorial as far as I can see, although the histories were republished under some arrangement in the 1980's. Original copies go for silly prices, I had two sets, gave one to a Canadian history buff, and sold the other (reluctantly) in a period of relative impoverishment. I've made some observation's about Bean's 'style' of war history. It's significant in that most later Australian war historians acknowledged a debt to Bean, and in it's impact (along with the Australian War Memorial) in creating a particular view of history - essentially that big events are made from the actions of 'big' and 'little' people, and that 'character' plays a much bigger role in events than history usually records, and that it is a worthwhile subject for the historian. I'll add two more things which illustrate Bean's uniqueness (at the time) when I get a chance to get down to the library to read their copy and quote the original source. Firstly Bean discussed the killing of prisoners on the battlefield, in a way that was surprising (in that it was acknowledged) and in that he treated it fairly levelly - taking neither a jingoistic approach nor entirely condemming the practice 'in the circumstances'. He also worked fairly hard to disprove the notion that Turks were mutilating Australians killed and subsequently recovered from behind enemy lines, noting that these were the effects of modern rifled bullets. In both these instances his writing may have been as unpallatable to the Australian Government as was almost his entire history to the British. And, let me add, Bean was a staunch British Empire man, and restricted his criticism to those that he felt deserved it, particularly Haigh, Gough, and a fairly large collection of British commanders. Bean expressed considerable admiration (and reported that it was a view held by the Australians) for Scottish and Welsh regiments, noting that the best of the English army had been destroyed in 1914 and 1915. Tban 02:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The parenthetical note after Bean's quotation regarding Monash's Jewish heritage reads: "embarrassingly anti-semitic today, it was a common prejudice at the time." This is opinionated, informal, and stylistically out of place; besides all this, however, it is apologism for genuine anti-Semitism and seeks to justify such prejudice. Even if this sentiment was common, it has no place to be mentioned in this paragraph, or in this article at all, for that matter, as the point of the quotation from Bean's diary is to explain the source of his conflict with Monash and to show its irrationality, not to justify his prejudice.

Thus, even were this comment to be reformatted or inserted in a latter portion of this article, it would still be unnecessary and potentially confusing to readers, especially as, being a general claim about past culture, it is most difficult to provide a citation for it. If any other editor of this article thinks that I am out of line in removing this note, please respond on this page so that we can discuss reasoning before simply adding it back in. --Danberbro (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Bean deserves a good article IMHO, but this one needs more refs HumusTheCowboy (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaning towards hagiography

This article is now leaning towards a hagiography rather than a biography. There is no serious criticism of Bean included, despite there being high-quality work of that nature. An article by Robin Gerster in Meanjin, Martin Ball's, ‘Re-reading Bean’s Last Paragraph’, in Australian Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 122 (2003), pp. 231–47 too. Marcus Fielding's review of Coulthart's book in the RUSI Journal has some interesting insights into that biography and its relative merits as a source for this article. There are without doubt others that would be turned up with a more detailed look. A deeper search for material to support a more balanced view of Bean will be necessary for this article to approach GA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The comments are acceptable and a review of the article has been undertaken.

As a result of that review changes have been made to the article namely:

·        Inclusion of more opinions/statements critical of  Bean and his works;

·        Removal of some non-neutral words/language; and

·        Reflection of the encyclopaedic tone used in Wikipedia.

Where non neutral words/language (eg ‘ unique’), remain the word/descriptors are factual; the reasons are given, and references to the verifiable, published sources from which they are  taken, are provided including eminent historians and archivists.

As the reasons for the Template at the head the article are no longer relevant the Template has been removed.

With regard to the sources to which references are made in “Leaning towards hagiography”:       :

·        Ross Coultart’s Charles Bean If People Really Knew: one man’s struggle to report the Great War and tell the truth’ : references have been incorporated into the article and the book has been included in the Bibliography.

[It was noted that the ‘Review’ of Ross Coulthart's book used a quotation (contained on page 283 of the book from Bean’s diary (AWM38, 3DRL606. 91/1 19 0ctober 1917. p. 66) which is not accurate.]

·        Martin Ball’s  ‘Re-reading Bean’s Last Paragraph’, in Australian Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 122 (2003), pp. 231–47: reference has been included in the article where that paragraph is quoted.

Ball’s ‘Rethinking Bean’s philosophy of history’ in Charles Bean Man Myth Legacy (edited by Peter Stanley, p. 89.): relevant text has been included in the article.

·        Robin Gerster’s article in Meanjin (“On Re-reading Bean’s Official History”): the following writings are relevant to this discussion which is beyond the scope of the article:

·        Sarah Midford’s “From Achilles To Anzac: Heroism In The Dardanelles From Antiquity To The Great War.”

·        John Rickard’s review of Dr Gerster’s Big-noting: the Heroic Theme in Australian War Writing in  A.U.M.L.A.: Journal of the Australasian Universities Modern Language Association; Melbourne Vol. 0, Iss. 72, (Nov 1, 1989): 365.

·        Peter Londey’s “A Possession for Ever: Charles Bean, the Ancient Greeks, and Military Commemoration in Australia” in Australian Journal of Politics and History Volume 53, Number 3, 2007, pp. 344-359.© 2007. Brentclift (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction: Should read: Ross Coultart’s Charles Bean If People Really Knew: one man’s struggle to report the Great War and tell the truth’ : references have been incorporated into the article and the book has been included in the Sources (not Bibliography). Brentclift (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not accept that this article is yet written in the encyclopaedic style expected on Wikipedia. He comes across as an essentially flawless renaissance man. It is fragmentary, in many cases is just a series of events in single sentence paras, and has a weak narrative. It contains almost no substantive criticism of Bean, none is mentioned in the lead, and "waxes lyrical" about him in many places. Just a few examples from the lead:

• "Charles Bean's contribution to Australian history requires that both sides of the man - military and civil – be weighed in the balance." editorialising
• "He is considered as one of Australia's most distinguished men of letters" - an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sources, made despite this having been said in his SMH obituary/editorial written in 1968 (54 years ago), but it is presented as if it is a presently-held view
• "Viewed as a whole man" how else would anyone be viewed?

I have restored the tags until the article is more balanced and the more egregious stuff has been toned down. The removal of the tags needs to be discussed, not undertaken unilaterally without discussion once you believe you have addressed the identified issues. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said, there needs to be discussion BEFORE the tags are removed. Edit-warring them away isn't going to work. You need to achieve consensus here on changes, or engage in dispute resolution. You haven't added anything here, but nevertheless have removed the entirely justified tags. Readers should be aware that this is written in an uncritical way, and the tags serve to warn them of that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The comments have been accepted. The article has been reviewed in line with those comments, including the incorporation of inline attributions. What has not been accepted and therefore not included in the reviewed article is criticism of Bean in the lead. In a review of articles about the following people no criticism was contained in the lead: Frederic Cutlack, General Birdwood, Keith Murdoch, Hubert Wilkins, George Lambert, Max Aitkin, Gavin Long and Jeffrey Grey, with Field Marshall Haigh’s article being the exception. It is, accordingly, appropriate that the tags, now be removed.Brentclift (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

In March 2023 the article was amended in response to previous comments. The absence of further comments since that time indicates that the banner can and should now be removed.Brentclift (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

As the reasons for the placement of the tag/banner at the head of this Article have been addressed it may now be removed. Wikipedia editors have contributed to the Article by attending to style, by neutralising the tone and by providing inline attributions to statements and quotations in the text.

Further, there has been no response to either the call for discussion of the removal of the tag/banner placed on 10 March 2023 or the subsequent call placed on 16 June 2023.

Given the absence of responses to those calls, the changes made to the Article, and comparisons with other Articles that do not have the tag/ banner, it is reasonable and justifiable that it now be removed.Brentclift (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Peacemaker67 in that this article doesn't meet WP:NPOV. The lead for example relies substantially on opinions which are framed as fact. For a start, for all cases of biased/opinionated quotations, you need to provide in inline attribution in text. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV WP:INTEXT. Cheers 01syhr 18:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01syhr (talk • contribs)

The comments have been accepted. The article has been reviewed in line with those comments, including the incorporation of inline attributions. What has not been accepted and therefore not included in the reviewed article is criticism of Bean in the lead. In a review of articles about the following people no criticism was contained in the lead: Frederic Cutlack, General Birdwood, Keith Murdoch, Hubert Wilkins, George Lambert, Max Aitkin, Gavin Long and Jeffrey Grey, with Field Marshall Haigh’s article being the exception. It is, accordingly, appropriate that the tags, now be removed.Brentclift (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

In March 2023 the article was amended in response to previous comments. The absence of further comments since that time indicates that the banner can and should now be removed.Brentclift (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. While there have definitely been improvements, there is virtually no critical analysis of the myth Bean created and his favouritism and interventions on behalf of White and against Monash, for example. The article remains uniformly positive in tone, and there appears to be little interest in adding anything critical of Bean, his myth-making etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)