Talk:Taylor knock-out factor

External Link "http://www.n4lcd.com/calc/ violates wikipedia advertising rules and should be removed.

The external link to N4LCD violates "Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising" because it has explicit references to URLs that sell courses purporting to teach stockmarket day trading skills. Specifically: "The active trader's E-Mini Futures Daytrading Course: www.daytradingcourse.com" and "The Active Investor's Stock Trading Course: www.eTradingCourse.com" both of with sell access to websites selling a course by Paul Quillen teaching day trading skills. This violates the blatant advertising rule, "It clearly and unambiguously attempts to sell or promote a featured, new, flagship, or specific item or service offered by the company" and "It provides an external link to the company's online store, the product's feature or order customization page, company sales contact page or their list of authorized retailers and sellers."

This link and references to it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

no & once again: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You only like the rules when they cut in your direction. Leaving it up demonstrates it. Don't bother quoting rules if you won't live by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

And you have already been told: "IP User, I want a lot of things, but life doesn't work that way." --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

IP User, you should read WP:IBA carefully, this page contains no direct links to any advertising. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC).

Thank you I did. It contains these links: www.daytradingcourse.com and www.eTradingCourse.com which sell admission to instruction courses on day trading (for thousands of dollars). Click on them and try it out. The page cited in the article contains these links and promotes them with specific language. I suggest you read the rule and the page carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The page Taylor KO Factor contains no direct links to any advertising. By your interpretation of WP:IBA, all links to news and magazine articles used as references (which have advertising) would be contrary to policy. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC).

Your are correct the page you reference does not contain direct links. Yet the external link it explicitly provides absolutely does. The article does not reference that explicit link, it merely provides it. WHy is it there?

The externally linked article is part of an individual's business web page whose purpose is to sell his courses. The Wikipedia rules say "Advertising is not limited to only the article space. They are also frequently created on the creators' own user and user talk pages, and (occasionally) in other namespaces as well. " I claim it meets that definition and should be removed. Your example of news articles is off point as their primary purpose is to provide news. The primary purpose of the linked page is to promote the owner's business and sell his goods and services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record: Proposed addition of a claifying sentence about the disagrement of Taylor's formula predictions and actual observations.

To anyone reading this conversation, I state the following for the record.

This article presents a formula created by the late John Taylor concerning the effectiveness of rifle cartridges for hunting elephant. Specifically, it establishes a metric, Knock Out Time that is the amount of time an elephant is rendered unconscious but not dead by a single rifle shot that hits the elephant's head but does not kill it. The formula known in the article as the “Taylor Knock Out Factor” (TKOF) uses bullet weight in grains, incorrectly labelled bullet mass, its muzzle velocity in feet per second, and the diameter of the bullet in inches to calculate a comparison statistic for predicting the knock out time given a nonlethal shot as just mentioned.

The article discusses 4 cartridges that were common in the time of Taylor. These are: .416 Rigby, .470 Nitro Express, .577 Nitro Express, and .600 Nitro Express. The article presents a table that provides the calculated values of the TKOF for these and other cartridges. Respectively these are: 57.1, 72.9, 128.3, and 147.5. The reader should note that Taylor does not provide any unit or units for the results of his formula.

The article quotes Taylor, from Taylor’s own book, as follows “The .416 Rigby will probably not knock the elephant out, but momentarily stun the animal which will recover quickly if not dispatched immediately, while the same shot delivered by the .470 Nitro Express will render the elephant unconscious for up to five minutes. Further, Taylor writes that the .577 Nitro Express will knock an elephant unconscious for around 20 minutes, the .600 Nitro Express around half an hour.” This plainly gives the actual knockout times for the mentioned cartridges. The reader should note, this is Taylor’s own observed data, from Taylor’s own book, the same man who invented the TKOF formula and states it in his book.

If we state Taylor's data numerically, the .416 Rigby gives 0 seconds of knock out time, the .470 Nitro Express approximately 300 seconds, the .577 Nitro Express approximately 1200 seconds, and the .600 Nitro Express approximately 1800 seconds. No method for correlation for the TKOF prediction and Knock Out Time observed data is given in the article.

To be specific here, for the .416 Rigby the TKOF prediction is 57.1 but the observed Knock Out Time is 0, for the .470 Nitro Express the TKOF prediction is 72.9 but the observed value is approximately 300, for the .577 Nitro Express the TKOF prediction is 128.3 but the observed value is approximately 1200, and for the .600 Nitro Express the TKOF prediction is 147.5 but the observed value is approximately 1800.

The reader will notice these values do not agree and there is no correlation. In fact, the TKOF table also shows other cartridges which have TKOF values smaller than for the .416 Rigby, which has an observed Knock Out Time of 0. No explanation is given of how a knock out time less than 0, implied by these cartridges smaller TKOF value, should be interpreted.

Its perhaps redundant, but I wish to reiterate that the formula, its calculated values, and the observed results are all provided by the same man in the same book. In that book Taylor does not explain this disagreement nor do the authors of the article.

I propose to add a single sentence to the article stating that Taylor does not explain in his book why his predictions and observed data do not agree. This statement will satisfy the curiosity of an alert reader wishing to understand how to actually use the formula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Famous Hunter/Poacher reference is incorrect, Poaching brings infamy not fame.

The article calls Taylor a famous hunter/poacher. Poaching is usually defined as the taking of game in contravention of the law and/or without proper license, and as such illegal. Notoriety from illegal activity is not fame but infamy. Wikipedia defines infamy this way.

Worse, to call someone a famous poacher suggests you are looked upon favorably for the activity and it destigmatizes poaching.

Typically when a person's activities in an area are predominantly or even substantially illegal they labelled infamous. The line should be changed to infamous hunter and poacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP User, you raise a valid point, the legality of Taylor's hunting is irrelevant to the article, all references to poaching have been removed. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC).

So then his "fame" is irrelevant as well. The fact he was a well known ivory poacher, so noted in his Wikipedia bio, means he was not a famous hunter but an infamous (and criminal) one.

Famous should not be used, it should be infamous in accordance with his acknowledged reputation as a poacher. Aggrandizing criminal behavior is not NPOV.

As well, you need a reference attesting to the African hunting rifle expert claim in the same sentence, preferably one by a credible third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No response to the above in over 2 weeks. John Taylor was not famous, he was infamous. The usage of the word "famed" in the description of him is incorrect and not neutral. Wikipedia's own article on his bio states much of his hunting was illegal and that his continued poaching offenses caused local authorities to force him to leave Africa. It also says he was an ivory poacher. All have citations.

Wikipedia's definition of infamy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infamy) defines it as "Infamy, in common usage, is the notoriety gained from a negative incident or reputation (as opposed to fame)." It could not be clearer. Taylor's notoriety significantly derived from poaching and illegal hunting and finally being forced to leave Africa. These are negative incidents and reputation.

I am editing the article to state 'an infamous hunter'. If this isn't accepted, I will post a dispute on the NPOV dispute board and request dispute resolution.

And you still need a citation on the claim that he was a rifle expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reliable sources describing him as famous and legendary, which would you prefer? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay CM, the WP bio article on Taylor says he was a poacher and he was forced from Africa for his continued poaching offences. WP has a definition of Infamy, notoriety from negative incident or reputation. Explain to me how Taylor wasn't infamous. Really, explain it. I'll wait a bit for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

IP user, we've been over this time and again, do you have a reliable source describing him as infamous? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC).

Yes the WP bio of him says he was forced from Africa for many repeated poaching offenses and hunting many elephants illegally. His notoriety derives from his hunting which was substantially illegal, sufficiently so for the authorities to prevent him from continuing it. WP says infamy is the definition I gave above. In short, notoriety from illegal activity, per WP's definition infamous. Notable criminals are never famous they are infamous. You can read about the usage here: http://grammarist.com/usage/famous-infamous-and-notorious/

As for references about famous and legendary, you don't need a reference calling him famous to negate this conclusion. You need a reference showing his notoriety was not from illegal activity. Which will be pretty hard to find given the WP bio of him says exactly the opposite.

Characterizing notoriety from illegal activity with positive adjectives is not NPOV. If you change the text again I am going to open an NPOV dispute case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

IP user, I believe you are incorrect, Taylor's fame is due to his writing, in Safari Rifles II Craig Boddington states as much, describing Taylor's books as "classics" and "masterworks". In his Dangerous game rifles Terry Wieland is similarly complimentary of Taylor and his published works. But I am happy to drop the word famous and leave it as it stands. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

His writing has whatever value it might because of his hunting experience which was substantially illegal. Thus his notoriety is still a result of his illegal activities. The fruit of the poison tree...is also poison. That said, I am good with leaving it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

12/10/2018 Reversion to old cartidge data is Original Research and not allowed.

Hi CM, Merry Christmas. The 12/10 addition of data previously deleted should be removed. The cartridges added were never used by Taylor nor did most of them exist during his active period, nor would many of them ever be used for hunting elephant.

The article clearly states that the formula allows for the comparison of cartridges ability to knockout an elephant when the brain is missed.

While calculating the formula is simple arithmetic, stating the result makes a claim to the knockout ability. This is different than calling 2 kilos as 4.4 lbs or saying born in 1960 means 58 years old in 2018 which is the spirit of WP:CALC. Without supporting citation attesting to the knockout ability, this is original research.

According to the table, the .22 LR has some non-zero ability to knockout an elephant with a skull hit. To any fair minded person, this is obviously incorrect. There is no consensus here as required by WP:CALC.

You should revert the article to the previously agreed cartridges that are listed in Taylor’s works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.238.3.45 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user, merry Christmas to you too. The consensus required is under WP:CALC is to determine if the calculation is an accurate reflection of the references. The results of the calculations do no represent a definite knock out value, just a TKOF, which is what the article says it is.

All of the cartridges cited less the .22 LR and 5.56mm NATO have been successfully used to hunt elephant (some more so than others). My intentions with adding the 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO are to include cartridges common throughout most of the English speaking world (being used by almost all English speaking counties’ militaries) as modern points of reference. The .338 Winchester Magnum, .450 Rigby, .458 Winchester Magnum, .465 H&H Magnum and the .700 Nitro Express are all more modern cartridges created specifically for big game hunting (the last four are marketed as elephant cartridges).

I would prefer this not to proceed as far as the last content dispute, so happy to discuss this further here. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC).

The metric can't tell if a projectile is actually dangerous

4.25mm Liliput is an anemic mousegun cartridge that gets 0.23 TKOF units. As well it should. Nobody should use something like that against dangerous game even if that's an angry raccoon.

A Nerf MEGA is NOT a cartridge of any kind. It's a 19mm, 39 grain projectile though, and as such, gets superior "knock out factor" to the mousegun. About 0.35 unmodified, and that could easily be tripled or quadrupled with modifications.

A golfball, meanwhile, is also not a cartridge. I don't doubt a golfball could do some damage, but does it have the "knock out factor" of a .338 Winchester? Apparently, the answer is yes. It has about 30 TKOF.

A fast baseball pitch meanwhile has a TKOF of 130, comparable to .577 Nitro Express.

And finally, a Bowling ball thrown by a pro bowler has a TKOF of 4500, which is about double that of a 30mm cannon.

I don't know what to do with this information, but it makes me think the value of this measurement is extremely suspect. 50.38.32.222 (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)