User talk:80.193.152.229

August 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Besides an edit summary, these changes require discussion on the talk page. S. Rich (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Reply
I'll be sure to put the edit summary in future. I keep finding my edits being deleted for this article, and so have perhaps become lax in providing an edit summary since I am merely reposting the same stuff that was up previously. It's frustrating that it keeps being censored.


 * Please don't think of it as censorship. We have certain guidelines, listed below, that we follow. Most often the removal of content is because of original research or lack of reliable sources. --S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

reply
it seems quite evident that it is censorship. The sources cited all address the exact issues in his books, and nothing I have said is thus "original research". Numerous sources have addressed the group selection hypothesis put forward by Grossman in his book and have thoroughly refuted it. Likewise, numerous sources have addressed S.L.A. Marshall's fabrication of data which Grossman has based his hypotheses on. The data on Gettysburg data that Grossman cites also appears to be fabricated, though I confess I have not been able to find sources attesting to this - there is just an absence of sources that point to it being anything more than an urban legend. Finally, Grossman's point on us living in a more dangerous society than ever has been addressed directly by Steven Pinker, and there is significant evidence pointing to no link between media violence and actual violence. I have provided references for each of these points, thus demonstrating that they are not "original". Furthermore, the ONLY other paper referenced on this page (the one by Robert Engen) makes many of the same points! Please tell me directly where I am going wrong in my editing of this article, because it really does look somewhat like the censorship of views that dissent from those of this so called "expert" in the field of "killology".


 * I'll give a specific example. The article is about Grossman's book. The article is not about the subject of Grossman's book. The difference is important because as an encylopedia we must follow various principles and guidelines.  In this case, you cited different authors who wrote books long preceding Grossman's work.  They were not talking about what Grossman himself wrote -- they were working on different else. It is true that they were writing about a subject that Grossman had written about, but they were not addressing Grossman's own views.  So, in this case taking material from one source -- e.g., pre-Grossman material -- and combining it with Grossman's views is improper synthesis.  Now when you have material that says "Grossman is right about such-and-such" or "Grossman is wrong about this-and-that", then those comments are appropriate.  Why? Because they are confined to the subject of the article -- which is Grossman's book and nothing more. The same guidelines apply to that other article On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace. If there are commentators (such as book reviewers, editoralists, etc.) who write about the book -- not the subject -- then those comments are appropriate in that article. --S. Rich (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

reply 10/09

 * Thanks for your response. It sounds like my the critique I have given would be more suited the the wikipedia article on Killology then, since this article is regarding the specific content of Grossman's combined works. Would this be an accurate assumption? Sorry for my confusion.


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px|link=]] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png located above the edit window.  This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you.  Re your comment -- that is correct. Caution, though, because killology is the term invented by Grossman, you are likely to run into the same problem. That is, the sources and authors who wrote about killing in combat before Grossman's book were not addressing the topic of "killology". So if you write "Grossman wrote such-and-such about killogogy, but others wrote this-and-that about killogogy, the others must address killogy specifically.  I think a better way to approach this topic -- in an encyclopedic manner -- is to look at the article Combat and bring in the various theories, Grossman's, SLAM's, etc., as a subtopic. The subtopic could be "Psychology of killing in combat". (Something like that at least.) That way you can address what Grossman says and what the others say.  Also, be careful of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Engaging in either will get your material removed. S. Rich (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (80.193.152.229) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome! S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)