User talk:Howard C. Berkowitz

Howard C. Berkowitz

Current talk page

1, 2, 3, 4

Did you mean to do that?

I missed this the first time because I usually look at all the changes at the same time.. then I saw that you deleted something.. did you mean to do that? I was going to respond, but thought maybe you changed your mind or something. D. Matt Innis 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to delete; now trying to figure out how to restore it. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you like Ike?

How do you feel about the Dwight D. Eisenhower article from a military standpoint? Is it ready for approval? If so, could you nominate it? Then I'll get some people from other applicable workgroups to join in. --Joe Quick 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not ready. The WWII is better than Cold War; the Cold War has a lot of ideological baggage. It's fixable, but I need references and I'd like to get some Afghanistan things in better order -- to say nothing of some Vietnam material that's long been close to approval. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

RIM-2 Terrier

I have made a copy of your article in my draft space, with the minor modification of using the convert template instead of writing out the conversion. I have set the values to display what you had written, however if you want a more precise conversion simply change {{convert|12|km|feet|-4}} to display as {{convert|12|km|feet|2}} and it will display out to the second decimal.

If you like it this way, simply copy the draft into the article space. I have not touched anything other than the conversions.Drew R. Smith 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

DNS

Hi, Howard, did you see my last remark? Peter Schmitt 14:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I should have guessed this ... Peter Schmitt 14:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Howard, we need some feedback

Howard, please look at This thread in the forums. We need some feedback in that thread. Milton Beychok 06:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Air Force

Howard, Air Force is in state of moving, did you forget it?--Paul Wormer 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dutch air force

"Koninklijke Luchtmacht nu‎" means literally "Royal Air Force now" (nu = now). Why do you have the now? --Paul Wormer 15:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't speak Dutch and that's the translation given by my reference! We should, by all means, change it. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Kop or sysop needed to format AOTW

Hi Howard, can you please apply these changes to Ancient Celtic music and then set back CZ:Article of the Week to this version? Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that the second paragraph had a "<" removed, and the third one a " " added before the final onlyinclude. --Daniel Mietchen 20:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: This transcluded version starts with the article title, but this would not be needed in the approved page, as it already has that title. --Daniel Mietchen 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Now changed it such that you can simply copy the whole User:Daniel_Mietchen/Sandbox/AOTW into Ancient Celtic music. --Daniel Mietchen 22:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Underground

'subway' is the American term, it sees a little usage here too but 'underground' or 'metro' is more common, mainly because 'subway' over here refers to a pedestrian underpass. 'Metro' is the best general term I think, mainly because it's used worldwide and it doesn't restrict to systems with underground running. I put District Line in the Engineering workgroup, there needs to be a transport one though! Tom F Walker 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Internet protocol

Howard, you are answering so quickly that I suspect that you did not notice that a few days ago I put two questions/remarks on Talk:Internet Protocol. Furthermore, you should check if my edits are ok. Peter Schmitt 00:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

At Anycasting you have reacted immediately. May I ask what's the matter with Internet Protocol? Peter Schmitt 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know anything was outstanding. I'll check it soon; I'm trying to finish some things with books I have to return to the library this evening. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What title should I use?

Howard, I am writing an article on the U.S.'s Clean Air Act. That is its legal name, Clean Air Act. But some other countries also have Clean Air Acts. So how should I title the article on the U.S.'s Clean Air Act? At the moment, I am leaning toward "Clean Air Act (United States)".

What would you suggest? Milton Beychok 02:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd use Clean Air Act (U.S.). Howard C. Berkowitz 04:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

File transfer vs FTP

I answered you over on my talk page (I know it's easy to lose track when you edit someone else's talk page... a shortcoming of talk pages in my opinion) -Eric M Gearhart 14:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting for Domain Name System nominee for Article of the Week

Howard, I am not sure that it is kosher for you to change Peter Schmitt's vote from supporter to specialist supporter. I would feel more comfortable about it if you asked him to confirm that change either on your Talk page or my Talk page. Regards, Milton Beychok 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I accidently saw this and added a remark at User talk:Milton Beychok#Specialist supporter-- Peter Schmitt 20:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

pointer

Howard, I left a response on my talk page to your entry. I explain there why it took me so long to respond. Dan Nessett 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Internment

In light of emerging news about the Tamils, I'm considering starting an article on internment as a general practice. The topic covers military, politics, and sociology, so we definitely have enough editors to do a three-editor approval if some of them are involved. Care to join me? I'll probably download some reference materials today and tomorrow and get started some time this week.

P.S. I also intend to get back to the interrogation article and approvals in the next few days. Having a house guest got me distracted... --Joe Quick 20:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is internment a subset of extrajudicial detention? I would argue it mostly is; there are some "legal but nonjudicial" forms of internment specified by international law. I'd consider both detention of enemy aliens (and diplomats temporarily) in a declared war, and then population things such as the Japanese, both to be internment. Note that I exclude things that are intended to be harsh, such as the gulags and concentration camps from internment.

You weren't interrogating the house guest, were you?

I may be doing some short classes on interrogation and intelligence soon, a one-hour about the US probably approved this week, but perhaps a 4-8 week adult education course. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it's mostly a subset of extrajudicial detention. I can't think of any historical examples that weren't extrajudicial, but I don't think that part is actually intrinsic to the idea or practice of internment though. It doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine a legal system making allowances for the internment of certain categories of people. Some of the actions taken against Native Americans in U.S. history might count. I guess we'll find answers as we go along. --Joe Quick 03:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind about internment. The term really isn't defined well enough to create a useful article. I was finally convinced when I searched the text of the Geneva Convention for uses of the word. Oh well. I'll have to think of something else. --Joe Quick 03:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not Geneva Conventions primarily; see [1]; Vienna Conventions on diplomatic practice and International Humanitarian Law. I think you will find it mentioned in the GC Additional Protocols. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow! I felt like I was getting some general impressions but nothing specific enough to use as a basis for an article. That document positively affirms those broad themes though. Thanks! I find it fittingly humorous that, after I spent all that time coming to the conclusion that the details are vague at best, there's a line that reads, "The Fourth Geneva Convention makes it explicitly clear that internment..." Yeah right! --Joe Quick 13:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You are, as I recall, in the US? A few years ago, it became much more complex to have a prescription filled due to new HIPAA regulations. The act making these changes, and I am not joking, was the "HIPAA Adminstrative Simplification Act." Howard C. Berkowitz 14:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

transplantation

Is there a reason all of those articles need to be titled Transplantation, heterologous‎ and Transplantation, isogeneic‎ and so forth rather than Heterologous transplantation and Isogenic transplantation? If it is for keeping them together in lists, that can be done using the abc field in the metadata and leaving the title as the actual term. --Joe Quick 16:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The rationale is that those are the exact indexing terms used by the National Library of Medicine in Medical Subject Headings. I certainly don't mind redirecting in non-inverse order, and indeed am doing so for synonyms such as xenotransplantation, but I do believe that when there is an authoritative reference for a term, that should be the article name. As long as there are redirects, it shouldn't be a problem for the reader. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But that's an index. We have the abc field so that in our index-equivalents we can alphabetize them just the same. But regular old article titles aren't part of an index. --Joe Quick 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And again, the lede sentence says "heterologous transplantation". There's a redirect to that term. Yes, there may be indexing -- NLM isn't the only such source -- but I am emphatically in favor of the main article title using an authoritative name when one exists. The fact that the title of the article is something odd, as long as users can get to it and search engines can find it, doesn't hurt usability in the least. Indeed, it may help, because the authoritative term should be the search string in things like MEDLINE. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that those are really the "authoritative terms". They might be the authoritative terms after having been adjusted to be more easily found in an index. But I'm not going to argue because it isn't worth it. --Joe Quick 19:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Joe, I spent a number of years working at the Library of Congress, and indeed with NLM. As a chemist, I worked with the sometimes obscure nomenclature of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.

You may be confusing "authoritative name" with "user-friendly name". They aren't the same. Further, as long as there is a user-friendly way a search engine can find a concept, why is it so important that the article title be user-friendly rather than authoritative? I guess I don't know why you are making an issue of this — it's a fairly basic concept in library science. From a human factors standpoint, the issue is having multiple names available. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Military Editor Qualifications

Howard, do you have any idea what would qualify someone to be a Military Group editor? We have an applicant with 6 years military experience, but I have no idea what criteria to use for thie particular group. David E. Volk 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No simple answer. I could look at the background. For soldiers, look for command, training, or staff experience. For contractors/civil servants, look for things that indicate review or decisionmaking. Where things really get challenging is the avocational expert, soldier or civilian: I know medieval reenactors who are software engineers that know the Battle of Hastings, or Viking raiding, as well as people of the time. The best historian of the Byzantine Empire that I know is an Army Engineer sergeant. Remember, Tom Clancy was an insurance agent. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you okay with my nominating Chester Nimitz for New Draft of the Week?

Let me know as soon as possible ... or sooner. Milton Beychok 03:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nimitz is fine, although I really should make it a priority to do some updates to it. I was going to get E.B. Potter's biography on interlibrary loan, but it's mostly available on Google. There are a bunch of other updates I can make, and look quickly for sourcing. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been nominated. If you would like to add your vote as a supporter, please do so. Milton Beychok 07:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Block cipher

I've completed my move & am becoming active again. I've created AES competition, but more things mentioned in last couple of sections of Talk:Block_cipher need doing, and I'd like editor input first.

Two main questions, quoting talk page:

• It is becoming clear we need a catalog listing many block ciphers, perhaps starting with WP's list. I'm not sure how to create that; I could do it with an HTML table but there may be a way that is more wiki-ish or easier. Suggestions? Volunteers?

• What it the right format for article names? Blowfish cipher? Blowfish block cipher? Blowfish (cryptography)? Blowfish (cipher)?

The first one is not urgent; we can do that when we get to it, though likely it should be done before approval. The second is urgent; I want to create articles, but am not certain what to call them. "Blowfish (cipher)" would be my first choice, but I do not feel strongly about it. Sandy Harris 05:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say blowfish (cipher). And it can always be moved if it turns out to be the wrong choice.Drew R. Smith 06:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. How's the new area?

Catalogs confuse me as well, especially when they are more than a simple list; see Intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration/Catalog. Daniel or Milton might be able to advise; we really need some style guides.

Yes, I think Blowfish [minimal name] (word), where word preferably is a main article title. Right now, we have (block cipher), but if we have enough (cipher) articles, I think I'd prefer mildly, the more general if there is a (cipher) article.

Increasingly, I've started disambiguating things both when the basic word is ambiguous (e.g., Arrow (missile), or when it's cryptic and doesn't suggest anything (e.g., Vympel R-33 (missile)). I may be rationalizing, but I haven't put a (encryptor) on KG-34 because it follows the TSEC- system, and it will always be written TSEC/KG-34. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say (cipher) or (cryptography). Regarding catalogs: In this case a simple list of ciphers (classified according type, if feasable) is sufficient (similar to a Related articles subpage), maybe with the year it has been developed. Using the {{r}} template only if the definitions are reasonably different which they probably will not be. Peter Schmitt 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is done. Both block cipher and AES competition may now be close to approvable, and there are a whole lot of new (short, often incomplete) articles on specific ciphers or groups like CAST, RC*, SAFER, LOKI. Sandy Harris 01:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In the process, Ive created at least a dozen small articles for individual block ciphers: Tiny Encryption Algorithm, Square (cipher), etc. Most of these do not yet have subpages. What categories should they get? Obviously "computer", probably "mathematics", perhaps "military". I could just guess and/or mark them all for category check, but it seems better to ask.

Should they have a "main" tag? Cryptography? Block cipher? I'd say that's unnecessary since they all start with "<name> is a block cipher..." anyway. What do you think & is there a policy? Sandy Harris 07:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

linking acronyms

Just had a glance over cruiser. Should we be linking acronyms like "HMAS" and "DKM"? I figured out HMAS right away but had trouble with DKM. I presume the links would point to articles like Australian navy and Bundesmarine. Just a thought, but I didn't want to actually create the links without asking. --Joe Quick 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a first shot, but it's a little tricky. You'll see that I linked the acronym from a graphics caption, not a ship name, because the prefix is part of the ship name. We have, therefore, articles USS and USS Vincennes (CG-49). Germany used SMS and DKM, although I'm not sure that they use a prefix these days. DKM is even stranger since one usually referred to the WWII command as OKM. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"SMS" should be "Seiner Majestät Schiff". Peter Schmitt 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Howard, "Seine Majestäts Schiff" is still not correct. Peter Schmitt 00:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter, my German is non-native and mostly forgotten. Would you correct it, please? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I just did not want to interfere while you were working on it (and you know better where you used this phrase). Therefore I preferred to leave a message. You got it right in the definition, but not when moving the page. Peter Schmitt 10:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Having just looked over the Battle of Coronel), I do not think linking ship nationality prefixes (or whatever they are called) is a good idea. It's just too much linking and gets in the way of authoring. If a person is interested in what SMS means, they can (presumably) backlink through the SMS Scharnhorst page, etc. And as Howard pointed out above, the prefix is part of the ship's name. Russell D. Jones 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's rather why I wrote Battle of Coronel -- to explore what would happen. There's no question it is awkward for authoring. The prefix is part of the name. When we speak of "Mr. Smith", we don't link "Mr.", although I believe we do have an article somewhere that explains at least "miss" and "Mrs."

It is practical and useful to have links for such thing as ADM and LTG, but those aren't parts of names, but rather they are titles. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Grand Trunk Railway

Howard, I just nominated this one for approval. Please look it over. It's in the engineering workgroup. (I don't know why). Russell D. Jones 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We've generally put transportation into Engineering. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Kamehameha I

In my opinion, Kamehameha I is as close to being "complete" as it can be. I think I have covered all major aspects of his life. I am asking you four; Joe Quick (as approvals manager), Roger Lohmann (as a history and politics editor), Russell Jones (as a history editor), and Howard Berkowitz (as a military editor), to look over the article and suggest any changes you think neccessary. Between the five of us, I don't see why we can't get this article improved. Thanks for your time. Drew R. Smith 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Returning to Vietnam

Well, here's one site that identified the picture I think we were thinking about. Russell D. Jones 01:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Right; that's the most common one, which is not from the embassy. Note that it's a UH-1 helicopter, while the Embassy evacuation used much larger CH-53's. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on Earth's atmosphere

Howard, Earth's atmosphere is my first venture outside my field of expertise. I would appreciate any comments you may offer. Milton Beychok 19:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles on books...

I'd like to write an article on a book I recently read, The Age of Ra by James Lovegrove, and I wanted to take the time to ask a couple people about the mechanics of articles about books.

1. Are plot summaries ok?
2. Are lists of Characters ok, main characters or otherwise?
3. Is it ok to take a picture of the front cover to use as a picture for the article?
4. Is it ok to include an average retail price?

and finally

If included, should any of these things be put on a subpage?

Thanks Howard - Drew R. Smith 05:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've primarily been doing articles on nonfiction books, but on subjects where there is considerable reason to link to articles, include reviews, etc. See The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, The End of History and the Last Man, etc. Where I've done fiction, it's been part of a series such as Horatio Hornblower or Honor Harrington. Sounds like you might have other sorts of books in mind, but take what you like. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Technology Subgroup

I wonder if the engineering and history folks couldn't get together on this? Russell D. Jones 17:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. I might consider adding health sciences as well, as distinct from the pure sciences, because there are definitely technologies in healthcare. Military is also a possibility, depending on how one defines technology -- does it include organization? I might also argue that any military technology has to be engineered. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See this. You'd pipe engineering after history. Russell D. Jones 20:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Howard,

A bit late in getting back to you but thanks for the welcome! I made my account quite a while ago but only now am I starting to get back to Citizendium. I'm really working on a bunch of different topics at the moment to help build the Citizendium database and draw new people to the site. The vibe I am getting from the overall atmosphere of the forums and recent events is "this is the big one", the year that proves if Citizendium can compete if you will. If that is indeed the case, I will gladly do my part to show it can! --Mehar Gill 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Natural number/Related Articles

Howard, you and Daniel have edited Natural number/Related Articles. Since our views on what should be included seem to differ I would like to discuss what should and what should not be included to make the list useful. See this section of the talk page. Peter Schmitt 14:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

US states' RA pages

Okay, I can do that. I'm going to finish up the states right now and the remaining (31 to go) will use subheads. When I sweep through the states next, I will switch the others. Still, not sure why anyone would wish to link to the subheads. James F. Perry 18:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Names of cities

I'm almost done adding the "principal cities" to the Related Articles pages for all 50 U.S. states. I will move all of those city articles whose names do not conform to CZ Naming Conventions (proper form: Anchorage, Alaska). This means moving Los Angeles, for example (the article, not the city).

While doing the listings, I re-formatted those pages where necessary (changing bolding to subheads).

In case you're curious, I got the cities out of a road atlas, just using all those for which the atlas had inserts. There should be about 275 total, including almost all U.S. cities with population in excess of 100,000. Plus I made sure that all state capitals were included, and a very few others (Alamogordo, New Mexico comes to mind).

James F. Perry 18:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

State articles (standard outline)

I have posted an outline on the South Dakota page intended to be used as a type of template for the writing of detailed articles on each of the U.S. states:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/South_Dakota

Before copying it to all the other states' pages (or their associated talk pages), I would like to know if you have any comments or suggestions. If so, please add them to the South Dakota talk page.

James F. Perry 01:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

CDC Bioterrorism Agents-Disease list

Hi Howard, I think this list would fit best into a Catalogs subpage, but I have no idea what the most suitable article would be. Can you please take a look and rename accordingly? Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If anything, Daniel, it should be renamed to "List", because that is the actual name of the document: "CDC Bioterrorism Agents-Disease List". It's not a CZ List/Catalog I created on my own. Is there a good way to qualify this, such as "Official List"? Howard C. Berkowitz 13:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We do not keep lists in the main namespace unless on Catalogs subpages, so I moved this one around a bit, to finally land at CZ:List of bioterrorism agents and diseases (CDC). --Daniel Mietchen 13:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I really would like this moved back. It is not a "list" in the conventional CZ sense, as it is accompanied by descriptions of categorizations of the organisms and is not a catalog. As a Military Workgroup Editor, I rule that it is the name of a document with official status in biological warfare, and the fact that the name contains the word "list" does not move it out of mainspace. There are a number of "lists" of export-controlled items, such as the Militarily Controlled Technologies List, where the actual item-by-item list is a relatively small part of the document, just as are the "schedules" in the Chemical Warfare Convention. There are, incidentally, a large number of links to this document, both as the article itself and its definition page in R-templates.Howard C. Berkowitz 14:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's collaborate on generating a proposal

Howard,

We probably have done about as much as possible running the idea of involving an external organization with a proposed internet workgroup on the forum. I think we should now put our heads together and come up with some details. I will get some organization to the pages on the wishlist item CZ:Wishlist and let you know when that is done. In the meantime, maybe we can think about the tasks involved in getting a relationship going. What do you think? Dan Nessett 21:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have added some pages where we can do our work. Our wishlist item is the fifth one down, currently the last entry. Take a look at the pages and edit them according to your taste. I will start working on the proposal tomorrow morning by adding some ideas to the Establish Relationship with External Organization page. If you want to get a headstart, go for it. Dan Nessett 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Shabab

I didn't want to distract the conversation you started in the forums, but you mentioned starting an article about Al Shabab. I've seen some other news coverage about them recently, on something or other that was relatively important but which I can't recall. Google news might be a good place to start if you have any plans for expanding the article. It always seems like a good idea (though frequently an impractical one) to try to stay a little ahead of what the public is likely to be looking up. Unfortunately, all I know is that Al Shabab seems to be a pretty big player in Somali politics, as it seems to control rather a lot of territory.--Joe Quick 15:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Got it. It was an attack on an African Union base at the end of August. Incidentally, the NY Times, though as a news outlet it's not as inherently reliable as some other sources might be, has a pretty good summary of just what the organization is about. --Joe Quick 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response; I had to work until much later than usual yesterday. I don't think the Somalia article is really ready to be featured as an article of the week yet: it doesn't contain any information about the geography, natural resources, or cultures of the country yet. The material about wars and conflict is good, but if we feature it with only that material, I'm afraid we'd be sending a pretty negative message about Somalia. I wish I knew enough to expand those other sections. The al-Shabab article is an admirable start, and very pertinent to current events, so I'm going to nominate it for NDOTW. --Joe Quick 13:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunno how to encourage collaboration on Somalia short of actually asking people. I noticed there isn't yet a plan for the write-a-thon theme next month so I suggested "continents." I guess the idea for "Big Collaborations" never really went anywhere, though we could try to revive it... --Joe Quick 17:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Charter drafting candidacy

Hi Howard,

Thanks for accepting your nomination to be a candidate for election to the drafting committee for the Citizendium charter.

If you'd like, there is a provision in the plan that provides a place for you to compose a position statement. You are not required to do this in order to be a candidate for election to the committee, but it would be helpful to others during the voting period. Even if you don't compose a statement before the election period concludes, should you be elected it might be helpful for other members of the committee to know what you feel are the most important issues to address with the draft. You can find a red link to the page where you can write your statement here, along with instructions for doing so.

If you have any questions, just let me know. --Joe Quick 15:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Please respond to my request on the talk page of the Internet article

Howard,

I have stated my views on rolling back the Internet article to the old text. You decided to do this (perhaps before reading my comments on the Internet talk page). I don't want to get into an edit war with you, so would you take the time to respond to my comments? Thanks. Dan Nessett 04:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up

Howard, re history of computers: I believe the following page needs some work: List_of_seminal_concepts_in_computer_science --Paul Wormer 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

On this, I'm not even sure where to start or what we want to do. It seems to me more like a list of work items for the computers workgroup than an actual article. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Another page needing attention is RF_electronics. You did some work on it. --Paul Wormer 17:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this came from User: Sekhar Talluri, as part of a series of edits he made in May. My edits were to try to bring it into more conformity with radio. If he isn't actively working on the topic, perhaps the better fix is to find out where this text was referenced, and see what is specific to his instrumentation articles and what can be a more general part of the radio article.

If it's about MRI, I really would like a guide to that black art. I think I understand CT and SPECT, but how the image gets formed in MRI always has mystified me. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Natural gas

Thanks for your comments on Natural gas. I have implemented your suggestion that I replace the word "natural gas" with the word "methane' wherever it is appropriate. Milton Beychok 06:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

speech recognition

Howard, do you know enough about Speech Recognition to feel comfortable approving it as a Computers Editor? It looks like a bunch of people have put in quite a lot of work. I only skimmed quickly but it looks like good work, too. At minimum, we need to move the article to a lowercase title before we approve, but that might be just about all.
Thanks,
Joe (Approvals Manager) 05:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this reference pertinent to your article on Agent Orange?

"A Database on Dioxin and Furan Emissions from Municipal Incinerators", M.R. Beychok (1987), Atmospheric Environment", Volume 21, Number 1, pp.29-36

(I happen to know the author fairly well) Milton Beychok 07:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Howard. Can you use the above reference or not? Let me know. Milton Beychok 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that article was written about 23 years ago and people were just beginning to wake up to the idea that dioxin and furan emission regulations were needed. The U.S. EPA's regulations had not been promulgated as yet. The method's for analyzing dioxins and furan emissions in the parts per trillion range didn't really exist as yet. My paper was one of the first that tried to provide a data base from which a commonly-accepted characterization of those emissions might be evolved. I just thought it might be of interest in your Agent Orange viewpoint from a historical viewpoint. I no longer have a copy . If you wanted to read it, it would require a visit to a library with Atmospheric Environment copies dating back to the 1980s. Milton Beychok 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Forgotten Soldier

Hi, Howard, I've done a little cleaning up here and subpaging etc., but it could use some more and it clearly falls under your editorship. It appears to be mostly derived from the WP article but is almost entirely paraphrased so it *probably* doesn't need the WP checkbox, but that is your decision, I would say. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 17:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Howard, thanks for helping out. I started reading the book a few days ago and was completely amazed at how good it is. The Wikipedia article does it no justice so I thought I should create one on Citizendium. I will be adding to it overtime, hopefully it can become a approved article before the end of the month.

Thank you for those recommendations, I will have to put it on list, I don't want to take on too many articles at one time so I will have to finish the ones I have already started work on before moving on with more.

Thanks again! --Mehar Gill 18:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bernie Schriever

What about at least a stub about him? A big new important book about him has just come out? Hayford Peirce 04:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Air Force general? Howard C. Berkowitz 05:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, first page review of the book in the Sunday NYT book section -- says he was a *very* very important man that most people have now forgotten. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/books/review/Beschloss-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Bernard%20Schriever&st=cse Hayford Peirce 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Essentially father of the US ICBM program. There are three redlinks to Schriever Air Force Base.

I'd be willing to review an article on him, but, for my own article creation, I'm tending to focus on things that help give background for the current world situation, military force development, etc. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Term/Title for industry

Howard, look at my latest response to you on Talk:Petroleum crude oil. Milton Beychok 21:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Anycasting

Howard, you mentioned Anycasting. I have not forgotten it. But there are still the two dead links. You wanted to replace them. See talk (I think they could also be deleted.)
Are you familiar with WebCite? Could/should this be used for your online links?
Peter Schmitt 20:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just nominated Anycasting for approval. Have a look on my copy editing. Moreover, the third link in External Links is broken. You will have to replace or delete it. What about WebCite? Peter Schmitt 23:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you also don't know WebCite this can wait until we find someone who knows more about it. Peter Schmitt 00:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Howard, you are of course busy with the charter. But perhaps you can spare a little time and look at User talk:David MacQuigg#Anycasting. Peter Schmitt 23:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Barbeque & Cancer

Perhaps a section on the barbeque-induced production of benzo[a]pyrene and many other fine cancer-causing chemicals would kill the joy out of the lovely barbeque food people enjoy. Now that I think of it, how would a guy "name" a page for something like benzo[a]pyrene with the square brackets?? Perhaps some nowiki tags in the name of the article? David E. Volk 20:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

%5D and %5B? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazi military and SS ranks

That's a very informative article, I've bookmarked it, great work! What else needs to be done before it is ready for approval? --Mehar Gill 03:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops

I've done that before! You edited the approved version. :-) D. Matt Innis 23:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Where to begin?

Howard, if you were to want someone to take a look at an article and give you a little active feedback :), where would you send them first? D. Matt Innis 01:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me offer several articles that are on top of hierarchies. First, "functional":

• Interrogation
• Extrajudicial detention

And then subject areas:

• Afghanistan War (2001-)
• al-Qaeda
• Taliban
• Iraq War
• Gulf War

Thanks! Howard C. Berkowitz 01:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I started on Interrogation. Lots of good information there! I like the real stuff (like how they could tell what base the pictures were taken from:). I guess you can't have too much of that, but it did make it more interesting. I've been checking resources, too, and so far everything looks good. I started making remarks on the talk page ( I saw you handled the Reid technique), but then decided that most were just some minor re-wording to make it clearer because i, as a lay person, was not familiar with a term and had to read it a couple times. I don't think I changed the meaning of much, but if I did, do revert it. I'll continue again tomorrow! FOr now, I'm gonna get some shut-eye! D. Matt Innis 03:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Domain name system

Howard, if you find time, could you have a look at DNS. Moreover, perhaps you should also review the article once more (and also check my copy edits). Peter Schmitt 23:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder. And what is your opinion on the status of Anycasting/Draft? Peter Schmitt 13:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

phytotherapy

Howard, I have no imediate plans to expand phytotherapy but may work on interlinking it with my current work today in the future. David E. Volk 19:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Very cool and user-friendly way to handle footnotes in web publications

© Text: Harper's Magazine
A very cool and user-friendly way to handle footnotes in web publications. CZ should do this.

...said Stephen Ewen (talk)

Interesting, though I do not know how to change text colour on mouse over. --Daniel Mietchen 11:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Block cipher

This article is now number four on Special:MostRevisions, at well over 1000 edits. You said at one point Talk:Block_cipher#Procedurally_confused "I'm perfectly happy to nominate, though." Can we go forward with that? Sandy Harris 15:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Congress members' pages

By all means, let me know what standard sections should be included on the pages for members of the U.S. Congress. Probably a section on committee assignments. Maybe a section for voting record. If you can develop a standard template or outline for structuring such articles (such as exists for the state articles - see the article on South Dakota, for example), then I would be happy to follow that outline on any U.S. Congress members' pages on which I work. James F. Perry 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In my recent additions to the states' Related Article pages, I have been entering the names of Senate and House members as they appear on the Senate and House web sites (http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov). This means that some of them include middle initials. If the CZ page does not include the middle initial, it will have to be taken out in order for the link to be removed. In the long run, I believe that the page name should match the name whcih the Congressperson uses on his or her official Senate or House web site. James F. Perry 02:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they aren't always consistent even in their own websites, or the website might be "James X. Jones" but all campaign literature refers to "Jim Jones". Howard C. Berkowitz 02:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Another suggestion I have is to work from the states' Related Article pages when making definitions or lemma articles. I have found 4 mis-assigned states so far. If the states' RA pages are used, that would provide an automatic check on at least that datum. The entries into the states' RA pages are made directly from the state-by-state listing on the official House web site. I expect to complete those listings in the next day or so. James F. Perry 03:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly logical. In general, however, I have been starting the entry from lists of committee or caucus members, which again aren't always consistent about names. The cross-check, however, certainly is reasonable. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Voting ratings for Congressional personnel

I just constructed a wikitable for the Voter ratings (see the Tim Johnson page). The third column is for a Source. The Christian Coalition is referenced in the table. Their scorecard gives Johnson a 30%. Where did you get the 16% rating which you had listed?

Also, it appears that the NRA ratings are in a members-only section of their web site.

The idea is to get that table all ready to go before copying it into 435 separate pages.

James F. Perry 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Christian Coalition was from On he Issues.

You might be interested in some more methodology. When I saw James Oberstar as a redlink, I did a text search. That gave me several "related articles" pages where he was part of an imparted list; I created the entry under Congressional Native American Caucus. He also came up on U.S. Congressional Caucuses, which is an odd topic -- many of the caucuses have no webpage or limited documentation, and the membership builds up only from the listed leaders, and people mentioning it in their biography. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Howard

Can you check this out. D. Matt Innis 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Congresspersons: "bare bones" article

I have been developing the Stephanie Herseth Sandlin article as an example of a "bare bones" article for U.S. Congress members. Of course, the voter ratings need to be filled in and I think there may be some more Congressional Caucuses also. James F. Perry 02:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

More questions

Can you have a look at Talk:Brute_force_attack/Draft#Approved_Version_1.0 and Talk:VENONA?

I think cryptography is getting close to approvability (is that a word?). What are your thoughts on that? Sandy Harris 05:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I'm still musing that stream cipher is being drafted at the same time as urinary retention.

I saw you did a redirect of code (cryptography), which makes sense. Should there be, however, a definition on the redirect so code can be used in related articles tables? For that matter, I suspect we need a disambiguation page for code; I can do that. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Howard Katz Berkowitz?

Did you see the Deletion log? Is this an alter-ego, an impersonator, an admirer or a long-lost brother? Heh. –Tom Morris 18:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, Hayford's alter ego. If and when my feline associates register, they will be more subtle about it. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Howard's katz, or someone, will write up a Forum message about this one of these days. Hayford Peirce 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Before I forget..

Take a look at Talk:U._S._intelligence_activities_in_Guatemala. Chris Day 03:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Free statistical software

Howard, this is from the Approved errors list. It needs your input and I can do it. D. Matt Innis 18:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Kerberos

Would you have anything to add at Talk:Kerberos? Sandy Harris 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2009/12/homeopathy_the_basics.php

Howard, your link to sympathetic_magic fails on the above website. --Paul Wormer 15:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Where next on crypto articles?

What needs doing next among the crypto articles? I'm about to start a holiday, about six weeks, and likely won't do much on CZ in that time, but it would be nice to have a plan

I gave you a list of articles I thought were getting near approval some time back, User_talk:Howard_C._Berkowitz/Archive_2#Approvals.3F. Most of my questions there are still open, though block cipher has since been approved. See Talk:Cryptology and Talk:AES competition for recent comments.

History of cryptography is currently fairly meager. Is that, or perhaps History of Cryptology or History of Cryptanalysis, where the historical stuff in your old outline belongs? Are those three articles or one?

The bigger or more important articles first? I think Cryptography is near approval; what do you suggest there?. Cryptanalysis still needs work, perhaps even re-organisation. Hash (cryptography) and stream cipher need quite a bit of work, likely from someone who knows more about those than I do.

Or smaller articles first? Perhaps start with Active attack, Passive attack and their children? Sandy Harris 09:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Howard?

Since you're stuck in the cold without a car today, maybe you can riddle this for me:

Has there been any discussion recently about situations like Viennese Waltz where we have a definition only? Is that one of those lemming articles you were talking about? I started pondering this because at some point we were discussing having the definition show up in the article namespace if there was a definition only. Do you know what I mean? Do *I* know what I mean? Aleta Curry 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the poor lemmings. Yes, it would be nice if they showed up in the article namespace. I'm not sure if they should count as live articles. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right--good point. No, they shouldn't count as live articles. I was just wondering if we could point to a definition if there were no article. Maybe it's not such a great idea? Aleta Curry 10:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we need to think of terms in reclassifying articles. Let me throw out a preliminary proposal for articles:

• All non-external articles
  • Current legitimate articles
  • Current lemma articles not ever expected to be much more than a definition, although they might have Related Articles and perhaps other subpages. The key point is that some of these articles are definitions that apply to more than three workgroups. Maybe the use of a General Workgroup would allow many of them to become "full" articles, or maybe not.
  • Current lemma articles that are quite plausible to become, eventually, full articles, but are being imported as large numbers of brief definitions. For example, think of memberships in political bodies, interest groups, etc. I'm bringing in tens or hundreds of members of each when I bring them in. There may not be much more to say in the first batch. As soon as I start bringing in membership from other groups, so that a person belongs to multiple groups,
• External articles (maybe also unmodified articles from WP, etc.)

Venezeula

Howard, you transposed two letters, it is Venezuela. Can you move?--Paul Wormer 15:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Or just delete it. If you want the history, it's possible, but not really necessary. D. Matt Innis 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nahh, it's just a lemma now, although I plan to fill it out one of these days if someone else doesn't. I'm no expert on South America, but it is a high priority country. --Howard C. Berkowitz 18:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the misspelled one. Hayford Peirce 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuze??

I know the dictionary provides both "fuse" and "fuze" ... but I've always used "fuse" so your title looks strange to me. It might be interesting to hear what others think. Regards, Milton Beychok 06:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What is it that seems strange? Certainly, in military engineering -- and indeed in explosives for civil engineering and the like -- the two are related. Fuse is an improper subset of fuze in a broad historical context, although there are very few demolitions fuses that are not also fuses. There are many fuzes, however, that do not use any fuses. User: Howard C. Berkowitz 4 February 2010

My dictionary has them as one and the same ... neither is a "subset" of the other. But maybe I'm being fussy (or fuzzy?). Milton Beychok 06:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My (British) Collins (1979) has to meanings of "fuse" -

• (1) a lead (a safety or a detonating fuse) or any device to ignite a charge, and
• (2) a fuse used as protective device in electric circuits, and similar devices.

For the first sense (1) "fuze" is given as U.S. variant spelling.

--Peter Schmitt 13:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that dictionary definitions here are less relevant than specialized technical usage, technical manuals and specific experience? You will note that I disambiguated the electrical and pyrotechnic fuses. Nevertheless, it's hard to say that a slowmatch at the Battle of Trafalgar shares any similarity with a programmable hard target fuze. Regardless of what a general dictionary is saying, I handled fuses that were not fuzes, fuzes containing no fuse, and fuze-fuse systems.

For that matter, we haven't even touched fusee, which I suspect is more British English. More common American English for "fusee" would be "highway flare". Both a fusee and a fuse are pyrotechnic devices that use burning; the fusee isn't a delay timer but a source of bright colored light.

Most hand grenades have an overall fuze, of which a fuse is a subsystem.

Might I suggest there are very real and specific engineering distinctions here that are more substantive than general dictionaries? Trust me -- when one is handling explosives, one gets really, really compulsive about precise definitions. --Howard C. Berkowitz 13:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Howard, I did not doubt your expert knowledge. I just wanted to add a bit of evidence that in common language "fuze" and "fuse" are spelling variants (for one of the two meanings) only. As this discussion proves this is confusing for non-expert readers (even for native American speakers). Therefore I suggest that both variants point to a single disambiguation page (fuse and fuze, or fuse and fuze (disambiguation), fuse (disambiguation), fuze (disambiguation), where this is explained (and where links to probably both fuze (military) and fuse (military) are provided. --Peter Schmitt 14:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to look at dictionaries, you have to use British ones for British English and American ones for Amerian English. For example, over here meter and metre are two different words, but Merriam-Webster just gives metre as British for meter without mentioning the distinction. Peter Jackson 17:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What should the disambiguation page(s) be titled?

There is existing fuse (disambiguation). Is it being suggested that fuze be added to that page, and an additional fuze (disambiguation) page, including "s" and "z", be created? I'd suggest, if so, that both pages have a bit more text than the usual disambig page, pointing out that what many regard as a mere spelling variant, and freely interchange, actually do cover different concepts.

Is there anyone here who writes British English and has explosives & demolitions experience? Perhaps British, and European usage as a derivative, is different. On the other hand, pre-20th century fuzes either were simply fuses, or, in clockwork-driven time fuzes, still eventually ignited a pyrotechnic fuse. Modern hand grenades still use a variant of the latter, although more complex weapons fuzes, certainly those that must work at high speed, are purely electrical without a pyrotechnic component. They send initiating power to a detonator, which, at the simplest, heats a wire embedded in a primary explosive. Far more exotic technologies, such as exploding metal foil, are used in ultrahigh speed detonators, as is used in fission weapons, and, without quite as stringent a requirement, things such as explosively formed projectiles. Pyrotechnic fuse propagation just isn't fast or reliable enough for microsecond-range sequencing. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, rereading, "Fuse and fuze (disambiguation)". I can go with that. Any other opinions? I will keep fuse (disambiguation). --Howard C. Berkowitz 15:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Article on U.S. Military Standard

Howard, I just finished ASTM International and International Organization for Standardization. It would be helpful to also have an article on U.S. Military Standard (MIL-STD or MIL-SPEC). Is that something you could or would do?

MIL-STDs are more a publication process than something like ISO. They are actually getting less common as more COTS equipment meets adequate standards. Essentially, some military organization signs off on a specification in its field (e.g., MIL-STD-188 are for digital communications) and has the printing center in Philadelphia start listing it.

Also, do you know anything about the "International Electrotechnical Commission"? Do they write standards on computer hardware or software? Does any organization do that? Milton Beychok 03:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sleepy enough to blank, but they are, as I remember, mostly an international organization that endorses national standards for hardware. I'll get a definition in the morning, but I must confess I can't remember ever calling for an IEC specification in a design -- the specification was jointly issued with someone else, such as IEEE or ANSI or even ISO. `Howard C. Berkowitz 04:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

An aside

As a little sidebar here for an EC member and guy who calls OSI "Frankenstein's Monster" (I love that one by the way)...I wanted to say that the CZ policy:

"There will be a separation of powers: enforcement officials ("constables") will not be able to make editorial decisions, and editors will not have the ability to enforce their own decisions, though they will be able to make recommendations. "

Seems to me to be working quite well for me here...with a few isolated exceptions.--David Yamakuchi 20:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible article Terrorism prevention strategies

Howard, I'm a former Wikipedian and CZ nooB (few days). I wrote a generally good article on "Terrorism prevention strategies" with 160 references perhaps, but a WP administrator didn't like it saying it was a "very long long long stub". And he/she deleted it. But I'm wondering if you might be interested in this subject. I'll try to post it to my sandbox page soon (right now Spinoza's in there). User talk:Thomas Wright Sulcer/sandbox. Plus, the CZ article on "terrorism" is superior to Wikipedia's in my opinion. --Thomas Wright Sulcer 15:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A long, long, long stub? What next, Jumbo Shrimp, Military Intelligence? Hayford Peirce 15:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wise Constable? :-) Hmmm...we may not have Military Intelligence per se, but I can do something on some of the national branches and organizations. Intelligence people in the military will work at all levels of intelligence under grand strategy, as well as in the various intelligence collection disciplines, and specific units such as the Military Intelligence Company (Brigade Combat Team) and Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition Squadron (Brigade Combat Team).

Yes, I would be interested in working with it. There is an article on terrorism, which, while Approved, was somewhat before my time here, and needs an update -- there's too much ideology and emotion in it. Other articles of interest might be insurgency and the shorter counterinsurgency as well as the U.S. doctrine, foreign internal defense. There is also a developing counterterrorism — does your material fit into it?

The first step, I think, is to agree what we mean by terrorism. I regard it as a tactic, practiced differently by different groups but having some common elements. It would be nice to get a Version 2 Approved Terrorism article.

Incidentally, you can have /sandbox1, /sandbox2, etc. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The material for the "Terrorism prevention strategies" article is in a sandbox: User talk:Thomas Wright Sulcer/sandbox. It is somewhat long. There are lots of references. Somehow, I'm just not that happy with the overall article but I can't put my finger on what bothers me about it. But maybe parts of it could be included in an article about counterterrorism? I don't know.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

About the definition of terrorism. As you know there are so many senses and it's highly pejorative. But I'm willing to go along with your sense of what it means. I spent time on WP trying to get a better definition of it, and the best that I and another editor could come up with was something like this: nobody agrees about the definition, but it USUALLY means violence or the threat of violence, usually intended to cause fear, usually for political purposes, usually directed at innocents (or with disregard to the safety/well-being of innocents), often directed at governments, often staged as a way to get media attention, etc. And the more of these things which happen to be there (IF deliberate, IF done for media attention, IF directed at innocents etc) then the more LIKELY it was to be terrorism. Sheesh. And sometimes governments act like terrorists. I think something along these lines is the mainstream view of terrorism. My own personal (POV) sense of terrorism is "violence against individual rights" with three types of terrorists (criminal, tyrant, foreign terrorist) but this is not the mainstream view.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Howard, let me know how I can help with the "terrorism prevention strategies" article, like, if you want to chop it up and use it in existing articles, that's fine, or whatever you decide. Give me some sense of how I can assist you. I'm fairly adept at researching topics. Wondering if there is any preferred method of referencing. In the meantime I'll try to import other of my WP creations to CZ, and put in sandbox pages, or else work on Philosophy of Spinoza to try to improve it from before.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Howard I'm waiting for you to decide what you want to do about "terrorism prevention strategies" -- if you want to chop it up for other articles, abandon it, or split it -- it's up to you. Right now it's in the sandbox and I'm interested in other stuff.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's definitely material there that's complementary to anything here, and which should be used. The most useful pieces are the introductions for the nonspecialist, in what might be called the domain of "anti-terrorism", or the actions to mitigate acts once they happen. Very similar actions also apply to preparedness for natural disasters and industrial accidents -- if the only practical response to a dirty bomb, imminent industrial explosion, or hurricane is to evacuate, the preparedness is going to be the same. My first challenge is a reasonably terse name for an article. "Individual emergency preparedness" is the first that comes to mind, perhaps with a higher level article dealing with the concept of widespread emergencies from the citizen perspective, as opposed to Incident Command System. Reality check here: would such a title also encompass preparedness at the family/household level, and, perhaps where it gets into volunteer organizations with guidance, neighborhood level? Indeed, would that be the place for things such as county-level Medical Reserve Corps?

I have to give more thought to strategic terrorism prevention. Unfortunately, I have a number of articles that give responses, in terms of individual action, which are more demagoguery. For example, while there are innumerable economic and social issues about the physical borders of the U.S. and border security, the existing system caught terrorists coming across the Canadian border. It wouldn't have addressed domestic terrorism such as Oklahoma City or Fort Hood, both primarily self-radicalization. Some would-be 9/11 terrorists were unable to enter the country. More stringent measures against Muslims, such as those proposed by Brigitte Gabriel, (e.g., would not have stopped non-Muslim homegrown terrorism, and indeed might have people looking in the wrong direction for jihadist threats. --Howard C. Berkowitz 17:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for you to come up with a plan. If you'd like me to lead here, let me know; otherwise I'll work on other stuff.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Reality check: what do you think of Individual emergency preparedness as an article title to deal with the personal protection and preparedness? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Like it. If you need stuff from the sandbox, use it. If you need my assistance, let me know.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of an article on COBRA?

Until I heard it discussed on a radio programme about police anti-terror strategy that I listened to today, I had never heard of COBRA - Cabinet Office Briefing Room A - the emergency briefing room underneath Whitehall where members of the Cabinet, the police, security services and the armed forces meet when faced with a terrorist attack or other significant crisis. I figure you may know more about it than I do. I'm not even sure where it would be put in the Workgroup structure: it is sort of Military, and sort of Politics. It really is that sticky knot of policing, governance, emergency response, the security services and the military. Former anti-terrorism copper Andy Hayman says Cobra has problems, for instance, citing political faffing-around after the July 7th 2007 bombings. Interested? –Tom Morris 02:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I was worried you wanted on the object broker, about which I know less than I do about either the command system or the reptile. Not always under the same name, it goes back to WWII.

Yes, you point out a problem of the workgroups; many Military articles are more Grand Strategy or international relations, to say nothing of domestic terrorism and disaster response. I know much more of the U.S. response systems, but have some knowledge of the British. While it's Cold War, there is an excellent if fictional description in Gen. Sir John Hackett's History of the Third World War. I believe its role was also detailed after the (1970?) Iranian embassy takeover. I'm not sure I'm current enough on UK politics to discuss the governmental level. For example, I have no idea of the UK counterpart of the Stafford Act for disaster authority. You do have a simpler governmental structure, without as strict a separation between police and military, to say nothing of multiple police jurisdictions. (At one time when I lived in the District of Columbia, there were at least 23 police organizations of different authority; eventually, an undercover operations clearinghouse had to be established after a shooting between elements of the Metropolitan Police and the FBI). --Howard C. Berkowitz 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

About "History of US citizenship"

Another author/editor looked it over in the sandbox and suggested we wait a week or so before putting "History of US citizenship" live. There were concerns about "original research". So I consented to waiting. I don't remember the other author/editor's name at this point but just letting you know.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 15:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd propose to simplify the article by spinning off some articles from it. If you approve, I'd like to move most of the biographies to mainspace, and write a general introduction/expansion. The Citizenship article can still have a "scholarship" section, but compressed with wikilinks to the detailed articles.

There are some other parts that also could be free-standing. By moving those out, we can look more closely on what is original research, original synthesis/expert commentary, and things that can be sourced.

I now have to do what isn't quite "network handyman", but to install a wireless router in the house network, but guessing at the actual configuration (i.e., what a network engineer needs to know) from the "helpful and beginner friendly instructions". Hopefully, this won't leave things down too long. --Howard C. Berkowitz 17:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal about spinning off the biographies -- I wrote other biographies about two of them (Ginsberg, Nelson) for WP which we can import (at least the versions from about a month ago I know were solid). Kaplan has a bio on WP too but I didn't work on it. Regarding Habermas, I worked on WP's The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere book and a little on his WP bio. But my sense is before we do anything to this article, to wait for feedback from the other editor, and see what happens first before proceeding. I still think it's an interesting article (somewhat long for CZ); if it ever goes live, I have new ideas for things to expand about it, particularly regarding the legal aspects of citizenship, and bring in new thinkers, such as PK Howard who wrote Life Without Lawyers.-Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

PS good luck with your new router.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm having coffee and a nap first. Tom, I've designed routers. I've architected some of the biggest routed networks. Why should it be so hard to find the actual principles of operation in the user manual, rather than "take the blue wire goes to your computer from the modem box" when I have routers in between and branching? Bah Humbug!

Incidentally, a reminder on CZ vs. WP: everyone is a Citizen and Author. Some Citizens are also Editors, with verified credentials, in, for example, Politics. There's a Sociology Workgroup, but that's effectively Civil Society. We'll probably redo the workgroups once the Charter is passed and the new Editorial Council is in session." Howard C. Berkowitz 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You designed routers. Wow. Super cool! I'm less technical than you by a long shot, although I used to write computer programs in BASIC when I had an Atari 800, that I used in market research. I appreciate how difficult this electronic stuff can be. I tried once to teach myself electronics but didn't get very far. Thanks for info about terminology which I'm still trying to get used to.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 01:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fresco, the writer of Prem Rawat Foundation

Howard check out these two links:

http://mail.citizendium.org/pipermail/cz-religion/2008-February.txt

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/09/fresco_retires_from_wikipedia/

I had assumed this was either deleted or in TI namespace. Chris Day 03:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I think about it, I remember deleting the bibliography that was floating without metadata for a long time. I assumed the other pages had been deleted, but I guess it was lost in a move. Chris Day 03:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My gut tells me the entire thing should go, but I suppose it can go to TI space. --Howard C. Berkowitz 04:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Howard, seeking your advice here. I know CZ doesn't have a "traffic statistics" tool like WP has. But, are there any other ways to determine if CZ is, indeed, getting more readership? Like, is there a weekly score of requests for new CZ accounts? Do you have records for this in the past? And wondering if this changes, would it mean anything, readership wise? A second way is to see where CZ comes up in Google searches -- if CZ articles start to get closer to the first page, then this would be a good indication, right? Wondering about your thoughts about this.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 12:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Constables would have the requests for new accounts. A depressingly high percentage, however, never make an edit.

My own feeling is that part of the problem is the frequency of use of free email accounts and the delay in verification, but that can't be changed until the new Charter comes in and the policy can be reviewed. Nevertheless, it is known many WP people only make one edit, so I may be wrong. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Other questions

Is cryptography ready for approval?

Can you comment at Talk:AES competition or Talk:Cryptology#What_next.3F?

Cryptography is probably ready -- it's more been a question of when to close Version 1. I'll review it.

I have set up Category:Security Subgroup; you may want to start adding to it -- I'll try Cryptography.

I'll be happy to endorse you on LinkedIn -- do you want it under your present job or do you want to create a CZ entry? --Howard C. Berkowitz 16:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll add a CZ category. Sandy Harris 16:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The security subgroup is a good idea. Currently it shows this page as included, and the tag shows up at the bottom here. Was that intentional?

How far down the hierarchy do we add that tag? Cryptology, cryptography, and cryptanalysis are tagged now, but so far the next level, things like block cipher and passive attack, aren't; I'd say they should be. The lowest level, articles on specific ciphers or attacks, could be tagged as well. Also the protocols, PGP, IPsec, ...

What about the historical articles? ULTRA, VENONA and FreeSWAN leap to mind but there are probably others. Biographies? Do we tag Alan Turing? Legal/political articles? DRM, Cypherpunk, Cryptography controversy, ...? Sandy Harris 15:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes to all, I think. I just got tired of editing metadata and then jogging. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been tagging a lot. We're up to 96 articles, some of which I wasn't aware of until I started following "what links here" on other articles. Care to push it over 100?

I have not been tagging biographies; most of them have done things other than security too, and they'll be linked from the security topics where relevant. Sandy Harris 02:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

105 now. I think I am done, at least for a while. Sandy Harris 15:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow Howard

Great job on "Criticism of US foreign policy" -- you and Chris know what you're doing. Mucho impressivito -- (my Spanish) for I'm impressed.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 01:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

NIST Logo

Hi, Howard. No need for the screen shot. The problem was that on different pages of the NIST website, the stylized NIST was in different colors: white (against blue or black or multi-colored background), blue (against white background), dark blue (against white background) and black (against white background) ... six choices in all. I finally selected the one I liked best (dark blue against white background) ... and if NIST answers my email inquiry with a different choice, I can always change.

The point I was trying to make on the forum was that, for some articles, it takes an excessive amount of work to find an appropriate illustration ... and for others, there simply isn't an appropriate illustration. Milton Beychok 02:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's NIST for you. At the Time Laboratory in Boulder, no two clocks showed the same time.

This is a battle I keep fighting, and losing, with publishers that pay me — they want illustrations, and preferably photos over line art, whether they make sense or not. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ship Style

Howard, thanks for your research and copy edits on Chester W. Nimitz. But I'm perplexed now how to handle a stylistic issue. Ship names are rendered HMS King George V or USS Saratoga or IJN Kaga or RMS Titanic. The name itself is always italicized but the preceding abbreviation is not (see CMOS 7.99). You fixed this with a piped link, e.g. [[USS Yorktown (CV-5)|USS ''Yorktown'' (CV-5)]] (USS Yorktown (CV-5)). That's a rather lengthy fix, don't you think? But it's necessary because the Mediawiki software won't take ''italic'' coding inside an internal link (it ''won't'' work). Other alternatives such as ''[[USS Yorktown]]'' are stylistically incorrect even though they are easier to code. I'm wondering if there isn't an easier way than piping every ship's name. Russell D. Jones 14:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no better solution. As you may have noticed, I also have variants such as HMS Dreadnought (1905) and HMS Dreadnought (1960). The suffix, whether a date or a hull number, is needed for disambiguation; the USN has had eight Enterprises. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that I know. Russell D. Jones 15:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Supporting Israel

When I was reading through the subheadings this one jumped out as being a little more interesting. Depending on ones perspective, this could go in the good or the bad section. I don't have a solution, just thought I'd share that first impression. Chris Day 15:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As I told Tom, I don't think good-vs-bad is eventually going to work. My hope is that it's going to be possible to put a roughly chronological high-level view into U.S. foreign policy, talk about policy and policy influencers at various times, and then go to subarticles.

To be frank, thinking about Tom's comments about "hot" topics, I've been surprised that we haven't had partisans on any of the Middle East issues show up and start arguing. sniffle nobody cares, while it was impossible to write about Iran-Iraq without reverts at WP; I wasn't there for things like Hamas and Gaza.

Stating the source of the "good" as the Israeli ambassador, who was a dual U.S.-Israel citizen until he took the post, wasn't the most neutral reference without identifying him.

There's a book about Guantanamo titled The Least Bad Choice, often the case in foreign policy. US-Israeli relations are immensely complex, and I actually have quite a bit about the interest groups on all sides. So far, the only controversy I've gotten is from User: Michel van der Hoek on J Street. I consciously did the The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy as a book review rather than judgments. In general, I try to use spokesmens' own silly words rather than editorializing about them. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Using quotes is often a good way to avoid arguments. And so true about the The Least Bad Choice. Reality bites. Chris Day 15:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL...at WP, I'd get arguments, in computer science/Internet engineering, when quoting my own peer-reviewed work. I was told I didn't understand the author's intent. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they were well aware that you had forgotten more than they had written. :) Chris Day 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

BAe, BaE or BAE?

See Talk:BaE_Systems_ALARM Chris Day 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I wish I knew for sure -- I can find corporate websites with both BAE and BaE. The U.S. division is BAE. Redirect and guess. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that ALARM was BAe (originally built by British Aerospace) and then got rebranded when marconi and british aerospace merged. I don't know enough about this area but the acronym BaE is something I have never seen before. My dad used to work for MOD at Farnborough, so he might have an idea. Chris Day 02:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I just did a quick search on the web and this is what I came up with so far. All pages I looked at on the BAE Systems web site seem to use all caps for the 'BAE' acronym,such as this page. Older web pages that reference ALARM do use the old british aerospace nomenclature of 'BAe', for example here and here. Current MOD and company websites use a new nomenclature of BAE Systems. No examples of 'BaE', BUT I didn't look that hard or come across the US spin-offs. Chris Day 03:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy revisited

A recent report from the British government. Chris Day 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Will this contain the homeopathic remedy for dehydration? --Howard C. Berkowitz 08:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A well-known substance that causes dehydration is ethanol. Presumably their cure would be to dilute this until there's none left. Folklore accuses some brewers of doing this anyway. Peter Jackson 10:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Milwaukee based brewers are homeopaths? I had never looked at that way before. :) Chris Day 15:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

case study

You created a lemma for Film production companies and then the metadata was created, but without adding content to the article. So now we have a blank article. Possibly this has been happening frequently? Chris Day 18:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me; my brain is slush with a cold and fighting Kaspersky security technical support. If you check the history on the template, I didn't create it. Derek Hodges did. I think I've found several cases where I intended to create a lemma, and Derek, in I'm sure good will, created a template without adding anything else. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The best way to fight KIS tech support is to ignore them and restore your computer to KIS 2009 from KIS 2010. See the long thread that I started at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/review/R35HJ84K0N2WD4 Hayford Peirce 20:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but it's sales support, not tech support -- and I actually have live chat connectivity after a week. We are really are a reseller with 5 licenses and about to buy more. One end user had her PC fail, and didn't keep the activation key (yes, I should have). "Home support" doesn't respond --- we even have been considering driving to their U.S. headquarters, about an hour away.

They have sent me discount coupons if I buy the "trial copy" I downloaded simply to get a one-month fix. Today, they sent me a survey and drawing offer to tell them how the handling of this support issue was completed -- although it wasn't. Now, though, a virtual human being is checking in real time. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Howard, I knew that Derek created the metadata, just noting the occurrence of it as a potential problem with respect to lemma pages. Chris Day 21:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What, then, are you asking me? Yes, gratuitous creation of a metadata page, and nothing else, is not helpful. Indeed, there really needs to be a CZ custom that if an experienced user has NOT created metadata, don't do it for them without asking. For example, I've been in some complex move situations where I deliberately did not create metadata, and some "helpful" person did so -- sometimes creating talk and definition, within minutes of my creating the article. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)