Talk:Martin Fackler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] 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)