Jump to content

Talk:Dave Grossman (author)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Col. Dave Grossman (author) vs. Dave Grossman (game designer)

[edit]

I'm not sure the irony of a game designer having the same name as Col. Grossman is necessarily encyclopedia worthy, but I cleaned up the addition anyway. If anyone else agrees that we should remove it or say it differently, go ahead.

For easy reference, I changed:
It may be also noted that Dave Grossman shares his name ironically with the famed game designer Dave Grossman of Day of the Tentacle, Monkey Island and recently Sam and Max fame.
To:
Ironically, Col. Grossman has the same name as game designer Dave Grossman who worked on the games Day of the Tentacle, Monkey Island, and recently Sam and Max.

I'm not sure why this is ironic. The games that Grossman designed are comedy based adventure games, and not violent in the slightest. 96.49.75.54 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please stop the edit warring

[edit]

Note to User:Aubreygrossman and User:Gamer81: I see that Gamer has been trying to insert a block of text since January, and Aubrey has just as consistently removed that block of text. Let's deal with two issues:

  1. The content. My strong opinion is with Aubrey, that the content does not belong because it violates the policy for biographies of living people. Even though Gamer gave sources, the whole issue is largely irrelevant to the subject of the article, and serves mainly to disparage him, as I understand it.
  2. The conflict. Wikipedia does not allow prolonged edit wars, and mandates that conflicts like this be discussed on the talk page. In particular, your edit war has violated the spirit (though not the letter) of WP:3RR. Please discuss this issue among yourselves; if you can't agree, you could always seek a third opinion at WP:3O or the WP:MedCab. If I see any more edit warring without discussion, I will report you to WP:ANI, and you may find that unpleasant. I wish you good luck in resolving this. YechielMan 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violating the policy for biographies of living people

[edit]

Thank you for your concern YechielMan and your suggestions relating towards resolving the issue.

My opinion is that the edit in question seems to be a biased addition to the Dave Grossman (author) biography article and only serves to express Gamer81's personal views on Mr. Grossman. I am open to constructive opinions and will welcome any help on this matter.

Gamer81, do you have anything to say? Aubreygrossman 14:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

In the controversial game Postal 2, when the police burst in to arrest Gary Coleman, a bystander is heard to say "Lieutenant Grossman tried to warn us..." The situation soon spirals into a bloodbath. 120.153.110.10 (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aside from the fact that the trivia is not notable, what even makes you think it is about Dave Grossman and not just a coincidence in dialog? He is known mostly as a Lieutenant Colonel, a rank often refered to in speech as "colonel" but NEVER refered to in speech as "lieutenant". Grossman hasn't been a lieutenant or held a rank referred to as a lieutenant since Vietnam. Nor was he notable until he started his studies, again, after becoming a LTC. So the reference would be dependant on using a wrong title and so obscure that it would be pointless. It looks more like a weird coincidence. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, should we change all references to "Col. Grossman" to "LTC Grossman," which would be more in accordance with procedure for military titles? pew pew pew 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

COI

[edit]

I invite user Aubreygrossman to consider the admonitions in WP:COI. --S. Rich (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of COI policies. I think it would be difficult to find an instance where I haven't strived for neutral POV. Feel free to critique my edits. Aubreygrossman (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty obvious to this random wiki reader, perplexed enough at the scrubbed state of this article to check here, that you have worked (even edit-warred, according to other entries on this talk page), to eliminate any criticism of Dave Grossman or Killology Research Group. 75.106.143.171 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grossman's qualifications

[edit]

I think that it should be noted that although LTC Grossman will immediately tell you that he is an "Airborne Ranger," he never served in the Ranger Regiment. LTC Grossman graduated from Ranger school, the same course that Infantry lieutenants and PFCs from the Ranger Battalions attend. That is his entire claim to Ranger fame, and it provides a thin rationale for him describing himself as an "Airborne Ranger." Technically the statement is correct. In practice, though, nobody who merely graduated from the course would dream of marketing themselves as an "Airborne Ranger" without a history with the Ranger Regiment.

Further, while Grossman wrote On Killing, he never killed anybody. Likewise, he wrote On Combat, though he never spent a moment in a firefight. Finally, Grossman popularizes a concept that he calls "Killology," a term which nobody else uses, and which is widely derided among professional psychologists. How Grossman got his books on the Commandant's Reading List mystifies me. They are unreadable, and they are not substantive contributions to any category of human knowledge. Grossman writes his books in order to set up his seminar appearances, at which he flogs his books, which nobody reads. His Institute is an empty shell.

Grossman collaborates with questionable characters like John Giduck, who wrote a book about the atrocities at Beslan, and turned it into a seminar marketing machine. Until Giduck's research was debunked. He infamously claimed that the Muslim perpetrators committed rapes. This was never substantiated. I could go on. Grossman has long advocated police militarization, and you understand why when you realize that police departments and federal agencies looking for speakers are his primary audience.

I would amend the article, but I have no patience for an inevitable edit war with Aubrey Grossman. I wonder: do you claim to be capable of impartiality?

Estéban (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dave Grossman (author). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dave Grossman (author). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent criticism

[edit]

@Niteshift36: - I see you've removed criticism from this article twice lately. Grossman's work really has been criticized in a number of news outlets lately. It's perfectly valid to bring that up, as long as it has adequete sources. Additionally, you cited WP:SYNTH, but this is definitely from the source, not connecting unrelated facts: if you watch John Oliver's show, you'll see that this was a tame summary that kept to the facts rather than going full-on flamethrower. (You can argue that it might be undue weight to cite one commentator, but it's not synthesis, and several other commentators have brought it up as well, making UNDUE concerns less pertinent.) SnowFire (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have removed things twice over the course of 12 or so days. Grossman has been criticized in some outlets. but it's typically either in an opinion piece or mostly a mention of his training in an article about a bigger issue. There was SYNTH in what was removed because it implied a conclusion not stated in the source. For example, what I removed said "...a cowardly approach based on fear rather than a brave one that accepts some potential risk but seeks to de-escalate situations and only use violence when absolutely necessary.". that isn't in the source cited. Not only is that conclusion not there, the words "brave" or "cowardly" aren't even used in the article at all. If using charged words like that aren't SYNTH, they are certainly POV. John Oliver's opinion is his opinion. We can quote him on his opinion but let's stop acting like he's the definative source. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took out some of the inflammatory stuff that wasn't actually in the source and reworded some of the other. Then added a criticism that was presented in the proper context and weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dave_Grossman_(author)&oldid=1257837753"