Talk:School of Advanced Military Studies

Untitled

Please if you wish to re-insert the 'attention' tag, explain why it need IMMEDIATE attention. (Or better still, expand the article!) Buckshot06 05:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Interested in possible rewrite / cleanup

I've been thinking about possibly rewriting this page. However, I am pretty unexperienced at writing here. I've been reading the rules and guidelines and such, and it has occurred to me that a lot of the content of such rewrite might be original research unless I could find it published somewhere. If these publications exist, I'll find them, an immediate family member has been an employee for over 20 years (which might conflict with me being eligible to do such a rewrite). Anyways, its something I'm interested in possibly doing if I can, maybe if anyone else was interested, in a collab.

Feel free to have a go at it. Most of the content came from me, and admittedly I mostly cribbed from the School's website. Just don't overly plagiarize, or if you do include quoted text, cite at least in coarse terms that you are doing so ("according to so-and-so, the school's cirriculum includes...") and you'll do fine. Whiskey Pete 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I did some expansion. There is no conflict with you adding material. There would only be a conflict if you were writing an article about yourself or another such narrow topic.

The web sources I used should meet the WP:RS requirements, for the most part. There's nothing overly contentious, so I don't think that people will ping editors here for more reliable sources.

I did a rough rewrite. Much more polishing is possible. The current version is about B-class quality now. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit more cleaup. IMO, the only major issues remaining are the lack of inline citations and references for the section on the Advanced Military Studies Program, as well as information on the other program within SAMS.

There is room for expansion, such as the proportion of officers in the two respective programs within the school. Ideally, this would come from a reliable source as opposed to inserted from firsthand knowledge. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

FAC issues

Hi there. Firstly can I send my apologies for the last minute oppose. I was leaning to that persuasion anyway but there was just too many issues. I agree with every thing Nikkimaria and Nick-D found all of which were among my issues so rather than write them out again I will list them here. The eighteen issues were mainly the over use of quotes, so rather than list them all individually, I have covered them under one point listed below. So this bring the eighteen down a bit. Here goes:

• Some unsourced material - for example, "SAMS' leaders view..." should include a citation to where these leaders said this

• Manual of Style editing needed - WP:OVERLINK, don't begin section headings with "The", etc

• Tone problems, ex. "continued to morph to meet the demands of a changing world"

• Over use of quotes, see WP:QUOTEFARM. Some not referenced.

• Coverage. Lots of pictures but not much text in relation to the physical campus.

• Images: File:Combined Arms Research Library in Eisenhower Hall, at US Army Command General Staff College is tagged as lacking author and date information. Missing Army-specific template for Army images too.

• Sourcing: formatting issues. Publications should always be italicized, missing information (ex. Bower 2011 is missing publication/publisher), generally inconsistent formatting

• Most of the article's references are to public relations products produced by the US military, many of which are directly related to the institution. These obviously aren't neutral.

• Related to this, the article reads like something written by the military and contains no criticisms of the institution or its products. The graduates are only associated with successes for the military.

• As an example, the article states that "SAMS students from the 2002 and 2003 classes participated as "reach" planners in the preparations for the invasion of Iraq, as well as the "post-hostility plan for the occupation of Iraq"." - given that this planning is widely regarded as being deeply flawed, this suggests that there might be problems with what SAMS is producing. This should be discussed. Likewise, the invasion of Panama is not normally regarded as a military masterpiece.

• The article doesn't really explain what it is that SAMS teaches and how this is delivered - when this is discussed its centred on quotes written in military jargon.

If you can fix these, then list at PR, it may be easier and quicker for you. I would also consider listing on WP:FAR when your ready. All the best! Cassianto (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks!! --Airborne84 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:School of Advanced Military Studies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Intothatdarkness (talk · contribs) 17:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Article is well-sourced and thoroughly linked (heavily in some spots, but not a deal-breaker to me). I did find the use of boxed quotes throughout to be somewhat distracting, and comment on them in point 4. Prose style is fair to good, although it does seem florid in spots and thin in others. In the History section an apostrophe seems to have been misplaced in the phrase "war college". In the linked History of SAMS article the reference is to "war colleges'", which encompasses the individual colleges of all the services, while in this article it becomes "college's", which implies only the Army's college. In looking further, it appears that this article is almost a carbon copy of the linked history article. It might be wise to incorporate the History section from that article here. Also, there are quite a few red links in the list of notable graduates. If they're red linked, more needs to be provided to demonstrate why they're notable.

Addressed the comments above save for the notable graduates. I red-linked them because someone may want to start an article on them. Three star general officer positions in the US army are limited by statute and require approval by the US Senate. I thought that was sufficient to be notable, so I limited the "notable graduates" list to three star generals and above. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article draws on a reasonable variety of sources and doesn't look to contain OR or synthesis.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Again, this could benefit by merging information from History of SAMS article. More up-front discussion of where this program fits into the Army's professional education and development program might also be helpful for those who aren't familiar with the process. It's good to say that it "fills a gap" as is done in the History section, but further illustration of the structure of the system might be helpful. It's good in specifics, but needs a touch more information to address the broad coverage aspect, IMO.

I added some more context about Professional Military Education. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Para 3 of the lede could stand some adjusting. Right now it doesn't feel NPOV. This section "is both a training ground and a think tank for some of the Army's brightest officers. It provides its graduates with the skills necessary to deal with the disparate challenges encountered in contemporary military and government operations." would read better if either directly sourced or adjusted to read "The masters program focuses on providing graduates with the skills needed to deal with..." and then continue with the original text. The boxed quotes also distract from NPOV. In many other places the prose could be toned down a bit. The Course section contains lines like "Selection for this challenging program involves an application process which includes an examination, an interview, and a supervisor assessment." Since we've already established that SAMS is challenging, it might read better as "Program application includes an examination, and interview, and a supervisor assessment." Also, is this assessment based on officer performance reports or some other mechanism?

Changed lede, removed a box quote, toned down prose as noted. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems stable

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Good images

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A solid article on the whole. Some possible merging from the History of SAMS piece and trimming of NPOV items will go far toward improving the article. This is also my first GA review, so please feel free to seek advice from others who have more experience in this area. I'm sure I missed something somewhere. At this stage I'd say fail, but clearly more eyes would be a good thing.

Thanks for the comments! --Airborne84 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Failed so that other editors can review. Intothatdarkness 13:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed text/refs

• From 'Contributions';

Lieutenant General David Huntoon stated in 2009 that SAMS "has established a corps of leaders, thinkers and planners who in the last two decades have reset the conditions for American military success”.

• From 'Advanced Operational Art Studies Fellowship ';

The AOASF is designed to graduate innovative risk takers willing to experiment," (2) "Exceptional commanders, schooled in the art of command, and leaders of campaign planning and strategic and operational design," (3) "Creative leaders who can solve complex-adaptive problems at the strategic and theater-strategic levels of conflict," (4) "Expert evaluators of the practical strategic and operational implications of cultural differences," and (5) "Masters at developing and mentoring junior officers."

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:School of Advanced Military Studies/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 18:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Yes, the prose has been thoroughly worked over in multiple content reviews and copy edited by the GOCE; the transitions are a little stilted in places but definitely acceptable for GA.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is very well referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I still have a few questions after reading the article, as listed in the comments, but still pretty good coverage of the topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes, no criticism of the subject is presented but no one seems to be criticizing it either.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Wow, this article has been heavily scrutinized! It's clearly benefitted from the attention though and it now meets the GA criteria. I am happy to close this review as pass. I've left some comments below as suggestions for further improvement. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• one of three United States Army schools that make up the United States Army Command and General Staff College - United States Army Command and General Staff College lists four schools; is this correct?

• You are correct, there are four schools. Casprings (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Infobox: Have you considered adding {{Infobox military unit}} to the article, like at United States Army Command and General Staff College and Joint Forces Staff College? If you don't want to do that, perhaps at least move the photo of the crest to the lead like at United States Army War College.

• I agree. I will add. Casprings (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Prose: In the first paragraph of the "history" section, it's not clear what following the Vietnam War refers to. It could mean either that there was a gap in U.S. military education following the Vietnam War or that the War College focused on grand strategy and national security policy following the Vietnam War, or perhaps both.

• The sentence is basically trying to say that it is filling a gap in the education. I see no reason for the mention of Vietnam.Casprings (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Coverage: Wass de Czege and two other U.S. Army officers planned and developed the school - who were these other two officers?

• The basic point was that he was the driving force. I think one can assume he didn't develop this alone. However, I see no reason to say he developed it with two officers. Just stating that he developed it is fine. Casprings (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• History: What was LTG Richardson's position at Fort Leavenworth? And can you provide his first name?

• Info added. Casprings (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• History: For the sake of context, why was the school regarded as a risky endeavour in its early years? Also, just to make sure we are offering balanced coverage, are there any who still criticize it?

• Because it took one year of time from their career(When they could be commanding) for a school of unknown worth. Will change some wordingCasprings (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• On second thought, I took that out. There is really no need to put in enough information to explain the trade offs in officer career timelines. Casprings (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• History: domestic contingencies, such as those in Los Angeles and Miami after Hurricane Katrina - I don't understand, what contingencies does this refer to?

  A reference to Defense Support of Civil authorities missions. Basically, DOD providing support to domestic authorities. Casprings (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Course and facilities - The quote box in this section is a little strange. It's not clear that von Schlieffen is the source of the quote and I'm not sure why The motto selected to describe the SAMS graduate is in quotation marks.

  I agree. Basically it was trying to convey sort of an unofficial motto. However, it is a bit strange there.

• Course and facilities - The second and third paragraphs seem a bit redundant - they contain overlapping information about the student body. Also, what are the "summer classes", and do they differ from the main program?

• Basically they take in two classes a year, a larger summer class and a smaller winter class. It is a reference to the start time of each course. I will edit those paragraphs some.

• Female students - Why is the line about the course being co-ed in the footnotes? If it is necessary at all, it should be in the article body.

• Agreed. Removed it.

• Citations - The citation style for the Bower references is inconsistent, The Lamp is italicized in one but not in the other.

• I have edited that several times in an attempt to fix it. If you could help, please do so.Casprings (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Curricula - In the future you might consider expanding the "Advanced Military Studies Program" section further, to make it the same length as the "Advanced Operation Art Studies Fellowship" section.

  I agree, that should be expanded some or combined.Casprings (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading list

I moved the "reading list" here because (1) it has no source, and (2) there is no date. The reading list likely changes over time, so there is no telling when this list was current. Please readd only with a reliable source and date. Airborne84 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading List

Roots of Strategy: Book 1 (Bk. 1) by Brig.Gen. Thomas R. Phillips

The Art of War (Smithsonian History of Warfare): War and Military Thought by Martin L. Van Creveld

The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century A.D. to the Third (Johns Hopkins Paperbacks) by Edward N. Luttwak

The Wizards of Armageddon (Stanford Nuclear Age Series) by Fred M. Kaplan

Roots of Strategy: Book 2 by Curtis Brown

Roots of Strategy Book: 4 Military Classics : The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783, Some Principles of Maritime

Strategy, Command of the Air, Winged Defense by Col. David Jablonsky

Strategy: Second Revised Edition (Meridian) by Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart

The Prince (Bantam Classics) by Niccolò Machiavelli

On War, Indexed Edition by Carl von Clausewitz

The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides

The Art of War by Sun Tzu

Clausewitz: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Howard

History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides

Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game by Michael Lewis

The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare (Cambridge Illustrated Histories) by Geoffrey Parker

Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman

On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy by Robert Audi

Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Vol 7&8 in One Book by Paul Edwards

How We Think by John Dewey

The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by Samuel P. Huntington

The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John J. Mearsheimer

Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History (Longman Classics in Political Science) by Joseph S. Nye

The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization by Thomas L. Friedman

The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War by Robert D. Kaplan

Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (Joanna Jackson Goldman Memorial Lecture on American Civilization) by John Lewis Gaddis

American National Security by Amos A. Jordan

The Making of Strategy: Rulers, States, and War by Williamson Murray

Bounding the Global War on Terrorism by Jeffrey Record

Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives by Mary Jo Hatch

Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning by Henry Mintzberg

Causality and Explanation by Wesley C. Salmon

Causality and Modern Science: Third Revised Edition by Mario Bunge

Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference by Judea Pearl

The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward R. Tufte

Visual and Statistical Thinking: Displays of Evidence for Making Decisions by Edward R. Tufte

Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941 by David C. Evans

Harnessing Complexity by Robert Axelrod

Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics by Todd Landman

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig