Talk:S. L. A. Marshall

Col. David Hackworth
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)

While Dave Hackworth was a controversial figure, and made many enemies within the US military establishment, I wonder if it would be better to leave this sort of exposition to the Dave Hackworth page.Wutzu (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree, and to make the article less bias I removed the remarks about Hackworth's character. One might easily have remarked that the investigation of Hackworth was done illegally as wire taps on his phones and access to his bank details were done without warrant. ir5ac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ir5ac (talk • contribs) 09:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that it's unfair to simply trash Hackworth, leaving this as is is equally unfair to Marshall as it provides a validity check to Hackworth's criticism; this isn't a courtroom, so I don't see why 'illegal wiretaps' gives him a free pass on everything. The US Army regarded Marshall's work with sufficient respect to recall him to duty in Korea and Vietnam (at the age of 67) and while his methodology has been challenged (unfairly, in my view), the principles have not. More importantly, Hackworth's modus operandi for attacking Marshall was very similar to his campaign against Boorda (which resulted in his suicide) and the Swift Boating of Kerry in 2004. Those incidents are relevant because Hackworth had a very specific and consistent approach so it provides a sense check to evaluate his criticism of Marshall

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Other research supports....
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)

Agreed. I'd suggest removing this assertion unless it can be supported with credible sourcing.Winterbadger (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Now added :) Robinvp11 (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on S.L.A. Marshall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721211742/http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp to http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210174158/http://www.warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallfire.htm to http://www.warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallfire.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What does Truman nominating Uncles for officer training have to do with Marshall? I think that parenthetical addendum should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigreenwood (talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I believe I included the reference to Truman and Uncles as verification that the program to send enlisted soldiers to West Point after WW I was real.  I forget the circumstances, but I think someone may have questioned whether such a program existed so that Marshall could have attempt to qualify for entry into it.  I'll remove that mention.


 * Billmckern (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Utter rubbish
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)

Future Edits - Some suggestions
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)

Controversies section
The controversies section could use a bit of a trimming, as it's beginning to overshadow the rest of the article just by mass of text. At the same time, it's in places inscrutable to a reader not familiar with the topic, which indicates to me we need more context. I appreciate that the man is rather defined by the controversy surrounding his most famous work, but I can't help but wonder whether we're approaching a point where a separate article on the larger controversy is called for. A few more specific comments/questions: -Ljleppan (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, always useful to have someone else take a look - I've expanded his Career, which was a bit short and amended the flow to make it clearer but until there's a separate article on this, I think the Controversies section is about right. specific comments below;
 * "challenging the data collection methods" seems like a rather soft way of phrasing it, when On Killing phrases the same point as "[Spiller] argues [..] that Marshall had not actually conducted the research upon which he based his ratio-of-fire theory. "The 'systematic collection of data' appears to have been an invention."[10]"
 * Spiller was reporting claims, not necessarily making them himself and Williams wrote a monograph for the Army the very next year in which he claimed he had seen the original reports - so the claim that it was "an invention" is either wholly or partially wrong. So I think "challenging" is fair;
 * Is "In fact, the suggestion many soldiers did not fire in combat was verified by separate studies conducted at the same time in the British and Soviet armies." included in the scope of the Beevor citation? The way this reads is now a bit ambiguous.
 * Hopefully the revised flow and expanded quotes answers this query;
 * Is "Despite questions over his methodology, exact percentages and the need to adjust for context, the basic principle is accepted and much of the continuing debate surrounds reasons for 'non-firing'." included in the scope of the Bartov citation?
 * Clarified (I think)
 * "A minority reject his claims" if there's a meta-analysis that allows us to use words like "minority", we should presumably make good use of it.
 * Given his conclusions form the basis of standard FBI/US Army training, I think "minority" is reasonable;
 * "although similar criticisms have been directed at American historian Stephen Ambrose" seems unnecessary, given the article is not about Ambrose and "a controversial writer also did a bad" feels a bit like whataboutism.
 * Taken this out although my point (badly made) was that the specific errors attributed to Marshall's account of Omaha also appear in Ambrose's work and no one extrapolates from that to say the man's an utter fraud.
 * "Leinbaugh contended Marshall was simply wrong, and since no "front-line veteran" would ever make such claims, descriptions of his experiences must therefore be false." This sentence (rather, the paragraph as a whole) is not really understandable without delving into the citation. What are "such claims" and "descriptions of his experiences", how are they false?
 * Clarified (I hope)
 * "However, the scrapbook was intended for others to read, including the family of the individual killed. Casualties from artillery fire often suffered severe trauma and the description is consistent with a pattern of veterans suggesting they directly observed comrades suffering a 'clean death' to comfort relatives.[28]" gives me WP:SYNTH concerns following a quick skim-thru of the ref.
 * I think its a reasonable summary of what is a complex discussion.
 * "[John Marshall] suggested any exaggerations are minor and irrelevant in assessing the validity of his later work." - Well, he would, wouldn't he? given that he's related.
 * Leinbaugh had a very specific axe to grind, which I've highlighted and is the only person I can find who directly makes this claim. John Marshall was a well respected journalist who fell out with his grandfather over Vietnam - I've clearly identified the relationship and I don't think its unreasonable to include his work. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * regarding the synth tag you removed at : First, seems my the tag should have said "Implies Leinbaugh  was incorrect", apologies for that mistake. That said, I'm not quite following your argument as to why this isn't pretty much exactly the same as the examples at WP:SYNTHESIS; could you help me follow your reasoning? The way I see it, we could use the exact same factual content to imply the complete opposite by simply phrasing the latter sentence as "Indeed, the 315th Engineers combat diary shows Marshall's company lost only nine dead and fifteen wounded in six weeks of "front-line service"." WP:SYNTH is rather clear about these things: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Given that Millinder is not saying that "Leinbaugh is wrong" (and how could they, given the publication dates) we can't use it to imply that conclusion without it being WP:OR. - Ljleppan (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm not following you. Leinbaugh claims the 315th was a rear echelon unit which did not see any action or suffer any casualties, ergo Marshall was never a front line soldier. That's a specific claim.
 * The 315th record produced by Millinder shows Marshall's company suffered 9 dead and 15 wounded in six weeks of front-line service (which is a casualty rate of about 30%).
 * I'll change the wording to reflect Leinbaugh's specific claim but I'm not combining Sources. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me try to clarify. Currently, the text reads [Leinbaugh] argued the 315th Engineers were a rear-echelon unit, Marshall never saw actual combat, and fabricated details such as his whereabouts on Armistice Day. However, the 315th Engineers combat diary shows Marshall's company alone lost nine dead and fifteen wounded in six weeks of front-line service. Here, [Leinbaugh] argued the 315th Engineers were a rear-echelon unit, Marshall never saw actual combat, and fabricated details such as his whereabouts on Armistice Day is Claim A and the 315th Engineers combat diary shows Marshall's company alone lost nine dead and fifteen wounded in six weeks of front-line service is Claim B. Because you are phrasing this as Claim A. However, Claim B. you are representing (through an implication) Claim B as refuting Claim A. Unless there is an pre-existing source that explicitly states that "Claim B refutes Claim A", this is -- as far as I can determine -- WP:SYNTH. Again, contrast to the example I gave above where the exact same claims (with minor copy editing) were used to imply that Claim B supports Claim A. That would equally be WP:SYNTH. - Ljleppan (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've asked for outside opinions on the WP:SYNTH concern at No original research/Noticeboard. Ljleppan (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I know what you're saying so please don't feel the need to explain it again :) It just doesn't make any sense to me and I think its a very narrow interpretation of a guideline.
 * I've made my comments on the OR noticeboard but I don't think this is a good use of our energy. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)