You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

It would be nice if somebody would come up with a way to clean this article up a little. The formatting is icky because of the large table, but the text is useful in describing the many uses and incarnations of the HAWK. I'm not sure how to approach it, myself. Avriette 13:08, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look in the next few days. The existing text is basically a copy and paste of a US army site. I'll do what I normally do and split it into the following sections:

Introduction (data table on right)
Development (some of the Chronology)
History (some more of the Chronology here) - I'll also add some links to wars it's been involved in.
Description - how the system works
Variants - the different versions that exist
Users - who uses it.
See also
External links
References

Any comments ? Megapixie 01:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much for throwing yourself on that sword, mp. it is a copy and paste, as such, with some wikiformatting. at the time, i was editing a slew of wiki weapons sites, and i just didn't have time to go through this more carefully. if you would do so, you would make me ever-so-happy. xoxo, Avriette 05:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

This is taking me forever! I've posted a very incomplete WIP at User:Megapixie/HawkWIP. I will be making regular updates to it. I'm going on a business trip for a couple of weeks so I anticipate it will be at least a couple of weeks before it's finished. Megapixie 14:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

very happy with what you've got. the only two comments i have so far are that there are a lot of [edit]'s on the page. you may consider replacing some of the smaller sections with bullets and/or bolding. additionally, since the hawk has been more or less superceded by the patriot for antimissile and close-in antiaircraft roles, you might consider mentioning the patriot or linking to it. thanks again for your great work here. Avriette 19:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Interdiction Role?

That "interdiction role" stuff is absurd. Missiles are designed to kill. HAWK missiles don't arrive at their target and politely ask it to change course. Let's not clutter the articles with newspeak.--Kafziel 11:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

missiles are not all designed to kill. missiles are used for deployment of "effects" such as smoke and chaff, missiles are used to delineate distance with contrails, etc. there are huge variances in missile payloads and applications. Avriette 19:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=missile

An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.

you will note also that even the mighty Saturn V was referred to as a "missile" in its time. a missile is simply a projectile. the hawk is, well, a homing rocket. to say that all missiles are designed to kill is naive. Avriette 19:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

The definition you're quoting there is archaic, and does not pertain to missiles as defined by the modern military (which is the only definition that matters, since this is a military-made weapon). Chaff is deployed by artillery or rockets like the Mark 36, not by guided missiles. Even in the instance of something like the Patriot, the missile is still designed to administer a lethal amount of force; they are able to shoot down fighter planes, and have done so. Are you really arguing that a rock fired from a slingshot qualifies as a missile? Or that the HAWK is not meant to kill people? Who's being naive here?Kafziel 19:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, to JEnnoE, I guess I wouldn't know as much about this subject as, say, an NRA member, but I served as a 2671 in the Marines, have dealt with a great deal of intel involving HAWKs, and have never - EVER - heard the term "All Weather" used in conjunction with this. I guess that's probably to differentiate this missile from the ones that melt in the rain, huh? Kafziel 19:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my my, we are testy. listen, i didn't make the definition up. archaic or not, that's the definition from webster.com. and yes, i am honestly arguing that a rock fired from a slingshot is a missile. that's what the word means. but that's not really the point. what i'm getting at here is that there are rockets/missiles which are not guided kill vehicles. there are meteorology rockets, as well, for example. i feel pretty strongly that the verbiage should be agnostic in that regard. as far as "all weather," I've never heard of that either. i'd like to see a source for that, as i never ran across that in any of the reading i did. kafziel, i generally don't consider the wikipedia to be a dick measuring contest, so let's keep the "well my qualifications are better than yours" arguments out-of-band, okay? Avriette 03:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

First off, I don't feel that it's "dick measuring" to say why I know what I know. I don't think there's anything inherently special about being a Marine - millions of people have done it, and I certainly knew my share of idiots during my time there - but my particular job happened to train me on this subject. Just as you might argue that your job at Microsoft would qualify you to add to certain discussions. It's not an end-all qualification, but it's just to say that I'm not talking out of my ass.

Now, I can see that this semantic argument is really going nowhere, and we'll have to agree to disagree. You're using Websters, I'm using military terminology (which would define your other examples as "projectiles"). You consider Webster's to be more of an authority on the English language (and I would agree in most cases), but as far as I'm concerned, the definition I'm using is more relevant, because Webster's does not make missiles. Furthermore, I don't really understand your objection in the first place, because:

You're not saying that the "K" doesn't stand for "Killer".
You're not saying that the HAWK wasn't made to kill people. The military called it a killer because that's what it's meant to do.
You're not even saying that the HAWK is a rocket. It's not called a HAWK rocket, and we both know there's a reason for that. The reason is that the word "missile" means that it has a guidance system and a warhead. As an engineer, you know that a rocket is just a propulsion system and doesn't necessarily define the vehicle being propelled. Ten-year-old kids can set off Ertl rockets in their backyards. They're not missiles. A rocket-propelled grenade is not a missile. It's just a grenade with a rocket attached to it. A chaff rocket is not a missile. It just flies for a second and then explodes.

So what, exactly, are you arguing? You say that the word "Killer" is "dubious", but in fact you don't doubt it at all. You know that's the official designation. What you really think is dubious is my assertion that all missiles are designed to kill people. But then you argue apples and oranges by saying that "military rockets are generally designed for an interdiction role". (I don't agree that the majority of the military's rockets are non-lethal, but that's another argument.) But let's take a look at the "interdiction roles" of some missiles:

File:BaghdadSmoke.jpg

I'm sure no one was hurt...

File:InterdictedBuilding.gif

This whole city block was streaking toward an innocent aircraft carrier, but fortunately it was interdicted in time.

File:InterdictedBuilding2.jpg

This building will never hurt anyone again.

Missiles kill people. That's what they're for. All of 'em. At least, all the ones the military makes. The HAWK is included in that, and the "killer" designation is not dubious in the least. If you want to talk about how rockets serve an interdiction role, that's fine. Why not do it on the wiki page about rockets? We don't need to candy-coat this stuff with White House public relations terminology. Kafziel 14:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To address your curious edit, I would call attention to the disclaimer on my home node, stating that my employer has nothing to do with my content here. I am legally required to attach that disclaimer to my work here. Since you have wandered away from any logical argument on this whatever, I'm amenable to an arbitration process, although I don't really think one is necessary. We have, however, reached the "magic 3 reverts" level, meaning any further reverts do require arbitration. My suggestion would be to wait for the user who is rewriting the article to finish. Your sarcasm and morbid humor are not appreciated. Avriette 09:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what a compelling argument. "Stop it or I'll tell." That's awesome. Who has wandered away from logical argument now? If you can't counter my points, don't blame it on some imaginary distress at the pictures I posted. What's the matter? You like to write about weapons but you don't like to see them in use? Yeah, right. I'm sure these photos really brought you to tears.

I'm not sure what you mean about the whole "revert" thing - I haven't reverted the page since we started this discussion. But even if I had reverted a bunch of times, I could still do it again. And again and again. I won't, but I could. I've left your edit up there, despite my better judgement, because I feel it's preferable to discuss it here instead of getting into an edit war. When I first reverted it, I thought your change was so absurd that it must be vandalism. Now I can see you actually believe it (though you evidently can't say why, since you haven't answered any of my points) so I've left it intact for now while we talk it over.

As for the "curious edit", I had you mixed up with another guy I was talking with a while back (who happens to be an engineer). I saw the mistake, and corrected it. It has nothing to do with whatever disclaimers you have on your user page (didn't look, don't care). My example was just that you'd probably be more qualified to edit an article about why Windows ME sucks than I would. I think it goes without saying that your opinions are not necessarily those of Microsoft Corporation, but because of what you do you are qualified to enter certain discussions. I could have said that a circus freak is more qualified to talk about bearded ladies than I am, or that Ron Popeil knows more about setting it and forgetting it than I ever will. Don't get bogged down in the example, man.

I think part of the problem here is that you think I'm some kind of hippy tree-hugger. I'm not. Not at all. I just believe in calling a spade a spade, and not getting bogged down in neo-liberal, politically correct newspeak like saying missiles "interdict" people instead of just saying that they kill them. As I said before, I didn't name it "killer" - the military did. Their weapon, their choice of words.

Now, if your problem is my assertion that all missiles are killers, then I offer you a compromise: I'll agree to drop that statement, if you agree to drop your statement about interdiction roles. We'll just leave the "killer" part without further comment. (I would also remove that other guy's nonsense about "all weather" since we've seen no references and you and I both agree it's unsubstantiated.) My proposed version of the first paragraph:

The Raytheon MIM-23 HAWK is a surface-to-air missile. HAWK is an acronym for Homing All the Way Killer, though this is a transparent effort to give acronymic value to a name the military liked; see backronym. Missiles don't home "some of the way" or "most of the way" (an unguided missile, by definition, is a rocket).

End of paragraph. The main idea of the paragraph is that it's an acronym, and a backronym at that, and it still makes that point without talking about the "killer" part of the name. You don't have to read about how missiles kill people, and I don't have to read about how the idea that they kill people is "dubious". We both win. Kafziel 13:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]