 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Reveals that..." / Book's central thesis edit
Changing wording. It says the book "reveals" this but I'm uncertain of this books conclusions, and I am sure there are others as well. "Reveals" indicates that the propositions are fact, which I don't think they are. Changing to "proposing." MrKeith2317 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. "Proposes" sounds more encyclopedic anyway. Aubreygrossman (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I second this, and perhaps would go further. Grossman's central thesis is not a study of killing. He states right in the introduction, on page xxx, that: "Finally, and perhaps most important, I believe that this study will provide insight into the way that rifts in our society combine with violence in media and in interactive video games to indiscriminately condition our nation’s children to kill."
- Grossman also demonstrates his central thesis in the structure of the book: 1) People are naturally disinclined to kill. 2) Atrocities and social conditions push people to kill. 3) The military exploits these to conditioned people to kill at high rates. 4) Media adopts military conditioning to program civilian children to kill. 5) Advocate First Amendment or market controls upon commerical media.
- Although Grossman spends about 300 pages discussing war, his operative argument is media and the control of media.Woerkilt (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I second this, and perhaps would go further. Grossman's central thesis is not a study of killing. He states right in the introduction, on page xxx, that: "Finally, and perhaps most important, I believe that this study will provide insight into the way that rifts in our society combine with violence in media and in interactive video games to indiscriminately condition our nation’s children to kill."
Criticism section edit
The criticism section seems like original research to me, or more specifically, "synthesis of published material that advances a position". The works cited aren't reacting to Grossman's book - in some cases, that'd be physically impossible, since they were published before it - they just happen to contain statements that are at odds with his thesis. Aquila89 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. The material pre-dating the book is gone and the section is now tagged Original Research. The remaining stuff needs to be looked at to determine if they are criticizing Grossman or the theory in general. --S. Rich (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not only does it look like WP:SYNTH, it is synth. I've removed it, pending justification as to what makes it not synth and why is merits inclusion. Grossman is still alive and some of there make some implications about his honesty and research. BLP dictates we tread carefully. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- BLP is not the issue or guidance. This article is about the book, not the person. If the material (remaining or deleted) discusses the book, then it's appropriate to leave in. But I venture the only way to know is to look at the material. If Grossman is discussing SLAM, then his comments are appropriate, but we need verification. --S. Rich (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- BLP could be a factor here is the editor cobbles together material to present an impression that Grossman did something intellectually dishonest or otherwise impugnes his academic reputation. If a RS does it, then it may be relavant. If the editor is doing it, there is a BLP problem. BLP applies to any and all articles and talk pages, not just biographies. If Grossman writes a book and your commentary discusses what he did in terms of assertions, conclusions, research etc, then it comments on not just the book, but the person as well.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- BLP is not the issue or guidance. This article is about the book, not the person. If the material (remaining or deleted) discusses the book, then it's appropriate to leave in. But I venture the only way to know is to look at the material. If Grossman is discussing SLAM, then his comments are appropriate, but we need verification. --S. Rich (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Criticism – further comment edit
Since this article is about Grossman's book, it is improper to include general criticisms or reviews or views unless they are specifically addressed to what Grossman has said in the book. Such criticisms are certainly proper in other articles that talk about the subject. This limitation is not directed towards what other authors have said about the subject, even if they are contrary to what Grossman thinks. Rather, the limitation simply requires us to focus this article on its' subject – the book titled On Killing.--S. Rich (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I encourage IP 80.193.152.229 to work on this, but certain limitations apply. IP's proposed addition (now reverted) cites work by Richard Dawkins from 1976. Clearly Dawkins was not discussing Grossman's book. We cannot allow this particular article about a specific book to become a forum for discussing or elaborating on "Killogy" in general. If there are specific criticisms of Grossman, then those criticisms (and only those) are appropriate.--S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. And that's pretty much why I've referred to this as OR/SYNTH. There may be some criticism by third parties that is appropriate for inclusion, but this isn't it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)