Talk:Hoot (torpedo)

NPOV / better before
Sheesh. Who believes this? 360km/h UNDERWATER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cthompson (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay lets go through the sources: Deep angel - wait a minute - it's FICTION. Iranian news agency release. The Russians wash their hands of the whole affair - he does not say it's not based on the Shkval - but that "we (the russians) didn't sell it to them". What he doesn't say is that the Chinese can sell their Shkval to whoever they please. (popups) Edmond Pope - the claimed spy. He talks more about it in his book here http://www.edmondpope.com/faq.php.
 * http://www.deepangel.com/html/screenplay.html
 * http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2530/html/national.htm#s135762
 * http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/tmoran/tm33.htm

Your claim is that: Or at least you attempt to imply it by not mentioning it in the lead and placing it in a section titled "Disbelief abroad" (as if to imply amazement). Well there are a lot of sources that state that this isn't clear. to name but a handful. To state that it IS purely Iranian, is to take one side of a disputed fact. The original version of the article took neither side. It's says this exactly where in all the links you've provided ? And what does it have to do with the subject at hand. You introduce it purely to cast a POV on the article.
 * A) The Hoot is an entirely Iranian invention.
 * B) The Americans have not reverse engineered the Shkval.

The old version was better because, it didn't introduce any "Original Research" (The US haven't reverse engineered the Shkval). And it introduces all the claims in the lead (although) I will restructure it slightly to make it even more neutral. Please Discuss before reverting. Megapixie 01:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are a propaganda machine
You:

1. Have a bias against any news agency that is not from the U.S./other western sources [that says what you do not want it to say]. We can see that from the way you write. You explicitly wrote Iranian news agency full out and wrote from the other news agency as though those news have revealed facts.

When there is a new invention (like in this case), you write what the makers say as fact. That is the basis for the whole article, and then at the end there is a section for other opinions. However, you write the whole article based on what some western news agencies have said and write the facts from the makers as though it was wishful thinking.

The maker is put forward as a liar, and people who have never even seen the thing in real and are guessing are put forward as holders of the truth.

2. propagate your own version which tries to blame x & y, and refuses to believe Iran's achievement, even if it has been denied by both INVOLVED sides.

3. Have a ridiculous way of writing that shows you want to put forward your own version no matter what.


 * You have no idea how Russia feels about the whole situation, yet you write that article in such a way as though you have a direct link to Putin. You then hypocritically write in the article "although he did not rule out that it was acquired from a third party.” How many other things did he not rule out? That it came from Aliens? If he had mention “China” it would have caused an uproar, you obviously have to learn something about politics. This piece of propaganda has to change.


 * The very reason Russia sold this torpedo to a few countries is because it can not be reverse-engineered.

Conclusion: In my article I did not write only Iran's side of the event. I wrote the article in the way it should be written. The maker comes first with his invention, and then there is a section for those who had something to say about it. You do not put article writers (who write articles for for their daily bread) as knowers of everything after every sentence of the maker. I suggest you look up the meaing of "disbelief" in your dictionary. User:ArmanJan


 * And you need to sign your comments.L0b0t 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Does it matter in a 2 person conv on an empty page? User:ArmanJan


 * I have to say that the "You are a propaganda machine" is going on my user page. I'd rather be a love machine, or even a sex machine - but I guess you don't get to pick what names you are called. Getting back to the subject at hand.
 * (1). No I don't have a bias against any single source. HOWEVER - where sources are in dispute - I mention the fact that they are in dispute. That's what I have done here. Wikipedia is about verifability not truth WP:Verify. To just give the Iranian POV would be to give it WP:NPOV.
 * To quote the lead paragraph of the existing article:

Hoot (Persian: حوت - "Fish") is an Iranian torpedo that travels at approximately 360 km/h, several times faster than a conventional torpedo. It was test-fired successfully from a surface ship against a dummy submarine during the Iranian military exercise "Great Prophet" (Persian:(پيامبر اعظم(ص) on 2 April 2006 and 3 April 2006.
 * How exactly is this biased ? Where do I call the "maker" a liar ?
 * (2). Russia denies it sold the Shkval to Iran. Iran claims it produced it alone. Various western press sources speculate that the 40 Shkval Russia sold to China may have found their way to Iran. Apparently you think this is POV - how exactly is the existing version of the article POV. Be specific.
 * (3). I'm not clear what you are trying to say. Could you be more specific.
 * (4). re: Russia link. Like you - I have to write about it based on second hand sources. To quote the source you link:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday dismissed the claim raised by some world media that the torpedo, which was recently tested in a wargame in Iran, has not been made by Russia. Speaking to reporters in Slovakia's capital of Bratislava, he said that he has no idea which country has participated in the production of the experimented missile.
 * If we are to take the mis-translation of the first paragraph at face value then actually admits that it was made by Russia (he dismisses the claim that it has not been made by Russia - i.e. double negative). If we look at what he's actually saying he says. "We didn't supply it to Iran, We have no idea who did.". If he'd have said - "Yes, the Hoot is a piece of fine Iranian engineering", then I would perhaps be more embracing of the "He dismissed claims that Russia supplied the technology".
 * (5). To quote you: In my article I did not write only Iran's side of the event - that pretty much sums it up. I.e. The other POV is presented as an afterthought, something to be dismissed. And you give that nice piece of O.R. about the US not having reverse engineered it to back it up. This gives the Iranian News Agency Source WP:NPOV
 * (6) "...as knowers of everything after every sentence of the maker" - "Bless the Maker and His water. Bless the comings and goings of Him. May His passage cleanse the world" (Dune). It says this exactly where in the wikipedia manual of style ?
 * (7) "The very reason Russia sold this torpedo to a few countries is because it can not be reverse-engineered." - you have a source for this ?
 * Ask yourself this: If I claimed that I had invented anti-gravity and someone wrote an article about it. Do you think that critism of my claims should be restricted from being included in the main body of the article? Just because I'm the "maker" doesn't mean that I'm not lying. Likewise I could be telling the truth. As third parties we have no way of judging this, we can only present both sides of the story with EQUAL weight not giving WP:NPOV to either side.
 * Megapixie 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can live with the current version. However, "although he did not rule out that it was acquired from a third party." has to be removed because it is an irrelevant piece meant to make a suggestion. As for it being not reverse-engineerable, from the link you called a fable, "The Russian press has claimed that the technology of the Shkval cannot be reverse-engineered and thus the Russian Navy is marketing the export variant aggressively." I hope you remove the mentioned clause and we can put this behind us. :-p User:ArmanJan

Since the majority of Iranian weapons technology is developed from or bought from foreign sources, to say that the Iranians developed the Hoot without basing it on the Shkval is to propose that supercavitating torpedo technology is not terribly advanced. For example, Iran's C-802 anti-ship missiles are either imported from or designed under license from China. Iran's SAM-250 design is a remake of the old Soviet SA-5. The Shahab 1 & 2 designs are Russian Scud Bs and Cs, while the Shabab 3 design is identical to the North Korean No-Dong. The Shahab 4, 5 and 6 designs seem to be more indigenous in the sense that they aren't complete knock-offs, but in each case it is widely believed that the Iranian designers received design assistance from Russian and North Korean engineers, since the engines and guidance systems seem identical to the North Korean No-dongs and Russian SS-4s and SS-5s. (At any rate, even if the Shahab 4-6s were entirely indigenous designs, that means the Iranian scientists are developing weapons that technologically on par with weapons developed by the Soviet Union in the early 1960s). Accordingly, to believe the Hoot is entirely domestic technology means that the Iranians somehow advanced 40 years in technological capabilities overnight, or supercavitating torpedo technology is not difficult to produce. This is quite possibly true, but all that means is that the Iranians have proven themselves able to produce really fast, inaccurate short-ranged torpedoes. In other words, no biggie.Epstein&#39;s Mother 02:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * except when it hits a US submarine ^^ Rad vsovereign 23:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Amusing, except I don't think any torpedo of Russian or American (or anybody else's) design has hit a submarine since 1945. Epstein&#39;s Mother 18:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Validity of info
guys im pretty skeptical of irans claims and I don't think the article should be displayed as facts. It comes from the state news agency and they've been know to spread propaganda. For all we know supercavitation torpedoes might have never existed. I'm extremely skeptical about this weapons existence in Iran...all we got is affirmations from the state ran news acgency... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.230.33 (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Use in Midget Submarines, Small Attack Boats, Fast Attack Craft
Since Midget Submarines, Small Attack Boats, and Fast Attack Craft have less capable target acquisition and tracking systems, a rocket torpedo would greatly simplify the targeting process since it can travel a mile in about 17 seconds. A large warship is unable to turn very far in that length of time.

So there could be an overall logical framework for these technological developments in Iran.Azeh (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hoot (torpedo). 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/20121225035946/http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/militarysumsfolder/whale.html to https://fas.org/programs/ssp/man/militarysumsfolder/whale.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150605001131/http://cns.miis.edu/other/wmdi060504a.htm to http://cns.miis.edu/other/wmdi060504a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hoot (torpedo). 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/20080704124105/http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.109/pub_detail.asp to http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.109/pub_detail.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

HEY, this Iran HOOD is just an Russian Shkval
--188.171.58.14 (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)