Talk:Demining

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Demining article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force

To-do list for Demining:

edit · history · watch · refresh

High priority Expand the on "manual detection". Though not as cool as the other methods, it's the most common and important method in humanitarian demining. Add a separate section for military demining, since those methods tend to be different. Expand sections on explosive detection: Dogs Rodents Marine mammals Lower priority Clean up the references. Add meta-data and use the relevant Cite template. Expand on the role of geography: what methods are used where, socioeconomic impact etc. Add prominent profiles in humantarian demining (e.g Princess Diana) Add a history section.

Contents 1 Good links 2 Humanitarian vs. Military 3 Errors 4 Factual errors 5 Confusing language 6 A train traveling at 80 mph, will reach Washington DC.

[edit] Good links

• Demining research at University of Western Australia and the site map in particular

• This page details what research is still needed.
• This page is on how to improve safety for deminers

An internal link to Bomb disposal could probably be of use. --Drdan 15:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Humanitarian vs. Military

A redirect or, even better, a heading explaining the differences between humanitarian and other (military) demining in terms of accuracy, methods, and procedures would be very welcome. --Drdan 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Errors

This seems incorrect:

ORIGINAL

which are sensitive enough to pick up most mines but which also yield about one thousand false positives for every mine[Demining Research].

Should this INSTEAD say this

which are sensitive enough to pick up most mines but which also yield about one PER thousand false positives for every mine[Demining Research].

OR this

which are not very cool at all....peace man! The original seems incorrect. -- Multivac02 20:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Follow the link given and you find "Only about one in every thousand signals detected will belong to a mine or UXO, this high rate of false readings is generally due to metal fragments such as shell casings littering the battlefield." In other words, 99.9% of the time, the metal detector is alerting you to a tin can. Dave (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Factual errors

The pictures of protective cloathing and the robot are not for use in de-mining! They are both equipment for bomb disposal. I will remove the pictures. The recent addition of the remote controlled vehicle for detection should hardly be mentioned at all! It is a prototype that does not remove the threat (at least not according to the entry). At most it could be considered as a automated detection device under a separated heading between manual and biological detection measures. --Drdan 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the honey bees story to "methods under development". To see why, just follow the link to the story in Journal of Mine Action 7.3 which describes a successful test at the US army training site at Fort Leonard Wood. That's great, as far as it goes, but an encouraging result in development on a test-ground is not at all the same thing as being "in-use", which implies real-world operations on a day-to-day basis. Currently, only dogs and manual detection with MD's fit this description.--Lewisaa 08:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing language

The section under "Landmine sense vehicle" seems poorly written and confusing. I cleaned up the paragraph a bit, but then there's this: "Now-a-days, in order to face new challenges, every system is automated as it requires less manual operations. So every field prefers automated control systems, especially giving tremendous importance to electronic systems for accurate control, as they are flexible, reliable and economical.

In the present scenario of war situations, unmanned systems plays very important role to minimize human losses. Increased usage of land mines as a devastating weapon to harm both defense personnel and civilians has caused concern in recent times."

I'm deleting that, because it seems out of place, unless someone knows what else to do with it. Frogs 02:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the photo of the Hydrema mine clearing vehicle - it looks effective. Unfortunately there is no written material about it here. I would be interested to see the percentage success rate for clearing mines, considering the other information for other methods. User:Fendy 02:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the "Landmine Sense Vehicle" section either heavily edited or entirely removed. It cites no references, offers opinion, and reads more like pre-product-launch advertisement fluff than an informative article.

[edit] A train traveling at 80 mph, will reach Washington DC.

A rate will not reach a goal; with out supplemental information. "$1 billion per year would be sufficient to completely demine globally" doesn't have any context

.....so would $1 per decade if, all new mines were banned, and given sufficient time like several millennia.

A rate can also reach a goal when compared a second rate, for instant "$1 billion per year would be sufficient to completely demine globally" if the new mines introduced to the system (planet earth) per year is less than a $1 billion (in removal costs)

I don't know an end date (or a started date) for the stated rate or a rate to compare it to. Else I would have fixed it. Larek (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)