Talk:Eric Dorman-Smith

message: The Ernest Hemingway wiki-article mentions Eric Smith meeting the author in service during WWI. I'm surprised there isn't a word on his serivce in WWI. Was it just omitted or did he not serve? (If so, then the Hemingway article should be amended.)
I have massively expanded the section on WW1 - showing the circumstances in which Chink met Hemingway. Quevedo (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWI Service 

message: I have put effort into expanding this article beyond the stub I first saw and now it seems that it must be rendered more encyclopaedic.  I would like some guidance here.
I have tried very hard to keep all my additions objective and purely factual and yet, if you do that, the account you give can be very slanted depending on which person you listen to.  You can get the picture of a staff officer, who did a lot of training work, was promoted to major-general in 1942 and was sacked 2 months later.  Having reverted to brigadier, he was again sacked.  Which gives a view of an incompetent soldier which is probably not entirely fair if you look at what he actually achieved. An alternative view could be that Wavell asked him to help out O'Connor and that his assistance resulted in the great triumph of Sidi Barrani.  Similarly, after the failure of Ritchie in 1942 to contain Rommel, Auchinleck sought out D-S and he was of material assistance in stopping Rommel's advance on El Alamein and beyond.
I feel that he is of interest because he was so obviously valuable when people made use of his abilities and yet was, in many ways, his own worst enemy.  For example, why did Brooke write entries in his war diaries that concerned the influence of D-S over Auchinleck at times when D-S had no discernible influence over Auchinleck, and would have undoubtedly helped the allied cause if he had?  Why was he later sacked by Penney when he had done nothing obviously wrong?
To answer those questions, you need to dig quite deep into what D-S was doing in the 20s and 30s.  I have tried to summarise his career during those decades in an objective way but, to me, my writing feels very jerky because I have tried very hard to keep interpretation out of it, except to point at possible causes for his future downfall.  Is that what lies behind the request to make the article more encyclopaedic?  I try to be even-handed - suggesting reasons why people disliked him sufficiently to deny him employment.
Once Brooke had sacked Auchinleck, there was no reason for him to dismiss D-S as well...and yet there is that animus that existed since the 30s that surfaced in early 1942 when D-S was far from power.  In considering D-S, I feel it important to try to tease out these things but without forcing an interpretation.  To suggest that there was no background behind the sacking seems to me dishonest and you might as well not have an article.
When Churchill, Montgomery, Brooke wrote their accounts of the Desert War, they were all careful to denigrate Auchinleck and D-S, if only by implication (in fact the larger slur should be on Ritchie who has emerged stainless)...and I think that this encyclopaedia should take a more objective stance - dissociating itself from the traditional clashes between branches of the British Army.  A few months ago, I picked up a biography of Alexander that contained references to D-S - for such an obscure figure who held serving rank for just a few months, he is very important! - and yet the comments were potentially libellous for being so factually wrong.  What is it about this man?  This is the question i have tried to answer in as objective a way as possible - otherwise he holds no interest.  
Similarly, ireland.  He was not attached to the idea of the British monarchy, was fairly socialist politically and was anti-partition.  He would have been part of the IRA but they did not want him.  Or so I believe.  I hope my expanded section is acceptable to the Irish project.
If you would like me  to edit the article, I need some guidance.  This is a man whose human ambiguities are as interesting as the material things he accomplished.  I have done my best to keep emotion and viewpoint out of my writing but i would appreciate help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.53.179 (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next steps 

message: What is the rationale for removing the reference to the fact that this was a Protestant/Church of England school?  It helps set up one of the many dualities in Dorman-Smith's life - an irishman in the British army, a catholic amonst Anglicans, an innovator amongst traditionalists....  I will leave a while but may then undo the edit  Quevedo (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lambrook School