Talk:S. L. A. Marshall

message: In the Controversy section, the phrase "Col. David Hackworth, a man of questionable repute who separated from service while under investigation by Army CID for corruption charges and remained in Australia until the statute of limitation had passed" is NPOV in its phrasing, and also appears unverifiable (or at least unsupported at present) and/or original research.  Wutzu (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Col. David Hackworth 

message: If there's other research that supports his claims, why aren't there any links? Most of the stuff in here needs either supporting links, or to be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.191.67.112 (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Double agreed. This talk of supporting research sounds suspiciously like it was cribbed from Dave Grossman's On Killing, a book that itself is controversial, if not disreputable to folks like me. Moreover, there are serious problems with correlation of data, including the ability to confirm statistics of historical battles, and their relevance to other battle statistics. A solution to the assertion would be to cite the work of Grossman, but I don't exactly consider his conclusions to be based on sound research--Woerkilt (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree totally with the requirement of providing credible sources.  Now that I have figured out how to edit Wikipedia, I hope to provide the sources you rightfully expect.  I did my Master's Thesis on the subject of how Marshall affected the Army.  I am away from my the town in which my notes reside, but will in the coming days be able to get to them and provide much more to this article.  My thesis was expanded and published by the US Army Training & Doctrine Command (TRADOC) in 1990, and reprinted by the US Army Center of Military History in 1993, under the title, "SLAM:  The Influence of SLA Marshall on the U.S. Army."  It is findable in the Library of Congress.  ````—Preceding unsigned comment added by FDGWilliams (talk • contribs) 02:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still waiting on those credible sources, Mr Williams. How long shall we leave the section in without adequate references?  ````--76.216.155.179 (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now added :) Robinvp11 (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other research supports.... 

message: Beevor does not provide evidence for Marshall's ratio of fire claim. He just likes to tell an anecdote about a Russian commander who wanted to check that every man had fired his rifle during a battle. Why the fuck do units with fewer than 10 men even exist unless M. is full of shit? And how retarded to invent line tactics, guess all commanders who used them were morons...
:Thanks for the well thought out comment. Elsewhere in the same book (I'm assuming you have a copy?) Beevor goes into this in more detail, it was common in the British and American armies, as well as the Wehrmacht. 
:There are plenty of other Sources that support the basic finding (included in the article), and its been incorporated into military training ever since; from personal experience, it is or was particularly prominent in the British Army because of Northern Ireland ie you have to break down personal inhibitions on shooting at another human being, but not so much they shoot civilians. As per the Lead, his methodology and the reasons why have been questioned, but not the fact. 
:The smaller the unit, the easier it is to reinforce group behaviour; that's one reason for their creation.
:Line tactics - before the invention of smokeless powder, you couldn't see what you were shooting at, plus (again) standing in a line is very different from working as an individual rifleman.
:And...oh, what's the point? You won't care. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utter rubbish 

message: I've spent considerable time rewriting and expanding this article, including the addition of numerous Sources, in an effort to clearly define (a) why Marshall's work is controversial and (b) presenting a balanced perspective.
That doesn't mean the article can't be improved but in the last six months there have been several removals of Sourced material on the grounds its "utter rubbish" or is inherently wrong and biased. There are numerous examples in Wikipedia of family members being used as Sources eg that on Marlborough uses books written by his relatives Winston Churchill and more recently Charles Spencer. I've personally removed a lot of Winston because Marlborough is a popular subject and multiple Sources show he's unreliable. But I've provided those Sources and explained why, rather than just taking it out. I've no objections to a similar process for this article.  
The idea firing at another human being is difficult and many prefer not to is not news to any former or serving soldier (as I happen to be). It is well attested in every army and every time period. Controversies about Marshall are (a) his data collection methods and (b) his conclusions as to why. The very idea they might be valid clearly upsets some people - I know why that is, why not be honest about it? 
That these are disputed (and why) is clearly stated in both the body and Lede of the article. What induces SMH in me is when people are not prepared to put the same effort into this article as I have. Rather than taking stuff out you don't like, find some additional (relevant) research and expand it. Do some work - that doesn't appear unreasonable and you might possibly learn something. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Edits - Some suggestions