Talk:Stopping power

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.
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Greg Glover 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality - Overpenetration

This whole article is rather poorly written and has an utter lack of references to back its strong claims, but the Overpenetration section is clearly and immediately biased, so I added a NPOV template there. A sweeping claim of "exaggera[tion] by those who advocate shallow-penetrating "rapid energy transfer" bullets" without any evidence whatsoever is first made, then later a single NYPD study is used as evidence that bystanders are not injured by overpenetration. This study is more relative to police tactics than to bullet dynamics. Honestly the whole article should be re-written without the subtle bias present everywhere, but perhaps this is a good starting place.

[edit] Third-hand original research

Everything here is based on what people think, without citations to sources. I'm going to start ruthlessly cutting every single unsourced statement out of this article to get baseless speculation out of wikipedia. Until this article has sources, it should be effectively blank. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, you could at least do quick searches to find sources and leave a reliable article instead of a blank one. (No criticism intended, just suggesting)Gzuckier 16:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Good luck finding any research and I hope you do. I spoke to a fellow in the FBI about 10 years ago. He was very candied about the research; a very nice guy. They don’t publish it. The FBI only publishes stats. The Arms Forces shut me out because I had no Press credentials. I have come a cross research from a group of Doctors. The group makes no-bones about its agenda.
Ya, this article is bad. It would probably make a great magazine article. I have read far worse articles. Some of the articles I have read are pure fiction. However, this article dose not pass the stink-test as far as I’m concerned.
Okay I didn’t read the whole article. When I got to the part about, Dynamics of a Bullet, I knew immediately that someone didn’t know what they were talking about. How do I know? I spent a lot of time on the phone interviewing ballistics engineers from several major bullet manufactures.Greg Glover 17:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FBI Document

I had seen a few months ago this document: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf It seems to be a serious FBI document about stopping power in police shootings. If only 1 or 2 solid torso shots can be expected on the entire shooting (as the document says), then obviusly the missed shots are much more dangerous than the shots that have completely penetrated the target (which are less in quantity, and have loss a great deal of velocity).

That document even is in the Links section, it's called "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness". I think that warning should be removed, the information is there to support it.

I just finish reading the report from the above link. I feel bad that this law Enforcement agent that missed the entire point of the date he was reporting on. His conclusion while correct was only a fluke and based on the “Ballistics Work Shop report of 1987. The Special Agent showed through his conclusion the he didn’t understand the data, because his conclusion is based on a test between a 9mm Lugar and .45APC. To draw a conclusion based on two cartridges (both not appropriate for humanly dispatching the human species) and applying to all bullet-cartridge combinations is ignorant at best.
I can assure you with out any research, if a human is hit anywhere on the body (including a hand) by a 41.9g (647gr) bullet out to and including 300m (328) by a .50BMG, he or she will go down. No amount of study concerning the 9mm Lugar will ever show its ability to kill a human (one shot) less a brain shot. And that’s a fact.
But to make my point more salient without the hyperbole, it is not the job of law enforcement to use firearms to “stop” people. Therefore any report form law enforcement concerning “stopping power” is immediately suspect in my never to be humble opinion. The use of small arms within the law enforcement community is for the use of deadly force only and when a law enforcement agent feels his or her life is in immediate danger of life or death.Greg Glover 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I take back what I said. The Special Agent’s conclusions were wrong. Saying ‘kinetic energy has nothing to with stopping power”, is like saying temperature can not cause a burn. What was this guy thinking?
Oh, for those of you who are not following my analogy? The measurement of temperature is the measurement of molecules in motion. The faster molecules move the higher the temperature. And what is the movement of molecules? Yep, its kinetic energy.Greg Glover 23:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is no one definition for stopping power

The defense industry has a definition for stopping power. The law enforcement community has a definition for stopping power. The home defense industry has a definition for stopping power and the hunting community has a definition for stopping power.

I think the creator or major contributors to this article failed to see that not so fine point.

I am a hunter. If I need a firearm to stop a predator or charging animal I will pick the biggest firearm I can handle. Probably that would be a .416 Weatherby Magnum. For stopping intruders as a home defense weapon I would use my 12 gauge Over and Under with bird shot. The longest short from any room in the house is 25 feet. The pattern a that range is about 4 inches in diameter. As a former Marine I would like to see our troops carrying nothing less than a .260 Remington. Better yet lets got back to the 7.62 NATO round and top them off with 9.7g (150gr) Barnes Triple Shock’s. Our law enforcement community should carry any side arm he or she feels comfortable with.

When it comes to firearm projectiles, there are three scientific factors that determent a fatal wound: transitional kinetic energy; sectional density and bullet construction. All three factors must be in play and must combine to provide the proper wound channel for the specific intended target.

If you want to punch holes in non-yielding material such as steel only one factor need be in play: translational kinetic energy per square centimeter. The amount needed depends on the thickness and alloy of the metal. This is of courses perpendicular impact along the z axis to the metal target.Greg Glover 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisionist Science

I checked out the link provided 01 JUL 05, to, “impressive-sounding yet meaningless terminology” within the “Stopping power” article. The response given, “Energy does not correlate whatsoever with wounding ability” is incorrect and I believe based in the same misunderstand of bullet behavior that most people have.

The report as illustrated by the graphs is impotent. The authors failed to take into consideration a bullet construction. Bullets are constructed to perform many different tasks. By thinking that all 9mm bullets perform the same and then lumping them in with all other handgun and rifle bullets is rather silly; don’t you think? Bullets even when within the same caliber are as varied as automobiles.

If we have five different bullets: Full Metal Jacket; Cast lead; Pointed soft point; Monolithic Solid and Truncated Solid, each weighing 11.7g (180gr) and having a muzzle velocity of 823m/s (2700ft/s). Do you think all these bullets will behave the same upon impact?

The answer is no.

Each of the five bullets will penetrate differing distances. Each bullet will create a different size “hole”. Therefore each bullet will create a differing volume for the wound channel. Also each bullet will arrive at the target a differing down range velocity. This is due to there differing construction which dictates a differing aerodynamic profile. Each of the five bullets will have a different Ballistic coefficient (BC). The scientifically proven and daily exercised equation for BC is a bullet’s sectional density (sd) divided by its coefficient of form (i) also know as the form factor. This equation was developed by Wallace H. Coxe and Edgar Beugless, Ballistic engineers of E.I. du Pont, Burnside Laboratory, Wilmington, Delaware ca.1936.

Kinetic energy correlates 100% with wound ability. The proven scientific fact and daily exercised equation of translational kinetic energy is derived from Sir Isaac Newton’s second law ca.1665 and proven by Marquise du Châtelet Gabrielle-Émilie le Tonnelier de Breteuil (Émilie du Châtelet) using Willem 'sGravesande research ca.1740. Just check out the artical on Émilie du Châtelet here at Wikipedia.

In conclusion the stuff you people are arguing about is a college survey class known as physics 17. This is high school level physics. It has been settled and proven science for the last 267 years. Can we please stop with the revisionist science?

Greg Glover 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical discussion?

Where is the section "ethical discussion" gone? Does the majority of contributors think that the effects of firearms are no subject to ethical discussions? I think that such a discussion section is necessary, but I am not willing to add it once again if it will be deleted shortly afterwards because someone thinks that there should be no ethical discussion about the choice of weapons...--SiriusB 11:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a euphemism

The article describes the term as euphemistic. That may have been written by someone who mistakenly thought it meant "lethality", but it is in fact a specific and technically accurate description of the phenomenon under discussion. I'd like to remove this characterization if no one objects. MrRK 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Rifles commonly propel bullets at at least 2-3 times the velocity of the most powerful pistols. Such bullets have more kinetic energy (kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed). Bullets not intended to expand such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, M855 Ball Round, may cause much more tissue damage as a result, of expansion or fragmentation.

Does this not seem like a contradiction? "Bullets not intended to expand such as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, M855 Ball Round, may cause much more tissue damage as a result, of expansion or fragmentation? Regardless, I find this paragraph very unclear. -- Jmlane (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality sources

I've again removed the following paragraph:

Courtney & Courtney, in self-published reports, make an exceptional claim that a ballistic pressure wave produces instant incapacitation, however no data exist to show it's a reliable incapacitation mechanism. Indeed there are many examples in which a ballistic pressure wave failed to produce instant incapacitation. One disturbing example is a video clip, produced by LeMas Limited, distributor of RBCD ammunition, of swine being shot by light-weight, high energy handgun bullets (in which LeMas was subsequently fined by the US Dept. of Agriculture): http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-lemasPigs.asp . Another example is the 1989 shooting of drug dealer Jamie Martin Wise who was shot in his unobstracted upper torso by an Alexandria police department SWAT sniper firing a .223 Remington rifle. Wise was not instantly incapacitated by the bullet's ballistic pressure wave and, after being shot, he killed one SWAT officer (Corporal Charles Hill) and wounded another (Andrew Chelchowski).

The source appears not to pass WP:RS and WP:VER but I've taken it to the reliable sources noticeboard for those who wish to discuss. Arthurrh 18:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Submitting a paper to arXiv can hardly be described as "self-publishing." The arXiv electronic print server is the largest and most highly respected electronic publication venue for original scientific papers. It is owned by the Cornell University library and funded, in part, by the National Science Foundation. Submitting papers to arXiv requires endorsement by other scientists in a given field, and numerous submissions have been rejected or removed from the arXiv server. References to scientific works published via arXiv are widely accepted in the scientific literature, so it would be surprising if a web encyclopedia would reject them.

It is an example of the strawman fallacy to say that Courtney and Courtney assert that pressure waves create "instant incapactiation." The pressure wave hypothesis states "other factors being equal, bullets with higher pressure wave incapacitate faster (on average) than bullets with lower pressure waves. In addition, nowhere have Courtney and Courtney suggested the BPW mechanism occurs 100% of the time.

It is well known that short of a direct hit to the CNS, no handgun bullet produces reliable incapacitation in the short time span of most gun fights. Since there is no guarantee that a handgun will produce the desired effect, understanding BPW effects is valuable in design and selecting ammunition to produce the most rapid incapacitation possible.

Any submission of supposed "cases" in an attempt to disprove the pressure wave hypothesis should include sufficient information to determine whether the specific case meets the criteria Courtney and Courtney suggest for easily detectable BPW effects. Specifically, the relevance of specific cases depends on whether the bullet can be demonstrated to have penetrated at least 10" AND imparted a BPW of at least 1000 PSI. In addition, since BPW effects are probabilistic (occur less than 100% of the time), isolated instances of the absence of immediate BPW effects is consistent with the BPW hypothesis, as is the lack of "instant" incapacitation. BPW effects can take up to 5 seconds to cause incapacitation, though the average delay is reduced as the BPW magnitude is increased. Michael Courtney (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC) Michael Courtney

Whether this source is reliable or not is not the primary issue here as I see it; rather the first issue is one of conflict of interest. Michael Courtney quoting material by Michael Courtney is clearly and unambiguously a conflict of interest, and should be removed from the article. If other editors read the source material and determine that it is both reliable and notable, then they can add it to the article. scot (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The conflict of interest guidelines explicitly allow for an editor to quote sources of his own authorship. Therefore, the simple fact of an editor quoting sources he co-authored is not a conflict of interest. Scientific publications often contain similar self-citations. The examples where Courtney and Courtney are quoted maintain a neutral point of view, are directly relevant to the topic of discussion, and similar content has been approved and the same papers cited in peer-reviewed contexts. If you believe the text that I added fails to maintain a neutral point of view, then suggestions of how it could be worded more neutrally would be appreciated. However, since the points being made are also well-supported by citing third party sources, removing the citations themselves is unwarranted. Michael Courtney (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
To quote: Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. Five of the 11 cites in the current article are from your own work; even given acceptance of it's reliability, the issue of your work's notability has not been addressed. What I suggest, to eliminate the conflict of interest concerns and completely sidestep the notability issue, is to go through and wherever possible replace the cites of your own work with direct citations of the original works ("since the points being made are also well-supported by citing third party sources"). Any original research of yours can then be discussed regarding notability. Support for its notability will also address concerns about the reliability, because if other reliable, notable sources reference your work, that provides support for both its reliability (if they are positive mentions) and notability (pro or con). I would very much like to pick your brain over this stuff, because I'm sure you have a large body of reference material built up. scot (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have added a number of other references, so that self-citations only account for 5 of 13 references in the neurological section. The article as a whole is under-referenced, so the proportion of the total articles citations is meaningless. "Notable" simply means "worthy of notice." "Notable" does not require that other "reliable, notable sources" cite a given work. Being relevant to the discussion, being authored by qualified scientists, and being published in an accepted scientific venue should be sufficient to meet the requirement of "notable." Just about anything relevant to the discussion co-authored by a faculty member at USMA-West Point should probably be considered "notable." Finally, since "notability" is a topic guideline rather than a content guideline, it should only be used to decide whether an entire topic ("stopping power") in this case) is suitable for Wiki, it is not an appropriate guideline to consider whether a small bit of content creates a conflict of interest. The relevant content guidelines are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. These guidelines are adhered to since the assertions are supported in cited scientific references.

Michael Courtney (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the WP:COI issue is important. Re: notability, it reads specifically "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." So in fact notability DOES apply. Further, it reads "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.". The guideline does allow latitude, but I think everyone would be more comfortable if we could do as the policy suggests: "If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community." Just my two cents. I don't think WP:COI is automatic exclusion, but where it's making people uncomfortable it should be avoided if at all possible. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
How many editors have contributed to the stopping power article since Courtney and Courtney were first referenced over six months ago? One or two suggestions of COI definitely does not represent a consensus among the editors. I have had a number of private exchanges with other editors who have been quite favorable in suggesting that Courtney and Courtney be cited here. I am following the advice and discussing these edits with the community. Can you make any case that the work is not relevant or worthy of notice? I assert that being relevant to the discussion, being authored by qualified scientists, and being published in an accepted scientific venue should be sufficient to meet the requirement of "notable." Those who disagree need to support their position rather than hide behind a claim that "discomfort" itself is sufficient cuase to exclude the citations. In addition, parties claiming COI should describe how the citations serve the aims of the individual editor over the aims of Wikipedia. The editor is not selling anything. Being cited at Wikipedia confers no professional advantage in scientific careers. The work is scholarly and meets the Wikipedia criteria for verifiability.

[User:Michael Courtney|Michael Courtney]] (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)



I believe that the Courtney and Courtney citations and contributions are important, and should remain in some form. I believe they describe some valid contribution to fast incapacitation. The Courtneys themselves emphasize that round selection needs to be based on a number of parameters of which ballistic shockwave is not the only, nor even the first in priority. Bobn1955 (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should be reverted to the original article

I think this article should be reverted to the original text dated 29 december 2004 :

Stopping power', also called terminal ballistics, generally refers is the much-debated topic of how bullets kill or incapacitate people and animals, usually in the context of self-defense, military, or hunting... Unfortunately, most theories about stopping power rely on impressive-sounding yet meaningless terminology--such as "energy transfer" and "hydrostatic shock"--to hide the fact that they have minimal basis in reality. It is unusual that such strange and elaborate theories have formed around firearms alone. People do not often claim that a particular knife or club has an "80% chance of a one-hit stop," or "transfers 400 foot-pounds of energy to the target."
  • Wikipedia is not the place for debates.
  • When reading for instance the paragraph titled "Dynamics of bullets" you come out without knowing what it is. This is just talks, not supported by any physics of the phenomenon. In this sense, I fully share the impression of Greg Glover under title "Third-hand original research" above : When I got to the part about, Dynamics of a Bullet, I knew immediately that someone didn’t know what they were talking about.
  • Looking for example to the document posted on Arxiv 0701268.pdf, we see immediately that it is a debate in itself, not a scientific paper.
  • Should be stressed here that Arxiv is not a guaranty of quality. Anyone in the academic environment having access to Arxiv can post papers without prior peer review. They use it, in fact, mostly to gain anteriotity on their research ! Leaving the peer review process for a later stage.
  • The article named Terminal ballistics, plus some sub-articles should be the place to define what it is and present clearly undisputed facts on the subject. A mention to the disputed Stopping power issue could be made in the terms of the 2004 original article although the Terminal ballistics article itself is not of a very good quality either.
  • Also, if someone wants to talk about it, a page explaining what is the "Strasbourg Goat test" is missing. If you look for example this you notice immediately that some say the Strasbourg Goat test is controversial. Wikipedia is not the place for controversial matters although it could be the place to indicate that the subject is controversial.
  • Looking at the original article again and to what it is now, we can wonder what is the goal of the editor ? Except putting forward his own view that he is fighting for on all fronts...
  • I quote someone here above  :
"...I spoke to a fellow in the FBI about 10 years ago. He was very candied about the research; a very nice guy. They don’t publish it. The FBI only publishes stats."
If data is not available from FBI or any other official source, that is likely.. because the information is confidential or classified ! Wikipedia is not the place to disclose confidential or classified information ! And if no information is available, Wiki is not the place for assumptions or guesses on what they are.

Happy new year to everyone !

--Michel Deby (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The original article (dated 29 Dec 2004) is problematic in a number of areas. While the current article is not perfect, it is much better in meeting the Wikipedia standards for NPOV, citation of sources, and not pretending to have a consensus among experts when no consensus really exists. The original article presents the Fackler/IWBA viewpoint as if it is a general consensus, and it fails provide citations either showing the lack of consensus or supporting the Fackler/IWBA view. If there is legitimate scientific debate regarding a field, then Wikipedia entries discussing that field must present the differing views to maintain a neutral point of view.
  • Energy transfer is well-defined in the literature, and links between energy transfer and wounding mechanisms can be supported with references to the peer-reviewed literature. In addition, describing the probability of given outcomes is also common in medical literature. For example, the probability that a certain level of sound exposure for a certain duration will lead to tinnitus or hearing loss or the probability that a smoking a certain number of cigarettes per day will lead to lung cancer or the probability that a certain treatment will be effective.
  • With regard to the arXiv papers, it is a false dichotomy to claim that a paper is not scientific because it addresses a topic of legitimate scientific debate. Debate, discussion, and demanding that theories reference data and that conclusions adhere to the scientific method are common in the scientific process and literature. Many scientific papers were originally presented in the context of scientific debates: the heliocentric solar system, atomic theory, evolution, global warming.
  • Though not all arXiv papers are submitted to prior peer review, prior peer review is not necessary to meet the Wikipedia standard of verifiability. Most Wikipedia citations do not refer to sources that have been subjected to prior peer review. Many important papers in wound ballistics were not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. For example, "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" and "What's Wrong With the Wound Ballistics Literature and Why."
  • The lack of prior peer-review is not considered a hinderance by those who use arXiv, and some very influential papers remain purely as e-prints. Citing arXiv eprints is acceptable and commonplace in the scientific literature, so it would be suprising if it was not acceptable at Wikipedia. Two of the arXiv papers cited here were also cited in a peer-reviewed paper in the journal Brain Injury. The editors and peer-reviewers of that esteemed neurology journal did not object to arXiv citations.
  • The neurological effects of the ballistic pressure wave are supported both in the peer-reviewed literature and with citations to arXiv.
The current Stopping Power article is work in progress and can benefit from improvements in organization, verifiability, and citations. However, it represents a NPOV much better than the original article. Michael Courtney (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Micheal, Thanks for your reply. If you allow me this expression : "this article is too much of Michael Courtney by Michael Courtney refering to Michael Courtney". It is really bad in terms of conflicts of interests.
At least, if the article was short, straightforward, cautious and understandable for the average people than this would have been acceptable.
I'm not going to improve it, the only thing I could do is to cut.
While on your side, if it is still a work in progress (which is obvious seeing the various papers and web stites) then it is a signal it is not the kind of data to be published in an encyclopedia. Put it on your draft page or you web site, and we will pick up the undisputed facts.

Regards, --Michel Deby (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The major part of the Stopping power article is not my work. Other than a contribution to the "Neurological effects" section, my only contribution to the Stopping power article is two sentences in the energy transfer section and minor edits. The rest of the Stopping power article represents contributions of other editors. Only three sentences of the entire Stopping power article refer to the research of Courtney and Courtney. Therefore, your assertion that "this article is too much of Michael Courtney by Michael Courtney refering to Michael Courtney" is inaccurate. My contributions are a small part of the entire article.
The COI issue has been discussed above. No one suggested that the Courtney and Courtney papers are not sufficiently worthy of notice to be included, and other editors have supported their inclusion. Can you make any case that the work is not relevant or worthy of notice? I assert that being relevant to the discussion, being authored by qualified scientists, and being published in accepted scientific venues is sufficient to meet the requirement of "notable." Those who disagree need to support their position rather than hide behind a claim that "discomfort" itself is sufficient cuase to exclude the citations. In addition, parties claiming COI should describe how the citations serve the aims of the individual editor over the aims of Wikipedia.
None of the cited papers are a "work in progress." These are completed scientific papers whose points are well supported by the data, facts, and reasoning presented. The "work in progress" is the Stopping power article itself. Clearly, many citations need to be added, and the article would benefit from improved organization.
The Wikipedia model is to maintain a neutral point of view while presenting the differing sides to a legitimate scientific debate rather than to include only undisputed facts. In addition, the scientific support that pressure waves can reach the brain and create neurological damage has been so well supported by both ballistics and blast literature, that the point might not be disputed any longer. To my knowledge, it has been well over a decade since a scientific paper has argued against remote neurological damage, and the last papers to do so made spurious references to lithotriptors which turned out to be demonstratably wrong. As far as I can tell, when the assertion that lithotripsy does not damage tissue was conclusively disproven, the dispute in the scientific literature over whether pressure waves create remote neural damage tissue evaportated. The Suneson et al. papers have been strongly supported and widely referenced. What remains of the dispute seems limited to internet discussion forums.Michael Courtney (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Michael
I have read your reply here above but I haven't had the time to reply myself. I will prepare tonight (our time) a proposal for improving the organization and wording of this article. I think it would be better, due to you position, that someone else write this (or adapt it). I have a number of comments on the various documents provided as references but as you mention it, this is not the place to discuss it. Can you suggest me an Internet forum where these discussions could take place ?
In addition, do you have a PDF document to which we could point at either written by you or by someone else treating the ballistic pressure wave theory alone ?
Further, please excuse my rather abrupt interference in the beginning of this, it reflects only a "first bad impression" that can be corrected I believe.
Regards,
--Michel Deby (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Michel,
I agree that the discussion should take place in a different context. Please email me and I can suggest possibilities for public discussion forums and reply to your other questions. Thanks. Michael_Courtney@alum.mit.edu
Michael Courtney (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Overhaul

Hum.. well, I would have preferred a forum discussion.
Let's overhaul this article.
First all all, let's remove all the references and external links and let's put the "nutshell" banner.
Other contributors, please do not interfere while I am reworking this article.
I will present the changes made and the arguments for them.
--Michel Deby (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

References should remain until their removal is justified.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You have a conflict of interest in here Michael.. ;-) --Michel Deby (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I have attempted to do a massive re-write, at least to address all the obvious issues. I am sure that a lot remains to be done, but it is now at least ready for a re-write :-) Yaf (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Having authored publications in the field does not necessarily imply COI. Can you make any case that the work is not relevant or worthy of notice? I assert that being relevant to the discussion, being authored by qualified scientists, and being published in an accepted scientific venue should be sufficient to meet the requirement of "notable." Those who disagree need to support their position rather than hide behind a claim that "discomfort" itself is sufficient cuase to exclude the citations. In addition, parties claiming COI should describe how the citations serve the aims of the individual editor over the aims of Wikipedia. The editor is not selling anything. Being cited at Wikipedia confers no professional advantage in scientific careers. The work is scholarly and meets the Wikipedia criteria for verifiability. Spurrious claims of COI should not be used to object to content. 63.138.255.70 (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the subject with professionals the week before and came to some conclusions. At the end I don't think this article should be changed in any way but rather, another set of good scientific articles should be built on the side with the clear, actual, non controversial and verifiable scientific data. There are indeed two things : the talks of unprofessional people and the scientific facts. However, the question is "should this be described in an encyclopedia" ? I would say no. Most of the good information is classified. So not verifiable. --Michel Deby (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)