Talk:Land mine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Peer review Land mine has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

(Review can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Landmine/archive1

Globe icon
 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

removed reference to Type 72 as small and anti-personnel, it seems to be big. [1] --Demilio 05:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

for anyone working on this article, here is a useful news item [2] Kingturtle 18:51 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

"The legal export of anti-personnel landmines has ceased as of 1999." Whose laws are we talking about here? DJ Clayworth 14:56, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] more info

please, someone incorporate this news item [3] into this article. Kingturtle 23:30, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Boy it's frustrating to come across an article like this during my lunch break, and know there's no way I'll have time to fix it before I've got to get back to work. But this article is a classic example of Wikipedia at its worse: a vaguely plausible melange of POV, popular myths, and outright errors. Grrr. I'll just have to let off steam here and come back when I can spare the time. Securiger 02:31, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why does it say to see Honeywell for other types of mine? If Honeywell make mines, why not just say so? --Mbp 00:28, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

According to ICBL's web site Turkey has signed the treaty in Sep 2003 (http://www.icbl.org/lm/2003/turkey.html) and is no longer manufacturing mines. Can an editor check and correct this please?

––––

The picture described as "AP bounding mines" is incorrect. The item pictured is not an AP bounding mine, it is a Russion bomblet/submunition.

[edit] Manufacturers

There is some useful information under Manufacturers, but I feel it should be moved to its own separate section, as the information on toy-shaped land mines and cluster bomblets is different from who is making the land mines. -- Addboy 03:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Email suggestion

Dear Wikipedia,

Hope I have the right address for this. I read your landmine section and while good, it lends little help to the civilians or military patrols who are most of the casualties. The article below describes a free method that I put out on the web. If you decide to review and use, please feel free.

URL: http://www.jsjremotesensing.com/id12.html

Regards, John Janks Houston, TX

[edit] Demining

User:Petaholmes and I have decided to make demining our next project, hopefully making it a successful featured article at some point. I've started by copy-pasting from here and will expand it over the next few weeks. I thought the authors of this page would be interested in knowing, and possibly contributing. Thanks for your time, Dave (talk) 16:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Limited geographic scope

The article is almost exclusively about how mines are made and removed, with some information on treaties (most of which is about the West) with information on the countries affected by mines only mentioned in passing. I'm currently busy with demining, but I hope people add information here until I'm ready to do it myself. Dave (talk) 20:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing

I have made a number of organizational edits to the article, in an effort to improve its narrative flow. I have also made a number of copy edits, pruned some text I thought unnecessary, and added a few more wiki links. I removed the paragraphs about cluster bombs and put a link to the article instead, since I'm not clear on how it's directly relevant to this article. I'm not in a position to add more detailed information about the use of landmines in specific countries around the world, but agree that more could be said on the subject. It seems more could be added on the motivations behind the movement to ban land mines as well.

Additionally, I lack the knowledge to accurately rephrase this portion, which is very unclear to me:

Despite conducting research on technologies that could replace the mines in Korea by 2006, in 1999 the U.S. modified the Ottawa Treaty by introducing Pursuit-Deterrent Munition (PDM) which was meant to slow enemy pursuit on retreating armed forces. PDM exploits technical loopholes in Ottawa Treaty while still being a landmine, therefore, the future of land mines in the U.S. is unclear.

Thanks,

MC MasterChef 03:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

"Landmine" is not a word in dictionaries; the English word is "land mine".

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support—this is my request. —Michael Z. 2005-10-24 05:19 Z
  • Support —Wahoofive (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - http://www.icbl.org/ says landmine, also google thinks "land mine" should be "landmine". Landmine seems to be in common use - where as "Land mine" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/440549.stm isn't. I suggest create "Land mine" as a redirect to this article and add a note in the intro paragraph. Megapixie 07:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Neutral changed vote to neutral, with the provisio that the lead paragraph contains "Land mine or Landmine". Megapixie 07:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - all of the references and external links use the word "landmine" Turnstep 12:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. All my reference books – including dictionaries and encyclopaedias – say land mine. – Axman (☏) 12:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

My Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2004) lists only "land mine", and doesn't offer "landmine" as an alternate spelling.

As is common in the English language, this compound word may be in the process of becoming a contraction, so occurrences of "landmine" are not hard to find on the Internet. However, until dictionaries start to include this word indicating that this usage has been established, we can't consider this an English word or use it as the primary title for the article. It's not Wikipedia's job to promote an ad hoc usage, and declaring that this is now the primary spelling would be original research (poor original research, if it doesn't agree with authorities like up-to-date dictionaries). —Michael Z. 2005-10-24 12:57 Z

Wikipedia is full of things that do not appear in dictionaries, so I am not particularly swayed by that argument. And Merriam Webster seems to know enough to map it to the older way. I would not call the ICBL "ad hoc". Note that they are ICBL, not ICBLM :) Turnstep 14:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
True and true, but I would point out that Merriam Webster corrects your spelling when you search for landmine, as does Dictionary.com. Due respect to ICBL's board of directors and marketing department, I would still go with Oxford and M-W as authorities on the English language. —Michael Z. 2005-10-24 14:56 Z

I would change my vote to neutral as long as we are leaving landmine as a redirect, and changing the leading paragraph to something like "land mine or landmine". Megapixie 23:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. —Michael Z. 2005-10-25 04:00 Z

Request fulfilled due to consensus on talk page. Rob Church Talk 18:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm too late, but since Longman's dictionary has "landmine", and 75% of bbc.co.uk site hits are "landmine", I don't think the evidence is overwhelming enough to justify the move to "land mine". 24.17.48.241 07:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Mzajac, I think it was extremely inappropriate to go and change the entire article from "landmine" to "land mine" while there is an active discussion going on here about which name to use, regardless of its eventual outcome. Please consider changing it back until a consensus is reached, not because I am a fan of the one-word version, but for the editing principle. Thanks. Turnstep 14:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

While I was looking at this article I decided to do a quick copy-edit, and I couldn't bear to leave in a non-word that's unrecognized by my dictionary and spell-checker. If the poll decides that we prefer "landmine" for the article's title, I'll defer, but do you really want me to go in and restore a misspelling? —Michael Z. 2005-10-24 14:59 Z
Yes. One should not edit to make a point when that point is still under debate on the talk page. Even if *you* think the page is wrong. I have no problem using "land mine" if that is what we decide upon, but let's reach a consensus before making any changes. Turnstep 16:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
From my point of view, I was using correct English, until and unless the community decides otherwise. It's not merely that I think it's wrong, most authorities seem to think so too. I'll change it since you ask, but I'm doing it under protest. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-10-24 17:03 Z
Done. We should indicate correct usage. Would anyone object if I either changed the lead sentence, or added a note at the end of the lead paragraph?
"A land mine, sometimes landmine, is a type of self-contained explosive device which is placed onto or into the ground, exploding when triggered by a vehicle or person. . . ."
or
". . . Note: English dictionaries only list the headword land mine, but some agencies use landmine in their official publications."
—Michael Z. 2005-10-24 17:42 Z
Either one is fine with me. Now we just need to get some more people to vote! Turnstep 18:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flowers

Sowing genetically engineered flower seeds over suspected minefields from the air. The flowers bloom in distinctive colours when there are explosives nearby in the soil.

Is this real, experimental, or theoretical? —Michael Z. 2005-10-24 22:12 Z

Seems to be at least experimental. There is a recent article in the References section of the demining page. Turnstep 22:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which branch of the UN is responsible for clearing mines?

I went to add VVAF to the see also links, and realized to my horror that I don't know off the top of my head. I'm ashamed. --James S. 20:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image (PTAB)

Removed image, because it is not a mine, but an anti-personnel submunition of a Russian cluster bomb. Yes, some cluster bombs release mines (AP and AT) as submunitions, but the PTAB is not one of these, it is designed to injure personnel immediately and not lay dormant acting as a mine. Deon Steyn 13:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Toy Shaped Mines

Added a citation request, amazing the way this bit of cold war propaganda sticks around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmackaerospace (talk • contribs) .

I've never seen the red and yellow colored plastic toys substantiated - but the PFM-1's [6] tended to attract children. Warchild here [7] claim they were produced in red and blue - but I've never seen a photograph of a red or blue one, though here is a photograph of a white (inert ?) one [8]. Here has some pictures of yellow submunitions, though I'm not sure exactly what they are. Megapixie 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
White is not inert. PFM-1 was produced in three camouflage colours, green for use in vegetation, brown for use in deserts, and white for use in snow covered terrain. The exact shades of these three colours varied from time to time but I have never seen the slightest reputable evidence that any other colours were produced. -- Securiger 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuze vs. Fuse

What's the feeling on a change from fuse to fuze? This is English-speaking European practice. US practice is to use either (reserving fuse for slow-burning powder trails). Either way, fuze is more appropriate for most uses here. User:Andy DingleyAndy Dingley 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Fuse (explosives). Megapixie 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I did! It strongly supports fuze for military uses. Even if we accept the possible distinction for historical uses, instant-acting contemporary AP landmines are clearly fuzes. User:Andy Dingley Andy Dingley 10:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China

I just updated the thread with new information on the advancement of Chinese landmines, since it was lacking in clarity and proper citations before (only web links and written by someone who did not speak English very proficiently).--PericlesofAthens 15:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cure

A HUGE fuel-air bomb will clear out these son-of-a-bitches by having the shockwave hitting them. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Many mines are designed to be resistant to explosive-type clearance. They have an air bladder in them, and when the mine is triggered, the air leaks through a small hole and initiates the firing train. The shock of an explosion is of too short a duration to successfully detonate these mines. Besides, a large explosion would probably scatter any unexploded mines, making the problem worse. Armies use systems like the MICLIC to create paths, but these are only useful tactically. (They sometimes just push the mines off to either side as opposed to detonating them) Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to mines. If they could be cleared easily, they wouldn't be tactically useful.--CatCube 203.91.144.5 (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing categories

I've made some changes to the categories related to this article. I've created a new parent Category:Mine warfare, for the general subject. Most articles about particular land mines should be moved into the new subcategories antipersonnel mines, antitank mines, and nuclear mines, with only unusual types and miscellaneous mines remaining in Landmines. —Michael Z. 2007-09-26 03:03 Z

[edit] World War I mines

What are the chances someone can get some references for the early 20th century discussions? To my knowledge, land mines in WWI were of the siege-tunnel-packed-with-explosives variety, rather than small munitions to be set of by the unwary infantryman. If someone can come up with a citation to show otherwise, I'd be grateful. FBM (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)