Talk:Martin Fackler

NPOV issues

Eminent? What makes Fackler a more eminent battlefield surgeon than others who served in Vietnam?

Reliable sources are required to establish this independently from his later research.

Also, the claim that he conclusively demonstrated fragmentation is the "most effective mechanism of inflicting wounds in a military round" is also exaggerated. Assertions, even when supported with reliable sources, should not be considered "conclusive demonstrations" unless there is a general consensus on the subject.

Finally, the importance of energy transfer in wound ballistics is well-established. A significant number of scientific papers support the importance of energy transfer. Since many papers have continued to be published in peer-reviewed journals since Fackler last published claims to "debunk" kinetic energy transfer, it is easy to see that his view is not the prevailing consensus.

The stronger wording regarding Fackler's status and contributions is overly definitive given later scientific findings. Michael Courtney (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NY Times journalist

Shouldn't there be an article about New York Times journalist Martin Fackler, as well? Or he could at least be mentioned under the article with his name. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/f/martin_fackler/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.55.251 (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Not sure if this passes WP:BIO, but Fackler does seem to be the go-to authority for wound ballistics, so instead of "deletion", the material on his professional contributions should be merged into wound ballistics (a stub itself tagged for merging into gunshot injury). --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The 3 specific of the bulleted items (1, 3 and 4) absolutely establish his notability, although of course my just saying that isn't sufficient for Wikipedia standards. He turned wound ballistics into something of a science, and among many other things figured out the wounding mechanisms of 5.56 NATO FMJ (AR-15/M16) (after we'd been using them for a couple of decades (!)), and I think why 7.62x39mm (AK-47) was poor at wounding (I'm sure he treated a lot more of those in Vietnam), depth is as far as I know universally acknowledged, although the FBI really pushed that after their Miami debacle really emphasized it (have to be able to shoot through an arm before getting into the vitals). Other stuff like permanent crush cavity is not, the last time I checked, universally acknowledged, but it gets respect.

Thanks for your improvements to the article! Hga (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, I agree absolutely this is notable, but it is notable to the topic of "wound ballistics", not so much to the topic of "Martin Fackler" (in the sense of WP:BIO). I am saying professional contributions by experts are best discussed as part of the treatment of the technical subject and not as part of their private biographies. All of this content is absolutely fair, but it should be used to build the "wound ballistics" article, not the "Martin Fackler" one. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. From a pedagogic viewpoint, the fact that at least in times past he provided the name for one of the two camps in wound effects, the other being thoroughly unscientific, is I think notable; I at least call myself a Facklerite. His biography helps us understand how he got his expertise, by first treating these wounds resulting from the Vietnam War. Would that history be germane if the article was folded into the wound ballistics article? Hga (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Fackler. 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/20120218212956/http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/effects_of_small_arms.pdf to http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/effects_of_small_arms.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)