The Pentagon has not changed their stance on this. Anonynmous official sources are allowed in WP - "Anonymous sources whose material is published by reliable secondary sources, such as Deep Throat in The Washington Post, are acceptable, because Wikipedia's source in this case would be the newspaper, not the anonymous source." And despite their government's denial, local Iranian papers reported the crashes as well. Posting Russia's claim that all missiles hit without the Pentagon's counterclaim is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, taking their "they showed 26 videos of missiles hitting" as proof that their version is correct and the Pentagon's version is wrong requires that you determine whether all of those impact videos were actually 1) Kalibr missiles, 2) hitting Syria, 3) where they said they did, 4) when they said that they did, and 5) that there were only 26 launched. Pushing this front is clear WP:OR.
- And for what it's worth (which is nothing), I searched for these "26 impact videos" and found something quite different: video of 26 *launches*, followed by a computer graphic showing where Russia claims they went, and then "before and after" pictures of places in Syria that show an explosion having happened between the "before" and "after" shots - which, given the long-running conflict, describes practically the entire country of Syria at this point - if the pictures were even taken in Syria.
- But this is all irrelevant. Because you don't simply report one-sides version of events when two major powers differ on the version of events. I will not address the Russian government's reputation for reliability at this juncture because it's not even relevant. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Whats seems biased to me is that Anonymity is a last resort when it comes to credibility and the first port of call when it comes to creating propaganda that can't be shown to be true or false. Sure these claims may be true but has anyone directly questioned the pentagon regarding them, do we have sources from them either confirming or denying them as that would be in the media's interest right? Both Russia and Iran have denied this incident so your claims of Russian Hybrid warfare are unsubstantiated and irrelevant considering the multiple sources corroborating the other side of the story. Furthermore cruise missiles don't just crash without leaving evidence, if the US wanted to substantiate these claims they could easily do so with satellite pictures. BUT since the mainstream western media seems to have devoured this story for what it is (unsubstantiated and and lacking any evidence) if it must be included in the main page it's totally redicilous to include it as "The Pentagon reported that four missiles crashed in Iran" when the pentagon reported no such thing. I will be editing the page to say "anonymous sources claiming to speak on behalf of pentagon reported that" becasue there is absolutely no way you can put anonymous on the same par as two governments denying the other side and it need to be reflected as such otherwise it's biased DickVonDyke (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore "anonymous US sources" have been shown to be misleading as often as they are correct and have no place being quoted as fact in an encyclopedia but that's a much longer topic DickVonDyke (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- DickVonDyke: Wikipedia policy is clear: anonymous sources are allowed so long as the source siting them is WP:V. It's not your decision as to whether or not you like anonymous sources or whether you feel the Pentagon is credible. This is Wikipedia policy, it's the rules we play by here. And any attempts to "prove" that the US is wrong and Russia is right is WP:OR. I could sit here and explain to you that the US virtually never releases classified satellite pictures to prove points (as it doesn't want to reveal its imaging capability), that whenever it does release satellite images it's almost always from commercial sources, etc. I could point out again that Iranian newspapers reported the crashes. I could go into the details of Russia's long, well known, well discussed shift to hybrid warfare and its emphasis on deliberate misinformation to gain military or geopolitical advantage, most famously in their invasion of Crimea where they steadfastly insisted that the "Little Green Men" were locals before later taking responsibility, or even in the Syria crisis where they insisted they weren't expanding their actions while they were actually preparing the current ongoing military activities, or the ongoing claims that they're "bombing ISIS" where every map shows that they're overwhelmingly bombing areas nowhere near ISIS.
- But I don't need to do this. Why? Because it's Wikipedia's policy that WP:OR is banned. You may be 100% convinced that you're right - that doesn't mean that you can post it on Wikipedia. You may not "deduce" things or "reason" that one side is wrong and the other right. That is banned. It doesn't matter how convinced you are, it's still banned. You may not just write off WP:V sources that are the epitome of WP:N concerning the topic at hand simply because you don't like them, or because you don't like Wikipedia's policy on anonymous sources. And you may not "pick sides" and violate WP:NPOV. This is Wikipedia policy. I don't write the policy, so don't complain to me. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
mergefrom Sizzler (missile)
These two articles should be merged. I've since redirected the other article here.
188.8.131.52 22:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5LkaU0wj714&refer=home# —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltyBoatr (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
Having spent some hours on this article, it finally dawned on me that the information in the 'Variants' section might be better off in a table! I won't do it now because A) it's twenty-three minutes past midnight where I live and B) it might be better to get some sort of agreement first
3M-14/3M-14T should be removed from the list
There is no 3M-14/3M-14T rockets, so this information should be removed. I searched Google for it and Google gives only 43 pages, half of them are links to forums or other search engines. Just try the following link https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%223M-14T%22+klub&safe=off&start=40
- 3М-14 is base name, in Russian wiki exist for example 3М-14ТЭ, where letter Э mean export modification, letter Т - vertical launching system. In Russian wiki you can find information only about export modifications, information about missiles that Russia created for self are classified and really can't be found anywhere. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
http://russia.tv/video/show/brand_id/5206/episode_id/1236661/video_id/1389544/ full set data 2015 http://vesti7.ru/news?id=48483
According to state television news (broadcast 11,10,2015) . Launch of production later in 2012. In particular this version - the maximum speed of Mach 3, the maximum range of 4,000 km, basing in the air, on land, on water and under water (shows launch of water depth). The missile can make in-flight manёrvo 147 or more (in any direction), the minimum height of 10 meters, an average of 20 - 50 meters (up to 1000), will automatically povtoryaetsya terrain, the rocket can be controlled by in flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)