No, I'm just saying that isn't proof, and I think people need to accept that Wikipedia is not a factual source of information. Think of the people who edit Wikipedia, and wonder why it tends to be a good source of tech information. However, anything non-tech related such as military history, I would only use it to find links to other sources.
Now, the first thing that article says is "This article does not cite any references or sources." Good start. Now, let's look at what the article really looks like:
Quote:
|
The French GIGN's knife has a liquid mercury vial hidden inside to help automatically orient the blade forward when thrown[citation needed]. The Soviet Spetznaz (special forces) throwing knife is actually a blade gun[citation needed], which uses a very strong coil spring hidden in the handle to propel the blade forward on the press of a button.
|
Doesn't look good. If you tried to find more information on that, your searches would lead you to a knife enthusiast forums where they find this entire paragraph to be bogus information. Personally, I'd trust knife enthusiasts on the issue of knives over some random Wikipedia editor. Continue searching for this magical french knife, and you won't find anything.
Taking information that seems wrong to begin with, and quoting a Wikipedia article which itself has no references, just isn't proof. I'm sure if you search hard enough, you could find a battle somewhere where throwing knives were used, but I doubt you'll find anything where it was part of standard training. If so, I'd be interested in reading it.