Talk:9×19mm Parabellum

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9×19mm Parabellum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / European / German

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force European military history task force German military history task force

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Move logs: 9×19mm Parabellum 9×19 mm Parabellum 9 mm Luger Parabellum 9 mm Luger Discussions: RM, 9×19mm Parabellum → 9×19mm Luger, Not moved, 18 October 2015, discussion RM, 9×19mm Parabellum → 9 mm Luger, No consensus, 22 October 2017, discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9×19mm Parabellum. 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/20080406092513/http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/01000100.pdf to http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/01000100.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 16:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Parabellum09v2.stl

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the article has been "improved" by last August's removal of swathes of information on the basis that it's unsourced; the information in question seemed more useful than not and its absence is quite conspicuous, i.e. I ended up having to look at the history to see why the origins section seemed to just start mid-explanation. Now I know. Should it perhaps be restored with {{cite}} tags as necessary? --Vometia (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the two deleted paragraphs. They are not unsourced as they, along with the third paragraph, are all a summary of the source cited at the end of the third paragraph. There is zero requirement that a passage summarizing material from a reliable source consist solely of a single paragraph, and there is nothing wrong with using a single citation for a couple of short paragraphs, so the passage is already properly sourced, and the removal was borderline vandalism. oknazevad (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) --Vometia (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says (uncited):

"Proponents of the hydrostatic shock theory contend that the energy of the 9mm cartridge is capable of imparting remote wounding effects in human-sized living targets."

Are there others that contend that this bullet can't wound "human-sized living targets" remotely? Is there something missing from the sentence? No way to tell, because whoever added it didn't bother to cite. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's seems like one of those pseudo-intellectual attempts at sounding scientific for basically saying "this can put holes in people from a distance". It's a meaningless and useless phrase that applies to all bullets. It not only can be removed, it should be removed because including it makes the article look ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the whole point of a bullet is to wound "human-sized living targets" it's a pointless thing to say, whether sourced or not. Being bold and removing. I might be more convinced to leave it included (if cited) on a page about spoons - for example - but not bullets. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrDemeanour, Oknazevad, and Chaheel Riens: You seem to have misunderstood what it's about, it's not about "remotely" as in from a distance (from the target) but as in distant within the body, i.e. causing damage in other parts of the body than where the bullet hit, through a shock wave moving through body tissue. See Hydrostatic shock: Hydrostatic shock is the controversial concept that a penetrating projectile (such as a bullet) can produce a pressure wave that causes "remote neural damage". Drachentöter001 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, although I can't help but feel that hydrostatic shock injury might not be uppermost in the mind of somebody who's just been shot with a 9mm round. Also I think the key phrase there is ...the controversial concept that... - if it were to stay, (and I'm not advocating that it does) it would need considerable rewriting and sourcing so it doesn't sound so hoighty-toighty. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]